A
Arandur
Guest
I think this argument is really focused on the fact that weapons of war have gotten more destructive. That really seems the only thing at issue here in the questioning of whether a “Just War” concept is “valid” anymore.
I would take issue with that assertion, however. Means of waging war do not affect just causes of war, only how wars ought be prosecuted.
And as far as that goes, Western desires to reduce the damage of war have led to weapons and tactics that greatly minimize collateral damage. During WWII, there was precious little that could be done to minimize collateral damage from a bomb. Now, there are technologies that allow bombs to be much more targeted.
Many are criticizing Israel right now, but some of the methods they are employing to minimize civilian casualties help illustrate the point. They may not be doing enough, but they have been doing such things as dropping leaflets and even empty canisters onto identified targets giving prior warning for civilians to get out. They’ve also used cell phone and GPS technologies to warn people of an impending strike and to get out of the area. They may not do this enough, but that combined with the relatively greater precision of delivering explosives that is possible with modern technology has significantly reduced the danger to civilians compared to WWII era weapons and tactics.
And the assertion that war is much more deadly now than it was in the past I don’t think holds water, anyway. Pre-modern war still carried very high tolls in human death and misery and injustices. Melee warfare was often more deadly proportionately to soldiers than modern warfare is. Reconnaissance, control and discipline over commanders and soldiers in the modern era can reduce the “fog of war” and chaotic abuses among the civilian populace that was often even more rampant in pre-modern warfare. Modern economies, logistics, supply chains and so forth has dramatically reduced the relative amount of injustice of commandeering, raiding, foraging, and quartering of troops and the theft, rape, murder, kidnapping, slavery, destruction of families, famine, disease, and social breakdown that traditionally accompanied the movement of pre-modern armies and waging of such warfare.
Pre-modern total warfare often saw much forced enslavement and conscription, either during the course of war or as spoils of war. Mass forced labor; mass forced emigration of populations; mass slaughter of whole populations of towns, villages, and cities; massive famine and disease; starvation of cities due to sieges; etc. All of these spoke of the very high toll of pre-modern warfare.
To claim that the formulators of Just War principles were not conscious of these human costs of war is false.
To say that modern warfare has higher cost than pre-modern warfare merely because individual pieces of weaponry are capable of doing more destruction is, I think (for the reasons above) similarly false. In fact, if you consider wars waged by modern Western forces (given their technology) after WWII, and compared it to wars previous, I am pretty sure that you would find that such wars are, proportionately (compared to the population sizes), much less destructive than previous wars.
Which is a sign that we are headed in the right direction, and that our ability to minimize the damage of wars as well as the incidence of wars (armed conflict among the Western powers has dramatically reduced) is improving. I have no doubt that the Catholic heritage of Just War principles has been a primary driver in this trend.