Book Review: How to Read the Bible and Still Be a Christian

        

        Domonic Crossan is the expert on the “historical Jesus” but wrote a book that was severely flawed. Dominic Crosson’s book relies on several false dichotomies (types of justice, radical nonviolent God verses normal civilized God), dubious historical reconstructions, lops off large segments of scripture and fails to truly study the character of God. Instead, like pacifist LDS writers he uses his own ideology to create a God in his own image.

The Historical Jesus

        The foundation of his argument is the nonviolent teachings of the historical Jesus. But his interpretation rests on a house of cards. He points to a general historical trend in the first two centuries AD that he calls “the matrix,” or general cultural and societal attitudes within Jewish society. Yet these attitudes are selectively chosen and amplified. For example, he points to the attempt of Caligula to install a pagan statue in the temple (146-148). In response, a crowd of Jews not carrying weapons gathered in the square to oppose the action. This is supposedly an example of nonviolent resistance but doesn’t account for how militant they seemed simply using the power of an angry crowd. These Jewish people weren’t calmly nonviolent resisters proudly bandied about by modern pacifists. They were militant agitators, that even without weapons were on the verge of a violent and deadly riot. The unarmed Lamanite prisoners, for example, were so violent the Nephites were forced to slay 2,000 of them (Alma 57:13-14). Yet Crossan massages the incident to make readers assume the example supports a nonviolent ideology. (For someone who builds their case on the “historical” Jesus this sloppy understanding of history is especially egregious.)

        His use of the Q source is even more dubious. This is the name of the anonymous source that may have inspired Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Because Matthew and Luke both contain polished expansions of Markan material using the same wording, many scholars conclude that Matthew and Luke relied on the Gospel of Mark and a second, unknown, or Q source (Matthew 6:24 = Luke 16:13; Matthew 7:7–8 = Luke 11:9-10). Yet some scholars argue that maybe Q didn’t exist at all. Others think that perhaps Mark was first to write his gospel but relied on some of Jesus’ unpolished sayings written in Aramaic, that may have been from an earlier Q source and polished by Matthew and Luke. Others think Mark was a later and abbreviated “summary” gospel. There is so much disagreement among scholars concerning which source inspired what and when each was written that it usually needs a chart to explain it. See the chart on this page for example.

        It’s all as plain as the sun in the sky!! Crossan takes this ~settled~ debate and looks at Jesus’ militant statements recorded by Matthew and Luke deriving from Q. Combined with the idea that Matthew and Luke use Q to “update” the original Jesus of Mark with militant statements he concludes that Q had the unsanitized version of the radical nonviolence of Jesus that was changed to the normalcy of violent civilization by Matthew and Luke (see 174-179 for example). The previous sentence sure is a mouthful, but simply stated without Crossan’s buzz words, he claims the historical Jesus was corrupted with bad theology derived from cultural attitudes of later writers. Crosson’s over reliance on Q to try and separate a pure Jesus from a corrupted one within the gospels is unsatisfying from an evidentiary standpoint.

Selective Theology

        It is even weaker from a theological standpoint. His weak arguments that reconstruct the so called, “historical Jesus” are used an excuse to lop off entire segments of the Bible. He somewhat admits this problem when he contends that Christians follow Jesus, not the Bible. Yet outside of living prophets that add living eye witness testimonies, the holy texts that describes God’s dealing with His people are the only information we have about God. So Crosson claims to follow Jesus, while he picks and chooses among the texts that authoritatively describe Jesus.

        For example, he talks a great deal about distributive justice. He doesn’t account for the injustice that derives from nonviolent impulses. If people stand idly by because of their vision of the historical, nonviolent, redistributive Jesus, then their innocent “wives and…children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren” (Alma 48:24). Moreover, it’s immoral to have a personal choice by individuals impose unjust and immoral consequences on others. For example, Patrick Mason and David Pulispher used the example of Dallin Oaks talking down a mugger holding a gun as evidence that people should adopt their non violent proposals. This is a heartwarming story and I’m glad Elder Oaks didn’t need to use violence. Having someone hold a gun on innocent family members and relying on a speech to save them from gunfire is not a reasonable or safe standard for families. But pacifists expect their passive standards from a selective reading of scripture to guide other’s foreign policy and personal safety with innocent victims at stake.

