Indiscriminate warfare

[neophyte]

Assume I’m legitimately involved in a just war, and I’m planning an attack on a legitimate military target the destruction of which is necessary to win the war.

I have two means of attack.

The first is inherently incapable of discriminating between innocent civilians and the military target which has been intentionally placed among them. For example, an atom bomb.

The second is capable in principle of discriminating between them, but is incapable of it in fact. For example, my limited targeting technology means that I need five hundred high-altitude bombers carrying a million pounds of ordnance and no matter how hard I try I’ll wipe out the same buildings and people as if I used the A-bomb.

Am I morally obligated to go with the second option?

Please pretend that any resemblance to an actual historical event is totally accidental. I intentionally tried to make this as narrow a question as possible. Any discussion of the actual justness of the hypothetical war, the actual legitimacy of the hypothetical target or the actual capabilities of my hypothetical technology is a separate quesiton.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Assume I’m legitimately involved in a just war, and I’m planning an attack on a legitimate military target the destruction of which is necessary to win the war.

I have two means of attack.

The first is inherently incapable of discriminating between innocent civilians and the military target which has been intentionally placed among them. For example, an atom bomb.

The second is capable in principle of discriminating between them, but is incapable of it in fact. For example, my limited targeting technology means that I need five hundred high-altitude bombers carrying a million pounds of ordnance and no matter how hard I try I’ll wipe out the same buildings and people as if I used the A-bomb.

Am I morally obligated to go with the second option?

Please pretend that any resemblance to an actual historical event is totally accidental. I intentionally tried to make this as narrow a question as possible. Any discussion of the actual justness of the hypothetical war, the actual legitimacy of the hypothetical target or the actual capabilities of my hypothetical technology is a separate quesiton.

To answer your question, we have to make several assumptions:

1. You are engaged in a just war.
2. The effect on the target is proportionate to the good that will result (for example, killing a hundred thousand people may end the war and save millions.)
3. There is no international prohibition on using the weapons in question (you could not use chemical or biological weapons – they are prohibited by international agreement.)

Under these circumstances, there is no moral difference in the weapons in question.

 

[Zahmir]

It seems to me like the use of an atom bomb would in some way be totally contrary to the dignity of human life. I can’t express it in moral terms, but you have to admit, there does seem something really awkward about using an atom bomb to destroy a populated area.

I think the above posters assumption #2 is very important. Must we use bombs? Can we use military force? Is there no more precise way of bombing the apporpriate buildings?

 

[vern_humphrey]

It seems to me like the use of an atom bomb would in some way be totally contrary to the dignity of human life. I can’t express it in moral terms, but you have to admit, there does seem something really awkward about using an atom bomb to destroy a populated area.

I think the above posters assumption #2 is very important. Must we use bombs? Can we use military force? Is there no more precise way of bombing the apporpriate buildings?

Bombs are military force. If you mean sending in troops on the ground, the usual result of that is even more death and destruction.

And under the terms of the discussion, there is no more precise way of bombing.

 

[Zahmir]

Bombs are military force. If you mean sending in troops on the ground, the usual result of that is even more death and destruction.

And under the terms of the discussion, there is no more precise way of bombing.

Vern, do you have it out for me or something?

I would never be a good general… I can’t ever imagine a situation in which blowing up an entire city or populated area would ever mean guaranteed victory… or would ever be a good idea. sigh

I’m not known to be a pacifist, but this hypothetical war better be quite just.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Assume I’m legitimately involved in a just war, and I’m planning an attack on a legitimate military target the destruction of which is necessary to win the war.

I have two means of attack.

The first is inherently incapable of discriminating between innocent civilians and the military target which has been intentionally placed among them. For example, an atom bomb.

The second is capable in principle of discriminating between them, but is incapable of it in fact. For example, my limited targeting technology means that I need five hundred high-altitude bombers carrying a million pounds of ordnance and no matter how hard I try I’ll wipe out the same buildings and people as if I used the A-bomb.

Am I morally obligated to go with the second option?

Please pretend that any resemblance to an actual historical event is totally accidental. I intentionally tried to make this as narrow a question as possible. Any discussion of the actual justness of the hypothetical war, the actual legitimacy of the hypothetical target or the actual capabilities of my hypothetical technology is a separate quesiton.

The anihilation of an enemy is not the only way to interdict it. Forcing the enemy to keep ‘heads down’ can often be more effective, and leaving infrastructure intact will make the aftermath more manageable.
Thus interdiction with much minor munitions is preferable to anihilation with a superbomb.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, do you have it out for me or something?

I would never be a good general… I can’t ever imagine a situation in which blowing up an entire city or populated area would ever mean guaranteed victory… or would ever be a good idea. sigh

I’m not known to be a pacifist, but this hypothetical war better be quite just.

Why do people get so hung up in normal discussion?

The question was simple – given the justice of the war, and given identical outcomes, does the Church dictate weaponry?

The answer is, no. It is not the weaponry that is critical to morality, it is the intent and proportionality of the attack. That, as they say on Law & Order, is Black Letter Law.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The anihilation of an enemy is not the only way to interdict it. Forcing the enemy to keep ‘heads down’ can often be more effective, and leaving infrastructure intact will make the aftermath more manageable.
Thus interdiction with much minor munitions is preferable to anihilation with a superbomb.

So it would be better to starve a million people to death than to kill 100,000 outright?

 

[Zahmir]

Why do people get so hung up in normal discussion?

The question was simple – given the justice of the war, and given identical outcomes, does the Church dictate weaponry?

The answer is, no. It is not the weaponry that is critical to morality, it is the intent and proportionality of the attack. That, as they say on Law & Order, is Black Letter Law.

