St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great who asked him how he dared molest the sea.
             "How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief, you, doing it with a great navy, are called an Emperor." was the pirates reply.
             This little anecdote goes to show just how power can change views and perceptions of actions. Has war always been about power then? How, then, can it be defined? Does it always yield the same results, and more importantly, in the light of the power imbalance, from who's point of view do we examine the results? What are its causes? What is the relationship, if any, between human nature and war? Who can we consider as the legitimate authority to declare war? And finally, is it ever right to wage war? Can war be justified?
             Since war is a social phenomenon, its definitions can be widely variable, and more often that not are based on the authors personal philosophical or political beliefs. Cicero defined war broadly as "a contention by force"; Hobbes notes that war is also an attitude: "By war is meant a state of affairs, which may exist even while its operations are not continued" and Denis Diderot comments that war is "a convulsive and violent disease of the body politic." Each definition correct in its own way, each boasting of individual strength and at the same time, masking certain weaknesses. The Webster's Dictionary, however, defines war as "a state of open and declared, hostile armed conflict between states or nations, or a period of such conflict." This captures a particularly political-rationalistic account of war and warfare, i.e., that war needs to be explicitly declared and to be between states to be a war.
             To be able to say whether or not war can be justified, one must fully examine the causes and consequences of war. History serves as the most blatant example that wars are ei...