        Instead of acknowledging that different parts of the Bible reflect different attributes of the same God, Crosson refers to “parallel tracks” of a “bipolar” and “schizophrenic” God (71). At one disgusting point he calls the God of the flood a “terrorist” (71).[1] He claims that God was “sucked into” the escalatory violence of the world (71-72), as though God isn’t in charge, he is simply led around by the nose and provoked by His creations.

How Weak a Foundation

        Unfortunately, Crosson’s attitude that judges God based on his concept of nonviolence reminds me of LDS scripture and pacifists. They are so interested in seeing a “God made in their own image” that they minimize and misunderstand God (D&C 1:16). One LDS writer, David Pulsipher, complained that God and His prophets lacked the “moral imagination” that the writer and his favorite pacifists had.[2] It is our job to understand the divine, not try to limit or diminish God because he doesn’t have our “imagination.” (Also, see Helaman 16:22.)

        In another instance, Pulispher and Patrick Mason suggest that we use modern scholarship to dispute the historical accuracy of the Bible, thus “eroding any moral authority that might be gleaned from scriptures that endorse human violence.”[3] Unsurprisingly, just a few pages earlier the same authors cited Dominic Crosson,[4] who not only undermines any moral authority for violence but doubts the character of God to such a degree that he calls him a genocidal terrorist. That is putting the cart before the horse. It uses modern tools of scholarship, themselves a reflection of cultural concerns, to dispute God, who commands us to put aside small-minded cultural attitudes and follow Him.

        Of course, the Bible isn’t a clear manual about God and mankind’s concept of deity is often misunderstood and used to commit awful acts of violence. Still though, Latter Day Saints should be especially wary of a methodology that diminishes God’s character that reduces him to a figure head for an ideology. And an ideology that forbids the use of force actually perpetuates injustice. Rather than showing a schizophrenic God, the Book of Mormon’s account of the destruction immediately preceding His ministry and Christ’s teaching reveal a consistently loving God that recognizes the need to use force. Right before Jesus’s personal ministry among the Nephites he violently destroyed many cities (3 Nephi 9:3-12). Then he lamented that His people didn’t listen to him (3 Nephi 9:13), and he offered a tender example of how he would gather them as a hen gathered her chickens before offering the Sermon on the Mount and turn the other cheek (3 Nephi 10:4-6; 3 Nephi 12:39). Then he finished by reminding his audience of Isaiah's violent prophecies of a militant God executing his “vengeance” (3 Nephi 21:14-21).

        One version of God shouldn’t be believed over the other. Both versions ARE GOD and worthy of study. We are reading about different aspects of his personality, that is just, merciful and loving while God recognizes the need to use violence, often as punishment that compels men to be humble (Alma 32:13), and lead them to repentance and redemption (3 Nephi 9:17).

        Dominic Crosson’s book relies on several false dichotomies, dubious historical reconstructions, lops off large segments of scripture and fails to truly study the character of God. Instead, like pacifist LDS writers he uses his own ideology to create a God in his own image. I can’t recommend his book unless you want to see the “playbook” that LDS pacifists attempt to run on scripture.

**********

Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal link below or by purchasing one of my books linked in the top left. My latest, is a book length treatment of the above ideas. 

---

[1] I was seriously tempted to stop reading at that point. Terrorist is an overwrought, emotional term and directed towards God it revealed a great deal of Crosson’s character. I no longer wondered why he was a disgraced ex priest.

[2] Pulsipher, J. David (2021) "Defend Your Families and Love Your Enemies: A New Look at the Book of Mormon’s Patterns of Protection," BYU Studies Quarterly: Vol. 60: Iss. 2, Article 6. (179-182)

[3] Patrick Mason, David Pulsipher, Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Ancer to an Age of Conflict, (Deseret Book, 2021), 167-168.

[4] Ibid., 150 fn 7.

Moral Clarity on the Atomic Bombing

 

    August 6^th marks the dubious day in 1945 where America became the only power to use a nuclear bomb. This continues to spark controversy. From 1945 to 2005 American approval of the bombings has dropped from 85 to 57 percent. And a record low number of Americans are proud of their country. This is somewhat understandable as societal attitudes change and there is a great deal to critique over the decision. But it might also be what the editors at the National Review recently pointed out is part of the crisis of self-doubt gaining traction in America and what Wilfred McClay called a deeply unserious country that doesn’t believe in itself. Yet a proper study of the history surrounding the decision to drop the bombs and an examination of ethics finds the bombing was both justified and necessary.

