Restricted Warfare Ethics
Restricted Warfare:
Ethics and Morality in Modern Warfare.
The Ethics of War
In recent years, the world has seen a sharp rise in wars across the globe. What was meant to be the first century not scarred by war quickly turned into a bloodbath in the wake of terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe. In response to these attacks on civilian populations the United States engaged in two preemptive wars on those who harbored terrorists. These wars have now been lasting for five years and recently the number of American and other Coalition soldiers fallen on the battlefield has risen to over 4000. These current issues that surround and heavily influence the world we live in makes us ask the question. How can these deaths and these …show more content…
This is a dilemma in the case of asymmetrical warfare where one large army such as the United States is confronted to poorly armed yet ferocious enemies willing to sacrifice themselves and civilian populations. Therefore, a town should never be razed unless there exists no other option viable to the success of the mission. It is certainly unethical to kill the soldiers of an army that has surrendered. In addition, weapons that cause unnecessary destruction or pain are considered inacceptable and lead to indictment for war crimes. If all the preceding conditions of Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello are met, the war is said to avoid a greater evil and is considered just. War is thus the appropriate manner of action. Nevertheless, two very different approaches argue that this is not so. First is that the “decision to wage war is governed by realism and relative strength, not ethics; morality thus has no use in war” (BBC). The second is that all war is unjust and is never ethical. Yet both of these appear illogical and irresponsible if the past and present world order is taken into
Ethics and Morality in Modern Warfare.
The Ethics of War
In recent years, the world has seen a sharp rise in wars across the globe. What was meant to be the first century not scarred by war quickly turned into a bloodbath in the wake of terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe. In response to these attacks on civilian populations the United States engaged in two preemptive wars on those who harbored terrorists. These wars have now been lasting for five years and recently the number of American and other Coalition soldiers fallen on the battlefield has risen to over 4000. These current issues that surround and heavily influence the world we live in makes us ask the question. How can these deaths and these …show more content…
This is a dilemma in the case of asymmetrical warfare where one large army such as the United States is confronted to poorly armed yet ferocious enemies willing to sacrifice themselves and civilian populations. Therefore, a town should never be razed unless there exists no other option viable to the success of the mission. It is certainly unethical to kill the soldiers of an army that has surrendered. In addition, weapons that cause unnecessary destruction or pain are considered inacceptable and lead to indictment for war crimes. If all the preceding conditions of Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello are met, the war is said to avoid a greater evil and is considered just. War is thus the appropriate manner of action. Nevertheless, two very different approaches argue that this is not so. First is that the “decision to wage war is governed by realism and relative strength, not ethics; morality thus has no use in war” (BBC). The second is that all war is unjust and is never ethical. Yet both of these appear illogical and irresponsible if the past and present world order is taken into