Can War be Made More Humane?

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse- Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death- rode together during the 20th century to bring war, disease, and starvation to the world. It is estimated that around 88 million people perished as a result of the two world wars, with over half of the dead of WWII being civilians. The war machine residing over the world was anything but humane. It is interesting then that just a few decades later there is growing debate about how war can be made humane, with many proponents of the idea that it has already become more humane. This essay will first raise the question of what it means to be humane and will give a general definition of war, because the definitions you take of those terms can greatly affect your answer. It will assess popular arguments about humane warfare, including the increased value of human life and new technology, which have been said to have made war more humane. It will conclude, however, that although countries of the West may have adopted such characteristics, this is essentially asymmetrical because adversaries of the West do not tend to play by the same rules. Therefore, although war can be made more humane, it is not easy to say to what extent that will happen.

Jay Winter describes twentieth century warfare as defined by war with ‘barbarism at its core’. As described by modernization theory, however, even barbarians tend to follow a trajectory to development under the right conditions. This may support the idea that it is in fact possible to grow out of barbarism and make war more humane. But what does being humane actually mean? The Collins English Dictionary gives three definitions of the word: “inflicting as little pain as possible; civilizing or liberal; characterized by kindness, mercy, sympathy” Clausewitz’s definition of war, ‘an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will’ , is in sharp contradiction to the latter characterization, because it is hard to imagine how violence can