    During the war both sides held a great deal of racial animus towards one another, which suggests the bomb might have been more willingly used because of racism.[1] Though, the bomb wasn’t ready in time to end the war against Germany so that is hard to gauge. Using an area effect weapon that didn’t distinguish between civilians and military targets invites condemnation.[2] The lack of military targets in Hiroshima and the dubious effectiveness of the bomb makes some people say this was terrorism.[3] After all, the Strategic Bombing survey revealed that the trains ran normally a mere two days later and this was often considered a way to stun the Japanese into surrendering and impress the Russians with the viability of the program.[4] (Though it should be noted that both cities had important military components. Both cities house important military garrisons as well as critical war industries, and Nagasaki was a foremost military shipping depot, and thus remained valid military targets.) Plus, there were supposedly peace feelers from the Japanese that made this completely unnecessary.

    As I will show below, these are all extremely flawed arguments that don’t accurately reflect the historical context and seem like excuses to blame American and undermine moral confidence today, instead of understanding the tragic but justified decisions of the past.

    The strongest criticism seems to be the peace overtures. Who doesn’t want the war to end early? This theory argues that the Japanese were ready for peace and only block headed, blood thirsty, and maybe even racist generals kept the war going. These were detailed by a revisionist historian, Gar Alperovitz and thus come long after the fact when it became more fashionable to search and promulgate these theories.[5] More importantly, this theory cherry picks some information and leave out much more important events that shows these peace feelers were completely impotent and U.S. officials were correct when they disregarded them.

    The best evidence against this theory comes after the Japanese emperor’s decision to surrender. After America dropped the bombs and the emperor wanted peace army leaders challenged and almost reversed the decision through a military coup. Up until the dropping of the second bomb Japanese officials thought a defense of Japan could produce favorable peace terms that at times included conditional surrender, voluntary reduction (but not elimination) of their military, and protections from war crimes tribunals.[6] The peace overtures before the dropping of the bomb were impotent, and dropping the required of unconditional surrender ignores the many other conditions that Japanese officials favored until the second atomic bombing.

    Let me stress, even AFTER America dropped atomic bombs significant factions in Japan wanted to keep fighting. Peace was not possible before the bombs were dropped. The idea is an ahistorical fantasy used by modern pundits to attack America. Moreover, American willingness to negotiate before the bombs dropped would have emboldened the Japanese and aggressive army generals to think that more fighting would have gotten them more concessions.

    Other critics quote leaders who sound authoritative but really aren’t. Many of these quotes also ignore historical context. One example comes from Eisenhower who said: [I believe] that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary…[7]

    With all due respect to Eisenhower and other leaders cherry picked for opposing nuclear weapons, he was thousands of miles and away and was not privy to the intelligence and decision-making councils that led to it. It would be like Admiral Nimitz second guessing Eisenhower’s decision to stop at the Elbe. Eisenhower is a particularly odd choice for opposing nuclear weapons since his New Look military relied so heavily on nukes and spooks.[8] Those that blanche at the use of nuclear weapons and hate the national security state should probably avoid quoting a general that as president, threatened to use nuclear weapons in the Taiwan Strait crises, and unleashed CIA sponsored coups on democratically elected governments in Iran and Guatemala that still reverberate today.

    Other military critics were vocal against nuclear weapons not because of moral principles, but because of parochial rivalries. The bombs were delivered by bombers, and this helped Curtis LeMay argue for the creation of an independent Airforce. In turn, this would take resources and prestige away from the Navy and Army chiefs, who were incredibly territorial, had differing strategies and demands, and wanted the air corps assets divided between them.[9] Thus it isn’t surprising to find that admirals would elevate the role of commerce raiding in the defeat of Japan and minimize the “barbaric” “toy” dropped by the budding air corps. Their opposition had little to do with the moral concerns of the time and are especially dissimilar from modern antiwar sentiments. In fact, the admirals preferred a blockade of the Japan that would have slowly killed millions, and the army preferred an invasion that would have also killed millions (see below.)

