Now you all may look at the title of this article and be like, "Umm...don't we all condemn it?". Let's answer the question 'Why do wars occur'?. Supremacy and national interest. Wars happen for a reason, no matter how silly the reason may be. However, if the reason is 'credible', then must we question whether the war altogether is justified?
Let us look at World War 2 as an example. In many ways, the war was a result of the remains left of the previous world war. Growing fascism, The Great Depression, the conditions that Germany had to adhere to in the Treaty of Versailles and the increasing aggression of Italy and Germany are just some of the reasons. Regardless of what the reason may be, I personally do not think that conflict should be dealt in a physical and violent manner. The reason, as you might have obviously guessed is the loss of lives.
World War 2 had an estimated 70-85 million people dead. I would like you to visualize just how big those estimates are. Those estimates include those that never even participated in a war to begin with. Innocent loss of life; mothers, fathers, children, the elderly, it's disgusting. If leaders really care about their country, then their citizens must be prioritized. Without citizens, there is no country. Each and every citizen has their own role which contributes to the country in one or more ways. How are you going to choose war when you know that you can lose miserably, and can instead choose to have a verbal confrontation with those you are in conflict with?
Let's talk about loss of lives. Let's assume that you are a leader and you have just won a major war. At what cost did you win? At the cost of hundreds of thousands of millions of innocent lives? At the cost of those brave soldiers that were willing to serve their country, or those soldiers that were actually scared but were forced to fight? I'm sorry, but I cannot buy that. What have you gained out of winning exactly? Does supremacy over another country give you satisfaction? Do you think that just by honoring those soldiers that lost their lives fighting the war will be good enough for giving yourself satisfaction? Of course, the latter must be done, but how do we help those families that have suffered from these losses? This is not a question of physical health now, but rather mental health, which can affect physical health. Some families can deal with the loss by saying that he/she who served the war did not die in vain. I'm saying, such a loss could have been avoided if things didn't become violent. A leader acting on impulse cannot be justified, because personal agenda against something mustn't affect those who aren't affected or bothered to care about it.
Yes, even the citizens would feel patriotic and would want to fight back, but that still isn't justified enough to be a reason to justify loss of lives. Why should you die trying when instead verbal confrontations would be a more smooth and less risky process?
Granted, incidents such as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand may result in violence beginning, but that doesn't mean that the Archduke must be avenged at the cost of countless lives.
For any nation to keep going, if people live in peace, then work can be done in a much more effective manner. This way the nation prospers. In fact, if any conflict can be taken to a verbal level, then there won't be any loss of life, and people won't have to live in fear. How is living with fear justified? It cannot be.
There is another perspective that states that war can be justified, which is an article for another day.