Vladimir Putin’s recent announcement to place his nation’s nuclear deterrent forces on a state of heightened alert invites those of us in the free world—and surely the United States—to revisit the just war assumptions that served as a deterrence during the Cold War.

The present need is to deter China and Russia. This is why a “cold war” and a “just war” response is necessary.

In this volume, Nathan Scot Hosler looks to Stanley Hauerwas, one of the most outspoken pacifist theologians of our time, as inspiration for contemporary “peacemaking” and “peacebuilding” efforts.

Gregory Boyd’s Crucifixion of the Warrior God attempts to argue that the Old Testament accounts of God’s “violence” are not true portraits of the character of God. In another era, this 1,445-page project would have been called heresy.

Raymond Ibrahim was scheduled to lecture on June 19 at the War College’s Carlisle, PA, barracks as part of its 2019 Perspectives in Military History Lecture Series. But the college disinvited him after the Council on American Islamic Relations protested.

Real intolerance against Muslims exists, no question. But the term “Islamophobia” is too often deployed to inhibit rather than encourage dialogue about honest questions, concerns, or grievances.

James M. Dubik’s argument in Just War Reconsidered is straightforward: current just war theorizing is insufficient insofar as it “omits a major part of the conduct of war.” A “new addition” to jus in bello theory is urgently needed.

The notion of retribution or punishment has long been the scourge of social science. Christian thinkers should develop the distinction between retribution and revenge or retaliation.

On the complex moral issue of war, one might expect to find a diversity of views in the history of Christian thought. Ron Sider disagrees. He’s wrong.