Does morality have a place in war? While that is the general theme of this thread. I will address some specific issues that seem to come up from time to time. Opinions on why you think certain weapons and tactics should or should not be used. If you can provide a historical reference to back up your feelings please do so. If this discussion is too inflamatory for you please dont get involved so we can keep things civil. Now that we got that out of the way...
1. Preemptive Strikes
--This is the issue that seems to have caused one of the more recent rifts in US-Euro relations. Its obvious anytime you read most international news stories and even here on SP. IN MY OPINION, it is the only way to fight a war. Striking first gives you the initiative and allows you to resolve conflicts or potential conflicts on your own terms. The thought of defensive wars has always seemed an error to me. You are not guaranteed to survive the initial blow! Some examples of nations that did not survive preemptive attacks are France 1939, Kuwait 1991 and Iraq 2003. Only the sacrafice of other nations saved them in the end. But only after they were conquered. In short I dont see anything wrong with throwing the first punch. It works.
2. Terrorism
--A little more controversial topic. But no matter how controversial it is a valid military tactic. Its most often practiced when one side doesnt have the means to fight a bigger power. I mean do you expect the Palestinians to wage Manuever Warfare against the Israeli Army? Nations fight with what means the have available. For some that is the Car Bomb. For others its a JDAM. While I find terrorism to be distasteful. I can not in good faith say that I find anything immoral about it considering the nature of war. Before any of you jump down my throat consider this. IF you lived in a third world country. And for some reason, doesnt matter pick one, a more powerful nation overan your nations armed forces and enslaved your people. Would you not take up arms? And if so. Would you chose to honorably face the more powerful foe where he is strongest, on the battlefield? Or would you strike him where he is weak? In his homeland? His rear area? Or, would you accept being dominated by a foreign invader?
3. Targeting Enemy Populations
--Dresden, Tokyo, Iraq 1991-1998 immediately come to mind. Plain and simple I'm all for it if their is a military objective to be achieved. I mean honestly. Why should the people of a nation be spared the horrors of a war they support IF that support is key to the success of their campaign? If anyone can make a case on behalf of the people and why they should be spared, I would love to hear it. I bet there isnt a single person who can debate me on why this is an invalid tactic without resorting to insults. Genocide IS NOT THE SAME THING. Futher Genocide is a waste of military resources and morally wrong. Genocide is not a method of war, it is a crime.
4. NBC Weapons Use
--I think the time has come to futher integrate Offensive NBC weapons into our(USA) military doctrine. Not only does it make sense, but it may be crucial to our achieving victory in the not to distant future. I agree that in the past, up to about when the USSR fell apart. It was in our(the world) interest to not use NBC weapons if at all possible and then only for retaliation. But contrary to popular belief, I do not feel this was primarily based on morality or MAD policy. I think the reason why we(USA) became so anti-NBC is because we didnt want to face weapons on the battlefield that could give an enemy effective means to fight back. We were so much more advanced in our conventional weapons capability that conventional war was in our interest. Also NBC weapons, especially nuclear, were beyond the means of most of our opponents. The only fear we had was intervention by other nuclear powers. Also in those times. It was still possible to prevent non-nuclear powers from becoming nuclear. Today I think the nature of war has changed. Not only is the list of nuclear powers growing. But some of the defenses of the enemy are only vulnerable to nuclear weapons. Also, nuclear weapons offer efficiency. Compare the destruction of Dresden to the destruction of Hiroshima. Who can argue against the efficiency of the Hiroshima raid? And nuclear weapons, again contrary to popular belief, dont have to be city-busting dirty weapons. Yields and weapons effects are highly controllable. Nuclear weapons represent the future and is a natural progression of things. We should not fear this. Instead, we should use our skills to master it.
--Chemical weapons. These weapons would also be of great use to any military that took the time to develop weapons and tactics to use them. Non-lethal weapons like CS or sleep agents could be used as a non lethal means of dealing with civilians if their deaths would be contrary to our interest. Or lethal agents could be used against enemy units concealed in difficult terrain such as caves or cities. OR to deny terrain. Imagine if we could immediately put nerve gas on the beaches of Taiwan in front of invading Chinese. Or what if after we evacutated Fallujah in November 2004. We took the city after using chemicals to kill the insurgents there. They had no defense and would have been ideal targets. Chemical weapons are simply to valuable to be ignored. In a time where a lot of nations are becoming nuclear capable. I think the taboo surrounding chemicals should be removed. In fact the only reason we didnt used chemicals was to deny it to nations who could not get nuclear weapons and saw chemicals as a cheap substitute. Not because of any moral issues. What difference does it make if I kill a grid square with FASCAM or persistent agent?
