Thus one, of the criterion for defining just war, is that it's started for to keep the balance between the states.
If the state sees no other means of resolving the situation when its analytics presuppose that the leaders of the opposing state will start a war sooner or later, than the intervention into the territory of that country is justified. It is done for not to let the potential aggressor to develop stronger military power. Thus we can state that one more criterion for saying that the war is just, is that there were no means except for the military intervention to prevent the breach of balance in future.
Preventive wars are led for to preserve peace on the territory of the country which starts them. It sounds paradoxical, but gives us one more criterion for defining a just war, which is that a just war is to be led for re-establishing of peace.
Walzer says, that "Humanitarian intervention is justified when it is a response (with reasonable expectations of success) to acts "that shock the moral conscience of mankind." After analyzing this statement we can deduce two more criterions. The first is that the war is just when it is fought with a reasonable chance of success, the second is that the war can be considered just only if it is began and led for to prevent something wrong, like slaughter of the civilians, or the introduction of the dictatorship of some political force or a group of people.
Considering all of the criterions we can define just war as a war that is begun for to keep the balance between the states and restore peace. It should be fought with a reasonable chance of success for to prevent something wrong that is happening or will happen. The just war is begun when there are no other means of solving the problems. Thus we can conclude that a just war is a war that satisfies the set of moral rules and principles set by the international community.
In the next part of the essay we are going to analyze the Vietnam War using the criterions we developed. Our goal is to define whether this conflict can be considered to be just war or not. We will analyze whether the reasons and circumstances of the Vietnam War coincide with those defined in the criterions of the just war.
1. Just war is the war started for to keep the balance between the states.
As you may remember, the economical, political, and human power of Vietnam has always been considerably smaller than that of the United States. There was no threat that in some years Vietnam will become strong enough for to attack the U.S forces. From this viewpoint we can conclude that the war wasn't justified. But we shouldn't forget the main reason of the U.S involvement in the Vietnam conflict, which was that the U.S officials were afraid of the spread of communism worldwide.
Andrew A. Wiest in his book The Vietnam War 1956-1975 told about the Domino Theory developed in the USA in the late fifties. It said that: "If South Vietnam falls to the Communist, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, India and Pakistan would also fall like dominos. The Pacific Islands and even Australia could be at risk."
Thus the U.S interference into the Vietnam conflict can be justified by the fact that the U.S leaders made an attempt to keep the balance between the communist and democratic forces.
2. Military intervention is the only way to resolve the existing