War should be a moral action, not a hasty decision 

One of the existential risks our nation faces is the threat of rising and hostile powers in a nuclear and cyber armed world. As my friend and cryptography pioneer, Martin Hellman, explained to me, the United States was untouchable after World War II. We had a massive and victorious military machine, and we alone had nuclear weapons. In the three quarters of a century since WWII, we have spent trillions of dollars on our nuclear and conventional capabilities. On a number of occasions, we have used this military power, and the results have not always been positive or beneficial. It’s time to rethink how we use military capabilities. 

Additionally, other nations have built their own nuclear arsenals, and the growing threat of their deployment is an imminent risk to global stability and security. 

Russia currently has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and as we grapple with how best to assist our allies and the people of Ukraine following Russia’s invasion of their sovereign nation, Russia’s nuclear capability is never far out of mind. To aid in making thoughtful and transparent decisions during times like these, I am proposing legislation, House Resolution (H. Res.) 1009, which would urge the House of Representatives to debate the Just War provisions prior to a House floor vote on any Declaration of War or Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The Just War concept was first formulated by the Roman statesman Cicero but has been discussed and refined by early and middle era Christian theologians, and other religious figures and scholars. There are six standard conditions in the Just War provisions that indicate if military force is morally justified, and in the case of this resolution would be defined as follows:  

• It must be a “Just Cause,” which is defined as an intervention against a grave injustice such as the invasion by a foreign power that would kill, enslave, or otherwise do great harm to the society.  
• A legitimate body must approve action, and as Congress is the only body within the federal government with the Constitutional authority to declare war, the House of Representatives would be designated as the legitimate approving body for debate.  
• There must be a realistic chance of success, which would ultimately be stopping the injustice identified in Just Cause.  
• Any U.S. military intervention must not cause greater harm than the underlying injustice. 
• Intent to stop the injustice must be the main motivating factor for action, with no ulterior or self-serving agenda. 
• And the action of war or military force must only be the last resort, after all other options have been exhausted.              

By debating these conditions, dissenting views would be acknowledged and evidence would be presented publicly. Such a public debate and recorded vote by the House may have prevented the escalation of the Vietnam War and the 2003 war with Iraq. It may well have prevented earlier wars such as the Spanish American War, and other military actions that have had long-term negative consequences.  

Today, the senseless and tragic aggression against Ukraine by Russia is a matter of grave international concern that threatens to upend the norms that have prevented massive wars for three quarters of a century and could end up subjecting the population of Ukraine to the authoritarian rule of Vladimir Putin. The people of the United States stand behind the people of Ukraine and our country is rightly providing them tools to help defend themselves. But the question is: Should the U.S. do more? Should it provide a no-fly zone over Ukraine, for example? A grave injustice is being committed, but would direct American involvement ensure that Ukraine would return to a peaceful state with less destruction than our current level of involvement? Would holding back from expanded involvement now inevitably lead to armed conflict later? The answers are not clear because more devastating outcomes to the people of Ukraine and other countries are likely if the war expands to a conflict between Russia and the United States, especially if nuclear weapons are used. If the provisions outlined in this resolution were debated and voted upon, different points of view would inevitably be aired, and the non-binding vote could go either way — giving the Congress and the president a guide for how the American people would support such action and if such action would be morally justified. 

H. Res. 1009 may not in itself be enough to prevent nuclear devastation, but it is a significant start. The Just War principles would provide a more thoughtful and long-term approach to potential military action and position the United States as a leader on this front — offering a roadmap for others to a less dangerous and less costly form of international security.

Jerry McNerney represents California’s 9th District.