    The sad truth is that the Japanese would not surrender without the atomic bomb dropping or millions (of Americans, Japanese, and Chinese) dying from an invasion. The East Asian victims of Japanese aggression are often forgotten in Western centric debates over the war. But the Japanese launched the Ichigo offensive in late 1944 which was comparable in size and scope to the German invasion of the Soviet Union.[10] Nationalist Chinese leader Kiang Chai Shek had seen a great deal of bloodshed but called this period the worst of his entire life. An estimated two hundred thousand Chinese a month were dying at this point in the war. An invasion by American forces on the Japanese homeland would have skyrocketed those figures. General Marshall estimated 300,000 to 1,000,000 casualties (later updated to 1.2 million). Secretary of War Stimson estimated that 400,000 to 800,000 Americans would have died, (including 100,000 prisoners of war that were set to be executed upon invasion), and 5 to 10 million Japanese would have died from an invasion.[11]

    There was the option not to fight which would have left China and much of Asia in the hands of a regime as bad as Hitler’s. Yet one has to wonder how long the imperial Japanese would have felt comfortable with the U.S. in Hawaii so they would probably have attacked America again anyway. The U.S. could have continued to bomb them. The firebombing of Tokyo and conventional attacks actually caused more deaths than the nuclear bombs so that couldn’t have been a better option.

    The U.S. could have blockaded the country. The admirals at the time and later scholars argued that the U.S. had already destroyed much of Japanese shipping and merchant marine by August 1945,[12] and this may have been what Eisenhower meant by already defeating Japan, but then America would have to wait for the country to starve to death. That would have caused more deaths and in a slow manner arguably worse than two nuclear bombings. Its effects would have been unevenly felt across the population. With the elites that caused the war suffering far less than the population that fought it. It also would have given the Japanese army in China more time in their genocidal war against China. So between deaths from famine and deaths from the Greater East Asian War that option would have killed millions more than the bombings. Even then, any peace offering from the emperor would have likely faced a coup just like the surrender after the atomic bombings. Keep in mind that the admirals who argued for this possibly unjust and criminal course are the same admirals being quoted out of context today for entirely different reasons than the military leaders originally intended.  

    Dropping the atomic bomb quickly ended the war which prevented the Soviets from invading as well. The first atomic bomb was dropped literally the day after Stalin finalized plans to invade Japan and he invaded a day after the second bombing. The Soviets treated Eastern Europeans to show trials, mass deportations to the gulags, the Soviet army’s refusal to help the free Poles in the Battle of Warsaw etc., so it was a good option to end the war quickly and prevent the negative effects of Communist rule seen in East Germany and Eastern Europe even today. You can easily argue that the Japanese Constitution and rebuilding under MacArthur was far preferable to Soviet occupation.

    After looking at the other options and strategic context in late 1945, the decision to drop the bomb was moral and justified. In fact, ending the war for mere hundreds of thousands compared to the abject blood bath and millions of deaths that awaited all sides is the reason why the allied leaders considered this weapon a godsend. Even though Michael Walzer opposed nuclear weapons, he also said that ending a war swiftly with a minimum of causalities is the greatest kindness a leader could offer.[13]  Secretary of State Henry Stimson exemplified the latter idea when he said: My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men in the armies which I had helped to raise. In the light of the alternatives which, on a fair estimate, were open to us I believe that no man, in our position and subject to our responsibilities, holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities for accomplishing this purpose and saving those lives, could have failed to use it and afterwards looked his countrymen in the face.[14]

    In short, every other option than using nuclear weapons was worse. Taken in vacuum nuclear weapons are horrific, but that weapon wasn’t used in a vacuum and its incredibly unfair to blame America for being barbarians while ignoring the context that justified and compelled their use. This is probably because few have studied military ethics in depth, they simply think that some things are “bad.” But again, considering every option and the context of their war the dropping of atomic weapons was justified and necessary. The war was ended more quickly, saving lives, including millions of Asian lives.

