War is an inevitable human phenomenon which is often the byproduct of strained politics and an innate human drive to reign supreme over other lands. With the enactment of war follows the never ending question of what is just or ethically acceptable and what is unjust and morally reprehensible even during times of war. In modern times the word conventional war has been coined to describe warfare which involves fighting between two or more distinct well defined sides and only includes the use of weapons which will only target the opposition military units. Conventional warfare excludes the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons which threaten the lives of citizens and often times ravishes the opposition land beyond civilian use. Even …show more content…
Michael Walzer a distinguished political theorist and author of “just and unjust wars” stated that most states followed observed certain rules of war although they varied from state to state. Walzer also viewed war as a human construction, which means that it can be managed and constrained (Shively pp, 2). This theory holds true, but only when the conflict involves two states who are unevenly matched with one state being able to dictate the war without the use of any controversial and morally challenging tactics. When two evenly matched sides become drawn-out in a stalemate, the need for victory begins to suppress the ethical dilemmas of war, as what is considered unethical is overlooked for what is considered militarily successful. During World War 2 America became drawn out in a long and deadly conflict in Germany and in Japan. Instead of risking hundreds of thousands of lives trying to invade Japan by foot the US military began to carpet bomb areas in Japan, which meant that large stockpiles of explosives were dropped indiscriminately across the nation killing a large number of civilians. America had been observing conventional rules of war for the first half of world war 2, but as time went on the strains of war began to weigh against the military and rules on ethics began to change. The ethics of war begin to simply justify violence as death was the only means of bringing about an end to this conflict. Rather than risk the death of an estimated five hundred thousand American soldiers, the consensus was to forgo the ethics of the time and level Japan even if that meant killing a large number of civilians. War, which is a horrid process, degenerated in Japan to a situation of amassing the largest number of human casualties possible to force an agreed end to the conflict. The
Laws exist to protect life and property; however, they are only as effective as the forces that uphold them. War is a void that exists beyond the grasps of any law enforcing agency and It exemplifies humankind's most desperate situation. It is an ethical wilderness exempt from civilized practices. In all respects, war is a primitive extension of man. Caputo describes the ethical wilderness of Vietnam as a place "lacking restraints, sanctioned to kill, confronted by a hostile country and a relentless enemy, we sank into a brutish state." Without boundaries, there is only a biological moral c...
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
The bombings of 1945 by the United States of America on Japan were very controversial events. Many historians believe these acts were aggressive and unnecessary. In addition, analysts argue that the U.S. should have used alternative methods instead of the bomb, but most do not realize the repercussions of these different tactics. On the contrary, the bomb was needed to ease tension quickly and effectively. Ultimately, the bomb proved more effective than any other method, and also proved to be a technique that is sufficient for America’s needs. The effort made by the U.S. to bomb Japan after their disapproval of the Potsdam Declaration was needed to end conflicts in the Pacific because of Japanese resistance, to save American lives, and to portray the U.S. as a nation of power and dominance.
Tim O’Brien states in his novel The Things They Carried, “The truths are contradictory. It can be argued, for instance, that war is grotesque. But in truth war is also beauty. For all its horror, you can’t help but gape at the awful majesty of combat” (77). This profound statement captures not only his perspective of war from his experience in Vietnam but a collective truth about war across the ages. It is not called the art of combat without reason: this truth transcends time and can be found in the art produced and poetry written during the years of World War I. George Trakl creates beautiful images of the war in his poem “Grodek” but juxtaposes them with the harsh realities of war. Paul Nash, a World War I artist, invokes similar images in his paintings We are Making a New World and The Ypres Salient at Night. Guilaume Apollinaire’s writes about the beautiful atrocity that is war in his poem “Gala.”
World War I was a very deadly war with over 100 million human casualties(deaths plus injured). Therefore war is a very transformative event for humanity, because it always affects individuals, societies, and even the world in a pessimistic way.
