<p>"Unless you are a pacifist, then deep down you accept that there may be wars worth fighting. But would you morally justify waging a war you cannot, in all likelihood, win? How do you even measure the likelihood of success or defeat? The editors of this volume posed these questions to experts in the field of just war theory. Their responses offer powerful insights into how the likelihood of success impacts our moral judgements, the advantages and pitfalls of being guided by such moral machinations, and alternative ways of judging the relationship between winning and whether it is just to take to the battlefield. A timely intervertion in just war scholarship..."</p><p><b><i> Daniel R. Brunstetter</i>, </b><i>Professor, University of California, Irvine, USA</i></p><p>"Governments frequently go to war and scholars debate their actions without paying much attention to what it means to ‘succeed’ in a given conflict, or how likely that outcome might be. Yet, as currently demonstrated in Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine, and beyond, ideas about ‘success’ entail historic consequences for ethical norms, human suffering, and global security. Boasting a range of intellectual approaches, this volume works through the deontological difficulties of the just war tradition to deliberate rigorously and provocatively on its ‘likelihood of success’ criterion. From humanitarian intervention to atomic bargaining, cyberattacks to technological panaceas, and strategic warfighting to operational battle requirements, Joustra and Patterson’s collection initiates important discussions about defining and assessing an idea – ‘success’ – that proves evocative and elusive in the messy, morally murky, and motivationally mixed times in which wars unfold."</p><p><i><b>Andrew Hom, </b>University of Edinburgh, UK</i></p><p>'This is an outstanding and much-needed book. As a teacher of the just war tradition, I have struggled for many years to understand the meaning of and justifications for the likelihood of success principle. The essays in this volume clearly identify the problems with the principle and offer insightful solutions. While some of the authors call for a rejection of the principle and others for its revision, collectively they clarify the questions that we all should be asking about what it might mean for war to be successful--and just--in the twenty-first century. This timely book reveals not only that the just war tradition is alive and well in the world of academic scholarship, but also that just war thinking is of immense practical importance today.'</p><p><i><b> Adam Pelser</b>, Professor of Philosophy, U.S. Air Force Academy</i></p><p>‘Drawing on an impressive breadth of talent, this collection of essays asks fundamental questions about the enduring utility of ‘likelihood of success’ as a criterion of just war thought. Contributors tackle the difficulty of defining and identifying success in war (both in conventional theatres and those such as humanitarian intervention or cyber warfare), the inherent unpredictability of military campaigns, and the concern that prioritising likelihood of success ultimately privileges powerful actors and delegitimises weaker ones. Taken as a whole, this timely collection makes a powerful case that theorists and practitioners need to reconsider how the likelihood of success principle should be integrated into twenty-first-century just war doctrine and military operations.’</p><p><i><b>Rory Cox</b>, Professorof History, University of St Andrews, UK</i></p>