    Americans and members of the church must rightly hope to avoid the tragedy of any having any conflict. But Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine sadly reminds us that the specter of war can never be vanquished with hopeful thoughts. Americans can recognize that war, particularly defending life against the most genocidal regimes of the 20th century, was necessary, and the atomic bombings were a necessary and justified choice in World War II.  And every American should strive to have the knowledge and tools to properly judge the morality of the past, which in turn provides the moral confidence to justly proceed in the present.

Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below or buy one of my books linked in the top left. If you're attacking me somewhere online about this post, please use the code word: war plan orange, to let me know you've actually read my argument. 

*****

---

[1] For a good overview, see John Lynn, Battle: A History of Combat and Culture, (New York: Basic Books, 2009), chapter 7.

[2] Micheal Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, (New York, Basic Books, 2015), 250-260.

[3] Howard Zinn, “Breaking the Silence.” ND. (https://web.archive.org/web/20071201172331/http://polymer.bu.edu/~amaral/Personal/zinn.html Accessed August 6th, 2021.)

[4] The United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report: 24.  The United States Strategic Bombing Survey: The Effect of the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 6.  https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=rwu_ebooks

[5] Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, (Vintage Books: 2010). https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth

[6] Richard Frank. Downfall: The End of the Japanese Empire, (Random House, 2001), 97.

[7] Julian Borger, “Hiroshima at 75: Bitter Row Persists Over US Decision to Drop the Bomb, The Guardian, August 5^th, 2020, (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/04/hiroshima-atomic-bomb-us-japan-history (Accessed August 6th 2021.)

[8] Gordon H. Change, He Di, “Eisenhower’s Reckless Nuclear Gamble over the Taiwan Strait,” American Historical Review 98 (December 1993), 1502-1523.

[9] Keith McFarland, "The 1949 Revolt of the Admirals" Parameters: Journal of the US Army War College Quarterly. XI (2): 53–63.

[10] Morgan Deane, Decisive Battles in Chinese History, (Westholme Press, 2017), chapter 12.  

[11] Frank, Downfall, 340.

[12] Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report, 11.

[13] Michael Walzer, Just Wars, quoting Moltke the Elder, 47.  

[14] Henry L. Stimson, as quoted in The Great Decision: The Secret History of the Atomic Bomb (1959) by Michael Amrine, p. 197

 

Newest Book on Just War Released, Ten Year Anniversary of my First Book!

 

    I’m excited to announce that my new book, To Stop a Slaughter: Just War in the Book of Mormon is published and available on Amazon! Those of you that read this blog already have a good sense of the material that is in it. You might remember posts about the importance ofthe heart, preemptive war, and the Nephite wars at the end of their nation. Here is the back cover blurb:

    In a world filled with what seems like "one continual round of bloodshed and murder" (Mormon 8:8) the debates in how to stop that slaughter are filled with partisan talking points, competing vociferous voices, unexamined assumptions about the use of force, fearful hot takes, and self-serving politicians and media narratives that only serve to increase the tension.

    In this the war of words and tumult of opinions (JS History 1:10) acclaimed military historian Morgan Deane applies a Hugh Nibley like command of numerous Christian and Chinese philosophers to engage the rich, intellectual debates from history, and apply them to the ethics of war and peace within the Book of Mormon. The result shows that Book of Mormon offers robust comments on such pertinent topics as the paramount importance of the heart, when and how a nation should use force, the limits of the word and the sword, the intent of people making war, preemptive war, insurgency, and a resolution between, instead of cross talk and proof text citations of oft cited pacifist and isolationist verses and those that support the use of force. This book amplifies the clarion call of the Book of Mormon to love your neighbor enough to be like the Nephites, reluctantly compelled to use arms to stop their slaughter (Alma 48:21-23).

    I’ve sent the book out for reviews, and if you’re interested in a review copy feel free to send me a message. 

    My first book, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents: Ancient Warfare in the Book of Mormon has reached its ten year anniversary! I just received a message the other day about how it has helped strengthen testimonies. As I wait for new reviews to come in, here are some more over the years:

    Deane’s work is well-written and thought provoking, required reading for those interested in warfare in the Book of Mormon as warfare, rather than just spiritual analogy. David Spencer, author of Captain Moroni’s Command.

