1. The opening question
Begin with people from ordinary families placed on opposing sides. Ask how a narrative of duty and honor can obscure the prior question: who is entitled to decide which consequences others must bear?
2. Separate three judgments
Distinguish the political decision to use force, constraints on conduct during conflict, and the moral judgment of an individual participant. A uniform or an honorific cannot settle all three at once.
3. Examine authorization
Compare executive decisions, representative authorization, and referendums by asking what evidence is available, how dissent is heard, and whether decision makers bear the costs they impose. Avoid treating a vote alone as a complete answer.
4. Take the hardest case seriously
Urgent defense and protection against aggression challenge any blanket delay or disclosure rule. The article must consider what scrutiny remains possible under secrecy and time pressure, including later review and responsibility.
5. Limits of this outline
This is a question for institutional analysis, not a proof that every war is unlawful or that legitimate authorization is mathematically impossible. Historical examples and proposed safeguards require case-specific evidence before a submission is finalized.