--Bio weapons. Ummm, I like the idea. But a little too dangerous for even me to endorse right now. I admit that I have very limited knowledge of Bio weapons and tactics surrounding their use. I dont see it as a moral limitation but more of a safety issue. If the effects can be reasonably controlled then I say use them. But until then I would hesitate to employ such weapons.
5. Torture
--For me morality comes to play if torture is used just for the sake of using it. If it is administered by professionals in a controlled environment for interrogation purposes. Then I dont have a problem with it. You all know the ticking timebomb analogy. That best explains my position.
6. Proliferation
--I see this as a, "At your own risk" activity. I dont blame Iran or NK for trying to get WMD. But dont blame me for stopping them either if I dont like it.
7. Treaty Obligations
-Rubbish. Treaty is created by one power to secure an advantage over lesser power. I have no respect whatsoever for any treaty. We should always do what is in our interest. We own nothing to the world community. ONe of the most brilliant moves I have ever seen a poliician make was when GWB withdrew from the silly ABM treaty.
8. P.O.W. rights
--P.O.W. are at the mercy of their captors. However we should treat P.O.W.s in a professional manner whenever possible. But we cannot allow the media and the enemy to use enemy P.O.W.s as propaganda weapons against us. P.O.W.s are after all people who would kill you if they could. We must never forget that.
9. Media Censorship
--In times of war, the media should be made to understand that they are a possible threat to military operations. There should be a clear line between objective reporting and propaganda. When they cross that line they should be dealt with accordingly. I think Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf dealt very effectively with the media. Perhaps one of his greatest accomplishments!
10. Space War
--We should establish a military presence in space. Space is now key terrain in war and as such must be secured by any means necessary. The only people bitching otherwise are those who cant secure it.
These are my posisions. I would love to read anyone elses opinions. I am also open to debate anyone who disagrees or agrees. BUt if you disagree. Be civil and take the time to explain why without making this personal.
Thanks
DA
1. Preemptive Strikes
--This is the issue that seems to have caused one of the more recent rifts in US-Euro relations. Its obvious anytime you read most international news stories and even here on SP. IN MY OPINION, it is the only way to fight a war. Striking first gives you the initiative and allows you to resolve conflicts or potential conflicts on your own terms. The thought of defensive wars has always seemed an error to me. You are not guaranteed to survive the initial blow! Some examples of nations that did not survive preemptive attacks are France 1939, Kuwait 1991 and Iraq 2003. Only the sacrafice of other nations saved them in the end. But only after they were conquered. In short I dont see anything wrong with throwing the first punch. It works.
2. Terrorism
--A little more controversial topic. But no matter how controversial it is a valid military tactic. Its most often practiced when one side doesnt have the means to fight a bigger power. I mean do you expect the Palestinians to wage Manuever Warfare against the Israeli Army? Nations fight with what means the have available. For some that is the Car Bomb. For others its a JDAM. While I find terrorism to be distasteful. I can not in good faith say that I find anything immoral about it considering the nature of war. Before any of you jump down my throat consider this. IF you lived in a third world country. And for some reason, doesnt matter pick one, a more powerful nation overan your nations armed forces and enslaved your people. Would you not take up arms? And if so. Would you chose to honorably face the more powerful foe where he is strongest, on the battlefield? Or would you strike him where he is weak? In his homeland? His rear area? Or, would you accept being dominated by a foreign invader?
3. Targeting Enemy Populations
--Dresden, Tokyo, Iraq 1991-1998 immediately come to mind. Plain and simple I'm all for it if their is a military objective to be achieved. I mean honestly. Why should the people of a nation be spared the horrors of a war they support IF that support is key to the success of their campaign? If anyone can make a case on behalf of the people and why they should be spared, I would love to hear it. I bet there isnt a single person who can debate me on why this is an invalid tactic without resorting to insults. Genocide IS NOT THE SAME THING. Futher Genocide is a waste of military resources and morally wrong. Genocide is not a method of war, it is a crime.
