“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.”
                                       ― Ernest Hemingway

Envision yourself confronting a formidable legion of approximately 10,000 soldiers, poised for combat to safeguard what lies behind you. Amidst this confrontation, a profound query arises: "Does the specter of death, looming on either side, hold any worth?" Suddenly, the formidable army before you transforms into a congregation of individuals, bereft of familial joys, deprived of opportunities and enlisted in a cause not inherently their own. Do you contemplate retreat, swayed by the moral imperative, or do you steel yourself for battle, recognizing a personal moral obligation?

From an ethical standpoint, war is ideally waged for a just cause, with outcomes that minimize harm and prioritize humanity. Yet, history reveals that war often unleashes devastation and upheaval, disrupting lives and livelihoods. Delving into the ethics of warfare prompts a critical examination: can war, inherently devoid of morality, be seen as a means of achieving goals? And if so, does winning a war through ethical means render it any more morally acceptable than it inherently is?

The moral justification of warfare, its underlying causes, and its repercussions present a dilemma. Engaging in war and attempting to rationalize it, is akin to confronting one's reflection in a mirror and trying to tell yourself apart from the image. As you lead the fight to safeguard what lies behind, you find yourself confronting an army driven by analogous motives, as if fighting against yourself. War, paradoxically, has been a catalyst for societal progress, yielding both favorable and adverse consequences. Yet, as aptly articulated by Plato, "Only the dead have seen the end of war."