when is going to war justified?

forget "just war theory." it brings in too many nonessential issues, and most of its tests are impossible to pass in advance of combat.

war is intentional organized violence that almost inevitably causes massive harm with long-lasting, far-reaching, and, often, unexpected and unintended consequences. because of that harm and those consequences, what we need is a principle as simple as occam's razor to draw a sharp line between when a government has a right to go to war and when it does not.

clearly that principle is NECESSITY: when a nation MUST go to war, no additional justification is needed, but when going to war is NOT necessary, NO other factors CAN justify it.

how is a government to know when war is necessary? yes, it must be a last resort used only when all reasonable alternatives fail, but that statement is not only too general but too abstract: a last resort from what?

we—the people of the world—must choose unambiguous categories of violations of international norms that are sufficiently harmful to justify a devastating response. the categories might include aggression, breach of peace, genocide, crimes against humanity, and/or some other human rights abuses.

in specific cases, proponents of war need to show—by valid, up-to-date evidence—not only that such a violation has occurred but that it continues in the present and cannot be stopped by peaceful means.

the standard of proof must be no less than required in courts of law—"beyond reasonable doubt"—since harm to the innocent, no matter how unintended, is an inevitable result of war.