4. NBC Weapons Use
--I think the time has come to futher integrate Offensive NBC weapons into our(USA) military doctrine. Not only does it make sense, but it may be crucial to our achieving victory in the not to distant future. I agree that in the past, up to about when the USSR fell apart. It was in our(the world) interest to not use NBC weapons if at all possible and then only for retaliation. But contrary to popular belief, I do not feel this was primarily based on morality or MAD policy. I think the reason why we(USA) became so anti-NBC is because we didnt want to face weapons on the battlefield that could give an enemy effective means to fight back. We were so much more advanced in our conventional weapons capability that conventional war was in our interest. Also NBC weapons, especially nuclear, were beyond the means of most of our opponents. The only fear we had was intervention by other nuclear powers. Also in those times. It was still possible to prevent non-nuclear powers from becoming nuclear. Today I think the nature of war has changed. Not only is the list of nuclear powers growing. But some of the defenses of the enemy are only vulnerable to nuclear weapons. Also, nuclear weapons offer efficiency. Compare the destruction of Dresden to the destruction of Hiroshima. Who can argue against the efficiency of the Hiroshima raid? And nuclear weapons, again contrary to popular belief, dont have to be city-busting dirty weapons. Yields and weapons effects are highly controllable. Nuclear weapons represent the future and is a natural progression of things. We should not fear this. Instead, we should use our skills to master it.
--Chemical weapons. These weapons would also be of great use to any military that took the time to develop weapons and tactics to use them. Non-lethal weapons like CS or sleep agents could be used as a non lethal means of dealing with civilians if their deaths would be contrary to our interest. Or lethal agents could be used against enemy units concealed in difficult terrain such as caves or cities. OR to deny terrain. Imagine if we could immediately put nerve gas on the beaches of Taiwan in front of invading Chinese. Or what if after we evacutated Fallujah in November 2004. We took the city after using chemicals to kill the insurgents there. They had no defense and would have been ideal targets. Chemical weapons are simply to valuable to be ignored. In a time where a lot of nations are becoming nuclear capable. I think the taboo surrounding chemicals should be removed. In fact the only reason we didnt used chemicals was to deny it to nations who could not get nuclear weapons and saw chemicals as a cheap substitute. Not because of any moral issues. What difference does it make if I kill a grid square with FASCAM or persistent agent?
--Bio weapons. Ummm, I like the idea. But a little too dangerous for even me to endorse right now. I admit that I have very limited knowledge of Bio weapons and tactics surrounding their use. I dont see it as a moral limitation but more of a safety issue. If the effects can be reasonably controlled then I say use them. But until then I would hesitate to employ such weapons.
5. Torture
--For me morality comes to play if torture is used just for the sake of using it. If it is administered by professionals in a controlled environment for interrogation purposes. Then I dont have a problem with it. You all know the ticking timebomb analogy. That best explains my position.
6. Proliferation
--I see this as a, "At your own risk" activity. I dont blame Iran or NK for trying to get WMD. But dont blame me for stopping them either if I dont like it.
7. Treaty Obligations
-Rubbish. Treaty is created by one power to secure an advantage over lesser power. I have no respect whatsoever for any treaty. We should always do what is in our interest. We own nothing to the world community. ONe of the most brilliant moves I have ever seen a poliician make was when GWB withdrew from the silly ABM treaty.
8. P.O.W. rights
--P.O.W. are at the mercy of their captors. However we should treat P.O.W.s in a professional manner whenever possible. But we cannot allow the media and the enemy to use enemy P.O.W.s as propaganda weapons against us. P.O.W.s are after all people who would kill you if they could. We must never forget that.
9. Media Censorship
--In times of war, the media should be made to understand that they are a possible threat to military operations. There should be a clear line between objective reporting and propaganda. When they cross that line they should be dealt with accordingly. I think Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf dealt very effectively with the media. Perhaps one of his greatest accomplishments!
10. Space War
--We should establish a military presence in space. Space is now key terrain in war and as such must be secured by any means necessary. The only people bitching otherwise are those who cant secure it.
These are my posisions. I would love to read anyone elses opinions. I am also open to debate anyone who disagrees or agrees. BUt if you disagree. Be civil and take the time to explain why without making this personal.
Thanks
DA