We can sacrifice for the greater good.

That ‘we’ sure is carrying a lot of weight. From the context of this thread, it seems likely most of the sacrifice would be from folks in Turkmenistan, who would be told to change at the point of a gun no? Likely leading to a non trivial death count from violence or starvation.

I’m pretty sure you didn’t ask them if they were Ok with that sacrifice.

To quote C.S. Lewis - “ Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.”

In a democracy the population is responsible for voting in the government.

In a dictatorship the population is responsible for not overthrowing the government.

You’re still being incredibly vague on who you expect to sacrifice and how for the course of action you propose.

Mind giving more than platitudes?

I'm sorry. Let me throw out the hypotheticals in my head and these are not based on any real situation.

1. What if a small Eastern European country created a large nuclear reactor but didn't care about safety meaning that the probability of a meltdown that would effect Europe was X percentage. At what value of X is it acceptable to invade assuming all other methods of persuasion have been attempted.

2. If a country is polluting Y amounts of something that increases global warming by X and all methods of persuasion have stopped is invasion ever justified at some values of X and Y. You are considering the probability of and level of suffering of two events.

A. The invasion B. The suffering caused by environmental damage.

There has to be some conditions in which it is morally justified to invade a country