Tom,

Our disagreement hinges on the definition of "war" not on the definition of "necessary". You said "So, let's take your example: a community is attacked. Guess what: There's a war on."

Dictionary.com has a pretty standard definition of war:

1. a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
b. The period of such conflict.

If you accept this definition at face value then I agree with you. Especially since you say "I don't regard the fact of the war as a free pass to tax those who happen to be part of one side (as defined by the other), or to kill innocents, or to claim immunity for damages caused..."

However, if we look further, at how the word is actually used, we find instances which match the definition, but are not war. Notably family or clan feuds such as the Hatfields and McCoys. That feud lasted over a decade and saw 12 people killed. Yet no one would call it a war, because it did not have any of the other attributes normally associated with war. On the other hand, inner city gang wars and organized crime wars do qualify since they do have the other attributes.

In war, both sides engage in taxation, willful violation of the rights of innocents, and do not pay restitution (unless they lose and are forced to do so).

If there is an armed conflict in which neither side engages in these activities, then the conflict is not war. I think we can agree on this. Am I correct?

If there is a conflict in which one side does not engage in these activities, but the other does, is it war? I think our disagreement lies here.

I think it is not war. If, when Osama bin Laden declared war on the US in 1992, he had been hunted down and killed/arrested, that action would not have been war. If the American colonists had blown up Parliament and assassinated King George III, that would not have been war. These are not acts of warfare, they are acts consistent with self defence and retaliation.

Cross posted here.