Morality In War

With this morality in both conflicts plays a role in the bombing of cities and villages that contained a high concentration of civilians, where the United States believed the enemy to be stationed. It is here where the concept of body counts comes into play and supports the argument of an unjust, immoral war that defied the concepts held by American Exceptionalism. Tirman uses the example of Vietnam to point out argument, where the bombing strategy of “harassment and interdiction fire” was practiced, where there was no proof that enemy targets were destroyed and in the end did more harm than good as “killed a lot of innocents” to produce a number of supposed enemy casualties” (Tirman, The Real Cost of Vietnam). As in Vietnam the excessive bombings

1) In this week’s reading, Marshall explains several forms of Christian war ethics: just war theory, pacifism, just insurrection, and nonviolent resistance. Personally, I admire the pacifism and nonviolent resistance as it seeks to emulate Christ. Knocking a violent system of balance through opposing violence with non-violent forms of defense (p. 153) seems to me a more effective statement then even pacifism. However, as realist and as a member of a family with several military veterans I appreciate the construction of ethical parameters when engaging in war.

When learning about and analyzing acts of mass atrocity during World War II, hundreds if not thousands of questions can be asked trying to gain a deeper understanding for their actions. Probably one of the most intriguing thoughts to ponder is what leads individuals and societies as a whole to descend to such a level of cruelty. According to the author of Unbroken, Laura Hillenbrand, one reason may be, “Few societies treasured dignity, and feared humiliation, as did the Japanese, for whom a loss of honor could merit suicide. This is likely one of the reasons why Japanese soldiers in World War II debased their prisoners with such zeal, seeking to take from them that which was most painful and destructive to lose” (189). To elaborate, the Japanese

Can an antiquated lens provide an adequate examination and understanding of modern warfare? The theories of Carl von Clausewitz retain remarkable contemporary merit and relevance in explaining the critical elements affecting warfare in the modern era. Carl von Clausewitz’s theories of war endeavor to be comprehendible, comprehensive, and strategic. Clausewitz contends that the conduct of war itself is without doubt very difficult. But the difficulty is not that erudition and great genius are necessary to understand the basic principles of warfare.1 Clausewitz 's 1812 essay, the Principles of War, offers military commanders, with little campaign experience, a comprehendible, comprehensive, and strategic model for attaining victory in battle.

Operation Rolling Thunder was a widely criticized air campaign designed to deter the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) from supporting the National Liberation Front, in South Vietnam. In contrast, Operation Instant Thunder, named to distinguish itself from the former, was an incredibly effective air campaign that successfully destroyed Iraq’s war making capability. While the Jus En Bello of each campaign can be analyzed independently, they cannot fairly be evaluated without further inspection of the Jus Ad Bellum. The aim of such analysis is not solely for a determination of the ethics of each conflict, but also to examine how and if the morality of the Jus En Bello is influenced by the Jus Ad Bellum. After examining the ethics of the decision

In a desperate attempt for peace, as ironic as it may be, we create chaos, resulting in the death of millions at a time. Firearms burn bright in the dim sun, exposing the vibrancy of blood-stained suits. As the bullets penetrate skin, the life of another innocent individual has already been lost. Families never to hear a last, “I love you” before their loved one tragically passes in a loud, chaotic mess. They run towards the danger, knowing exactly what result the soldiers might have gotten in the gamble of life or death.

Thinking with a humane mindset it is more ethical to continue to fight a long and hard struggle, rather than slaughter many innocent

Rules: With regard to international armed conflicts, the four Geneva Conventions (GC I to IV) and Additional Protocol I and II contain various provisions specifically dealing with both of Prisoners of War, Civilians protection to prevent any kind of violations that may happen toward them. The Forth Geneva convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War has set rules governing the issue of civilians who found themselves under enemy’s possession. Article 5 of the 4th GC has identified who are protected persons with putting conditions to be considered as protected with the privileges of having the statue of protected persons at article 27 of the same convention. Third Geneva Convention in particular has recognized group of rights with regarded to POWs such as the right to be humanely treated at article 13, correspondence at article 71, the right to gain a sufficient food in quantity and quality at article 26 and the right to not be subjected to torture and question at article 17 where every prisoner of war “when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information” Moreover, the use of weapons and means that have indiscriminate effects such as poisonous gas and bombs which also would aggravate the suffering recognized as prohibited to use due to the amount of damage it causes upon civilians as well as the environment

In World War II, Americans referred to the Japanese as "Japs" (Lackoff). This essay provides the reader with many educational facts using the rhetorical style of definitions. Lackoff uses many examples of what other countries named their enemies so that the reader would be able to better understand that the military has to de-humanize their enemies in order to make them killable. Although Lackoff does not provide the reader with any in-text citation or a works cited page, Lackoff uses Ethos by providing credible facts throughout his writing. " But in war, military recruits must be persuaded that killing other people is not only acceptable but even honorable."

He nevertheless insists that although the prohibition against killing innocents is overridden by more important considerations, it is not being suspended: ‘There are limits on the conduct of war, and there are moments when we can and perhaps should break through the limits (the limits themselves never

The reason is because perhaps they have not experienced war. They have not had the experience most soldiers have. They haven’t had to shoot someone,

On the other hand, Shaw argues that warfare is degenerate in nature. Therefore one can argue that propaganda and the demonization of entire nations during war matched with indiscriminate violence makes acts of war ultimately acts of genocide. This argument is particularly compelling when corresponded with the casualty rates of modern

War is immoral. War is cruel.” (Document B). This shows

In their society, no one sees their isolation or bothers to think that they could socialize differently. They’re busy with their commercialized lives- too busy to see any issues with the lives they lead. This means that the civilians are easily swayed into abiding by the laws created by their corrupt government. (STEWE-2) There is an instance where this submissive, ignorant behavior appears and displays the disconnect.

Author Tim O’Brien, in his novel The Things They Carried, indicates the mental, emotional, and physical changes they go through due to the Vietnam War. The novel shows the obligation and burden the soldier’s go through to perform their duties, despite their own personal beliefs and experiences. O’Brien’s purpose is to illustrate the moral dilemma and internal struggle soldier’s experience in order to survive the true nature of war, as well as the fear and obligation that they have to cope with throughout their time spent at war. War forced the soldier’s morality to be stripped from their beliefs in order to perform their duties, causing soldiers moral dilemma.