The idea of war and how it can be justified, is a rather trick topic to touch on, as there are diverse ethical and sociological implications that have to be weighed on every step. Mainly we could look at the “Just War Theory” and see how that could possibly apply to the real world. To be able to enter a “Just War” nations must meet six criteria in Jus ad Bellum (Going to War). The criteria is as follows: “Just Cause”, “Right Intention”, “Proper Authority and Public Declaration”, “Last Resort”, “Probability of Success”, and lastly “Proportionality”. However the tricky bit of the Just War theory, is that all six of those elements must be met, to go to war in a morally justifiable way. This could make an easy blockade for nations to veto another nation's effort to enter a war, even if morally justifiable. The problem with an internationally mandated “war-committee”, means that the fate of another nation's well-being could very well be in the hands of a nation with an ulterior motive. It could also fall into the grounds of new found illegal activity. Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory.
September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.
In a war with no rules, it had been entirely ethical for extreme measures to have been taken. However, it was later shown in the Geneva Convention that it was unethical to attack enemy civilians. Even in earlier conventions, it had been shown to be illegal and immoral. In the instance of Hague IV, it had been shown and ratified by congress that attacking defenseless citizens or persons was wrong (2). This was not the only treaty or convention, as there had been multiple others previously. Therefore, it was unscrupulous and hypocritical for the United States to drop atomic bombs on the
Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books, 1977.
The moral and military necessity of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has been a subject of debate for almost half a century. Most revisionists emphasize the victimization of Japan during the attacks. They often forget the military realities and the historical context while judging whether it was necessary for America to use nuclear weapons against the two Japanese cities. It is important to note that Japan was the aggressor. Japan triggered the war that led to the bombing of its two cities with its sneak attack on America’s Pearl harbour in 1941. Subsequent systematic and flagrant violation of several international agreements and norms through employment of chemical and biological warfare and mistreatment of prisoners of war and civilians aggravated the situation[ Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth. (NY: Knopf, 1995), 89]. A response was needed to deal with increased aggression from Japan. Allied military planners had to choose between invading Japan and using the US atomic bombs in 1945[ Ronald Tabaki, Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb. (Little, Brown, 1995), 101
World War II, which took place from 1939 until 1945, is the most destructive war in terms of destruction and lives lost in all history. At the end of World War II, America made the decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan to end the war quickly, and this has been a very controversial issue ever since. After the fact, many questioned the decision made by American military leaders, wondering if they had well enough considered the Nuclear Era they would bring about by dropping the atomic bombs. In discussions of dropping the atomic bombs to end World War II, one controversial issue has been whether the United States was morally justified, and there are two basic schools of thoughts in this debate. On the one hand, some argue that dropping the bombs on cities, therefore targeting civilians, makes the bombs morally wrong. On the other hand, some contend that dropping the bombs to end the war quickly saved hundreds of thousands of American lives and therefore was morally justified. My own view is that dropping the bombs was the best decision for America to make with the information that they had at that time and the enormous number of lives that were saved.
The traditional just war theory deals with two principles, jus ad bellum and jus in bello. These two principles are differentiated between each other in the way they deal with when justice is applied. In jus ad bellum, justice is questioned in when to go to war. It deals with the justice in resorting to war and whether the war is rightly initiated. Jus in bello encompasses the conduct of war and whether the way a war is fought is just.
War is a brutal act, often declared by people or countries that are power thirsty or looking to gain more land. Wars result in economically unstable countries, production of wastelands, and deaths of innocent people. With all of these consequences in mind, is there such a thing as a just war? Yes, there are just wars. Even if the outcome may leave countries economically unstable, produce wastelands and kill innocent people that does not mean all wars are fought over meaningless causes. There are several factors that are used to determine if a war is just. These requirements are the right intention, a legitimate authority declaring war, is a last resort, the war is proportional to the offense, and if there is a reasonable chance of success.
“The employment of organized violence means one must, in fact, abandon fixed and established values”. (Chris Hedges, War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning) It is clear that the way in which the United States approached the war in Iraq was in fact due to, in some regard, the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan, and the ensuing debate that it created thereafter.
Few, if any, would argue that drug abuse in the United States is not a serious problem. However, the issue remains how to address it. The current schema of the politicized, militarized "war on drugs" does not appear to be working to reduce drug use in this country. More and more prisons are being built, with increasing numbers of citizens (particularly among minority populations) becoming incarcerated and subsequently trapped in the cycle of the criminal justice system. The current policies for punishing drug users not only imposes strain on monetary resources and infrastructure; they are in fact perpetuating great social suffering and injustice. What is needed is a systematic transfer from an ideology of punishment to one of prevention and rehabilitation, but practically, as in most cases, money will talk loudest.