Probably becuase no one likes the idea of blowing up innocent people. I understand that you are retired military and would know better than most about the horrors of war. I can’t even begin to fathom it. A co-worker’s sister had a miscarriage and I get depresed… I can’t imagine thousands of innocent lives.

And, actually, the Church doesn’t “dictate” weaponry, they did recently condemn the use of cluster bombs. Indeed, there are “more humane” ways of war.

zenit.org/article-19977?l=english

 

[Ender]

I think the question is fairly straightforward: is there any moral difference in annihilating a city and its inhabitants with one atomic bomb or with hundreds of high explosive bombs. Asserting that there is no moral distinction between the two methods says nothing about whether either is moral, only that they are not morally different.

If there is a moral difference between the two it’s not apparent to me.

Ender

 

[Zahmir]

I think the question is fairly straightforward: is there any moral difference in annihilating a city and its inhabitants with one atomic bomb or with hundreds of high explosive bombs. Asserting that there is no moral distinction between the two methods says nothing about whether either is moral, only that they are not morally different.

If there is a moral difference between the two it’s not apparent to me.

Ender

Won’t an atomic bomb leave long-lasting effects of radiation and the such?

And also, you have to think about the effects on the morale of the entire global community… For some reason, it seems like people would be less scandalized by many bombs than one uber-bomb.

We’re not just talking immediate effects here.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think the question is fairly straightforward: is there any moral difference in annihilating a city and its inhabitants with one atomic bomb or with hundreds of high explosive bombs. Asserting that there is no moral distinction between the two methods says nothing about whether either is moral, only that they are not morally different.

If there is a moral difference between the two it’s not apparent to me.

Ender

That’s the answer.

Of course, you can’t shoot Christians with crossbows – only Turks.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Won’t an atomic bomb leave long-lasting effects of radiation and the such?

And also, you have to think about the effects on the morale of the entire global community… For some reason, it seems like people would be less scandalized by many bombs than one uber-bomb.

We’re not just talking immediate effects here.

The OP included this:

Please pretend that any resemblance to an actual historical event is totally accidental. I intentionally tried to make this as narrow a question as possible. Any discussion of the actual justness of the hypothetical war, the actual legitimacy of the hypothetical target or the actual capabilities of my hypothetical technology is a separate quesiton.

If we were talking about an actual nuclear weapon (and not a theoretical weapon, technology unknown), then both radiation and the effect on the international community would definitely be matters to consider.

Nuclear weapons are not really weapons – they have no battle- or war-winning capability now that so many nations have them. Their primary value is in deterrance and blackmail, not in actual use.

 

[Ender]

Won’t an atomic bomb leave long-lasting effects of radiation and the such?

And also, you have to think about the effects on the morale of the entire global community… For some reason, it seems like people would be less scandalized by many bombs than one uber-bomb.

We’re not just talking immediate effects here.

Your concerns have some validity: the use of a nuclear bomb by one country makes it easier for another country to justify its use, but I think the differences, while real, are minor. It’s like worrying about what the firemen are doing to your lawn as they try to extinguish the fire in your house. Proportionately, these issues are on a different level.

If you can swallow the camel of the annihilation of a city and all its inhabitants it rings hollow to strain at the gnat of residual radiation.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

Your concerns have some validity: the use of a nuclear bomb by one country makes it easier for another country to justify its use, but I think the differences, while real, are minor. It’s like worrying about what the firemen are doing to your lawn as they try to extinguish the fire in your house. Proportionately, these issues are on a different level.

If you can swallow the camel of the annihilation of a city and all its inhabitants it rings hollow to strain at the gnat of residual radiation.

Ender

A pragmatist would answer the question, “Does the end justify the means?” by asking, “Do the means justify the end?”

Means and end are inseparable – one leads directly to the other. And when doing the proportionality calculus – which we are morally required to do in such cases – we must take into account radiation, possible reaction by other nations and so on.

Forgetting for a moment that we are not talking about nuclear weapons here, per the OPs original proposition, we would do things like fallout predictions, calculate risks to unwarned and unprotected persons and similar matters before making the decision.

 

[neophyte]

Won’t an atomic bomb leave long-lasting effects of radiation and the such?

And also, you have to think about the effects on the morale of the entire global community… For some reason, it seems like people would be less scandalized by many bombs than one uber-bomb.

We’re not just talking immediate effects here.

You can take the intent of my question to include that the long-term effects of radiation and such are included. The total casualties by either method are the same.

As for the scandal, that’s a separate question as well.

Thanks for all the replies thus far.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

So it would be better to starve a million people to death than to kill 100,000 outright?

YES!
Because the siege imposed always leaves the door open to surrender.
If surrender offered, is not accepted, then that too is a WAR CRIME.

 

[vern_humphrey]

YES!
Because the siege imposed always leaves the door open to surrender.
If surrender offered, is not accepted, then that too is a WAR CRIME.

Nope – in fact, US occupation authorities barely averted a massive die-off in Japan **after **the surrender. They were in a panic to get enough food and fuel into the country before winter, and tens of thousands of Japanese died anyway.

 

[neophyte]

Nope – in fact, US occupation authorities barely averted a massive die-off in Japan **after **the surrender. They were in a panic to get enough food and fuel into the country before winter, and tens of thousands of Japanese died anyway.

This if quite far afield of the intent of this thread.

If it’s not possible to discrimintate between legitimate targets and innocents, is one obligated to try anyway given that both methods yield the same casualties?

 

[vern_humphrey]

This if quite far afield of the intent of this thread.

Indeed it is - but the proposition I’m replying to is that seige is always preferable to bombardment or assault.

If it’s not possible to discrimintate between legitimate targets and innocents, is one obligated to try anyway given that both methods yield the same casualties?

One is not obligated to pick the fly specks out of the pepper.