Ethics, Security, and the War Machine

If pacifists are correct in thinking that war is always unjust, then it follows that we ought to eliminate the possibility and temptation of ever engaging in it; we should not build war-making capacity, and if we already have, then demilitarization—or military abolition—would seem to be the appropriate course to take. On the other hand, if war is sometimes justified, as many believe, then it must be permissible to prepare for it by creating and maintaining a military establishment. Yet this view that the justifiability of war-making is also sufficient to justify war-building is mistaken. This book addresses questions of jus ante bellum, or justice before war. Under what circumstances is it justifiable for a polity to prepare for war by militarizing? When (if ever) and why (if at all) is it morally permissible to create and maintain the potential to wage war? In doing so it highlights the ways in which a civilian population compromises its own security in maintaining a permanent military establishment, explores the moral and social costs of militarization, and evaluates whether or not these costs are worth bearing.

About the Author :
Ned Dobos is Senior Lecturer in International and Political Studies at The University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force Academy. He is the author of Insurrection and Intervention: The Two Faces of Sovereignty (Cambridge 2012) and co-editor of Challenges for Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical Demand and Political Reality (Oxford 2018).

Review :
In most countries there is a deferential mystique about the military establishment and its vital role in guaranteeing national security. Ned Dobos's timely book is the most thorough, clear, and cogently argued philosophical critique of that mystique and its associated beliefs that I have read. Dobos's case against a standing military establishment is the best one to date If the best works of philosophy challenge our commonly held ideas, then this book is one of the best of its kind. Eloquently written, powerfully argued, and original in its approach, Ned Dobos masterfully and systematically dismantles our unquestioned acceptance of the need for societies to have military establishments. A wonderful book which should be read by everyone interested in politics and international relations. Dobos shows not simply that standing armies have countervailing moral costs, but that in important respects they are self-defeating: A policy tool that has been established (at great expense) to further security and the rights of collective self-determination can itself be a major cause of insecurity, oppression, and foreign aggression. Ned Dobos has written an extraordinarily comprehensive, deeply insightful, and highly readable book on the true costs of our military arrangements. I cannot think of a better book to provoke people to reflect on the ways in which war impacts our lives not always evident. Dobos's argument is characteristically lucid and engaging, and the book is not only an excellent and highly welcome, but indeed a necessary addition to the current philosophical literature surrounding the ethics of war. Its profound practical, social, and political implications mean that the argument presented does not only deserve the attention of philosophers, politicians, or the military, but indeed of the average citizen. Costa Rica abolished its military 75 years ago, choosing to invest in human development and to build a culture of peace instead. Whether or not other states decide to follow, Dobos shows us exactly what is at stake in this important decision. His book deserves to be carefully studied in every corner of the world. We certainly know more about the true costs of maintaining a military thanks to Dobos' sharp critique in Ethics, Security, and the War-Machine. Ned Dobos' Ethics, Security, and the War-Machine provides a powerful and compelling account of the dangers of a standing army...excellent book and a major contribution to the literatureon pacifism, militarism, and the ethics of war.