The ruler of country Z has a terrible record of human rights violations. He has ordered the slaughter of civilians and has threatened to invade neighboring states. He has been working with known arms dealers to develop his military capacity. And he has worked to spread his influence by supporting insurgent fighters and terrorist groups in other countries. Three students are debating this case and what the United States should do in response. Roxanne is a realist. She argues that we should attack country Z with massive force as soon as possible with the goal of decapitating the regime. "That's what we did in Japan during World War II. And now Japan is a peaceful and stable ally." Patrick is a pacifist. He disagrees. "You know that we dropped atomic weapons on Japan and firebombed cities. It was immoral to do that. The end doesn't justify the means. We have to find nonviolent alternatives to deal with Z." Justin advocates limited use of military force. He says, "The just war tradition might allow for preemptive force and may allow for limited war in defense of human rights. But we have to be careful not to kill civilians." Roxanne shakes her head. "Sorry, but you can't win a war without killing civilians. And the faster you win, the better for everyone." Patrick sighs. "Have we even tried all of the nonviolent alternatives?" Justin shrugs. "If we go to war, it can only be a last resort. But, Roxanne, you can't just kill the innocent. You've got to win hearts and minds, as well."
Whom do you agree with in this debate? Why? What do you suggest we do about brutal dictators and aggressive regimes?