The authors, Brunstetter and Braun, in this article make the recount of the position that war is vast and as such, Walzer did distinguish the aspect that the recent war approaches, entailing unjust war where use of drones and spying aspects of practice, are not as predictable in outcome as the full-scale attack which entails use of force. However, the course of discussion in the text is the issue that irrespective of the rising models of war not having predictable catastrophic consequences, the fact remains they are unjust and such are morally illegal, despite the state's men using these arguments of their safety to justify and endorse them accordingly. The course as advanced in Jus ad Vim the issue of just use of force is notably a course of ethical framework to govern the state-sponsored use of force against other states or non-state actors within and outside the territory of the nation, which is contrary to the traditionally defined confines of war (Brunstetter & Braun, 2013). The political approach of the argument with respect to the understanding of this issue, as the authors of this article outline, it is a justifiable course. This is considering the implications it has on part of the government and the troops involved in the war. Notably, this political factor entails that the use of Jus ad Vim unlike the conventional war, brings the troops diminished risks especially from suffering attack that could prove destructive. Further, the aspect of advancing this war is less predictable.