Just war theory is a doctrine that has been studied by all types of leaders, religions and especially military leaders. Basically it is a doctrine composed of all sorts of military ethics of war and broken down into two parts, Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. Only ad bellum consists of 5 parts, the first part is the legitimate authority and that means the people who make the war decision are recognized officials and understand the war strategies. The second reason is for a just cause, having the right reasons to go to war and understanding that violent aggression is not the plan. The third is that the last resort is to go to war and be able to understand that before a country starts a war it can be resolved in less violent ways. The fourth option is the prospect of success, yes, winning the war is a success, but how many lives can be lost and we still consider it a success. The last option is political proportionality and that is when the bad of war is proportionally less than the cons of war. I believe that if all the nonviolent Just ad bellum options were tried and given a fair chance and the only viable option was to go to war, then going to war would be acceptable. But if all nonviolent options have not been exhausted and war is nothing more than a hasty decision, this can be considered wrong