For me, the inherent problem is that people have a right to self defence (and I'd argue to self defence by proxy of a states army), but states have no such right.

A lot of the more horrific acts of war seem designed not to defend the people who happen to live in a state, but the state apparatus (or the interests of that states stakeholders) itself.

▲

9x39 2 days ago | parent [-]

States do have a right to self-defense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_international_... What state does not?

It's the individual that generally has no right to self defense, if measured by the ability to mount an effective armed self defense. In most countries, the individual is as expendable as a red blood cell is to the overall organism. They are not prevented from fighting back per se, but this natural right is severely and harshly limited.

	▲	ViscountPenguin a day ago \| parent [-]
		States may have a legal right to self defence, but considering that states are both the primary producers and enforcers of law; it's hardly surprising that they'd give themselves the right. Morally, I'd argue they have none.