    Hugh Nibley’s understudy. …an absolute must for anyone studying the Book of Mormon... [ties] wide ranging examples from the ancient world in remarkable efficiency. Deane's personal experience also gives a strong eye to military aspects so often neglected... This is a book that will be talked about for years to come by any serious student of the Book of Mormon...” David West, award winning author of Heroes of the Fallen

    Deane is an excellent scholar with fresh ideas and is always worth reading. Matthew Roper, Scripture Central.

    [Deane helps provide analysis] equal of any rabbinical quarrel or Jesuitical casuistry…[and] a fitting springboard for robust and lively debates.” Robert Wood, Chester M. Nimitz Chair Emeritus, U.S. Naval War College.

    The book successfully uses the battles as a means to understand the evolution of Chinese military culture, doctrine, and tactics. The battle maps are well drawn and helpful for those who are not familiar with China’s geography and history. The author has designed the book for general readers, including high school seniors and college freshman, so they can quickly grasp the complex security concerns and strategic calculations often underlying China’s decision-making process. Li Xiaobing, Journal of Chinese Military History

    China’s increased presence on the global stage has attracted greater interest in its long military history. With five millennia behind it, East Asia’s dominant power is certainly no stranger to armed conflict. While that immense scope may seem daunting, author Morgan Deane offers a highly accessible survey with Decisive Battles in Chinese History. Army History

    This astute history clearly reveals the development of China’s military and martial spirit. Military Officer

    I look forward to reading more positive reviews of my latest book and I’ll share them as they come in.

Moroni's Extreme Aggression? Notes on Alma 46:30

 

I'm busy making final edits on my next book. As I make those edits I thought this is an interesting nugget you might enjoy reading. 

        When Moroni’s thoughts are summarized by Mormon those thoughts not only suggest his behavior was a preemptive military action, but it was on aggressive side of what just war theorists consider acceptable. Moroni reasoned in the text that Amalickiah would inspire the Lamanites to war in the future when they are stronger. Alma 46:30:

Now Moroni thought it was not expedient that the Lamanites should have any more strength; therefore he thought to cut off the people of Amalickiah, or to take them and bring them back, and put Amalickiah to death; yea, for he knew that he would stir up the Lamanites to anger against them, and cause them to come to battle against them; and this he knew that Amalickiah would do that he might obtain his purposes.

        The future tenses are highlighted. Moroni sought to stop Amalickiah from gaining more strength and attacking later so he justified attacking now. Capture and kill him now, before they get more strength and attack us later, is a classic motivation for instigating war, but is more concerned with the future than the present.[1] Micheal Walzer summarized the many theorists of preemptive war and the varying justifications for the practice by using a term called the anticipation spectrum. In that spectrum he suggested that the only just preemptive wars are concerned with the present alarm of an immediate attack such as a charging assailant with sword in hand, nuclear armed planes already on their way to targets, or planes full of terrorists on their way to the Twin Towers. Walzer argues that unjust preemptive wars are concerned with stopping a gathering threat (Sparta, Germany, or the Lamanites will be stronger in the future so Athens, Britain, or the Nephites must attack now), or punishment for past actions (this nation is so unjust, greedy, prideful, ambitious, and aggressively expansionist it is too dangerous not to attack.)[2]

        By this measure Moroni’s use of preemptive war is more expansive than most just war theorists concerned with the imminent threat, because Moroni focused on the future threat and not the present. This leaves most students of the Book of Mormon in a unique situation, especially for those that use the infection model and place restoration scriptures as always superseding non-LDS theorists. Because in this case Moroni and the Book of Mormon seem more aggressive and less justified than what many commonly assume, especially compared to just war theorists that moderate the practice of preemptive war. This additional analysis becomes a much-needed caution to those that fail to do what Brigham Young advised and find truth even among professed infidels. There is much more in my book about theory and practice, and Walzer’s description serves as an excellent summary of just war theories regarding preemptive war as I discuss those details. In short, his desire for seeking battle places him on the aggressive extreme of justified preemptive war and serves as a reminder of the immense benefit of studying the great thinkers on the topic.

*****
Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below. Or you can buy one of my books in the top left. At the very least, follow my blog or my author page on Amazon for updates on the book. 

---

[1] Graham Allan, “The Thucydides trap,” Foreign Policy, June 9^th, 2017,  https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/09/the-thucydides-trap/ (Accessed, May 14^th, 2024.)

[2] Micheal Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, 81.