Just War Doctrine

[diggerdomer]

I am sorry I was not clear. Yes; Just War requires that the war not only be started in a just manner but be run in a just manner also. The decisions on operations however are still made without full knowledge of all the circimstances and so must be guesswork. This is what I was refering to.

Thank you for clarifying…but I don’t see how that applies… There’s no “guesswork” really, about e.g. whether innocent people might be killed by a certain tactical action. It’s a pretty clear determination. Do I misunderstand your point?

I can see where “guesswork” may be involved a priori, e.g. with the unjust Iraq war that we in the U.S. are still mired in and suffering with…presuming the government had information that was not public but legitimate (but it wasn’t) and presuming that the motives and last resort criteria were met (which are debatable) and so on…that’s all (in some ways perhaps) “guesswork” but once the conflict is initiated, I don’t think it’s accurate nor adequate to say “guesswork” rules. Seems to me it’s pretty clear before initiating lethal force what the expected outcomes are (I say this as a military vet).

 

[phoage]

You personal definition of WMD is gratuitously asserted and would be considered useless by the Geneva Conventions.

I am not aware of a definition of WMD. I do not believe that they are mentioned in the current Geneva Accords by that name if at all. I would imagine a definition would be something along the lines of “Weapons that cause a great deal of damage in proportion to their difficulty of employment.” In other word, easy to use and a large combat power proportionally.

If that is an acceptable general definition, a shot un is a weapon of mass destruction. I am open to discussion of a different deinition andto correction as to wether the Geneva Accords address and/or define them.

My point with this reply was to observe that in this fallen world, some people do not play by the rules. Sometimes these people are in charge of armies and nations. If the capability exists, someone will use it. You cannot legislate morality. The moral will be so with minimal guidance, the immoral will do as they are able to. Armies protect their nations from the immorallity of other nations. If we outlaw their tools, we handicap them in thier job.

You are exhibiting the kind of thinking that got us into this mess, and keeps us there. It will take a different kind of thinking to get us out.

I am trying to deal with the world as it exists, not as we wish it would be. I am open to solutions but telling me I am part of the problem because I point out facts that have existed since Ugh used a stone axe on his neighbor is hardly one of those.

Some reflections by Father Michael Baxter prior to the Iraq War on Catholic Conscientious Objection:…

Thanks for the information. Yes, I am interested in this as I am rethinking my life since I have been reading the Bible and Jesus’ words on Loving your neighbor.

The problem I see with it remains however. Starting before WWII, when Germany became a Nazi state, the Jews, generally, did not actively opose the Final Solution. Some emigrated, some hid, some (very few proportionately) fought, but many went quietly into the night. I wonder what the Final Solution would have looked like if every arrest attempt would have required what would now be considered a major SWAT operation?

Thank you for clarifying…but I don’t see how that applies… There’s no “guesswork” really, about e.g. whether innocent people might be killed by a certain tactical action. It’s a pretty clear determination. Do I misunderstand your point?

I can see where “guesswork” may be involved a priori, e.g. with the unjust Iraq war that we in the U.S. are still mired in and suffering with…presuming the government had information that was not public but legitimate (but it wasn’t) and presuming that the motives and last resort criteria were met (which are debatable) and so on…that’s all (in some ways perhaps) “guesswork” but once the conflict is initiated, I don’t think it’s accurate nor adequate to say “guesswork” rules. Seems to me it’s pretty clear before initiating lethal force what the expected outcomes are (I say this as a military vet).

As I explained in one of my earlier posts on this thread, I do not believe that it is possible to eliminate so called “collateral Damage”, death of innocents. The modern world is too integrated for there to be a clear distintion between civilian and military any longer. Just one example: Assume a major conventional attack against a US Military base. Except in a farely forward combat zone, probably half of the people on the base are civilians and there are quite possibly many children. Yet I doubt anyone would consider a base as a non-military target.

As for the guesswork being absent after the war has started, Consider if you will some of the Bomber strikes on the V2 manufaturing centers in Germay during WWII. One center was a buiried one in the German countryside. There were villiages and towns areound filled with otherwise innocent civilians and most of the work was done by slave laborers; “unter mensian”. Yet these were, I belive, valid military targets, and it was known that innocent lives would be lost before the stikes were authorized. Unjust??

As for the current war in the middle east, I was opposed to it before we went in, for other reasons than the justice or lack of involved.

Loss of life does not, in and of itself make a war unjust by Just War doctrine. I know it sounds callus, but poeple die. All are grieved for by someone. Many die without any chance for their death to serve a greater purpose. Some die outside of Grace and must depend on God’s mercy and love. What needs to be done is to reduce the loss of life the the extent possible.

Patrick

 

[itinerant1]

U.S. Military defines “weapons of mass destruction” as: Weapons of mass destruction are weapons capable of inflicting massive destruction to property and/or population, using chemical, biological or radioactive material.

Again, conventional shoulder-held firearms are in no sense considered WMD. Anyone familiar with shotguns would only laugh at the idea of it being called a WMD.

 

[diggerdomer]

As I explained in one of my earlier posts on this thread, I do not believe that it is possible to eliminate so called “collateral Damage”, death of innocents. The modern world is too integrated for there to be a clear distintion between civilian and military any longer. Just one example: Assume a major conventional attack against a US Military base. Except in a farely forward combat zone, probably half of the people on the base are civilians and there are quite possibly many children. Yet I doubt anyone would consider a base as a non-military target.

As for the guesswork being absent after the war has started, Consider if you will some of the Bomber strikes on the V2 manufaturing centers in Germay during WWII. One center was a buiried one in the German countryside. There were villiages and towns areound filled with otherwise innocent civilians and most of the work was done by slave laborers; “unter mensian”. Yet these were, I belive, valid military targets, and it was known that innocent lives would be lost before the stikes were authorized. Unjust??

As for the current war in the middle east, I was opposed to it before we went in, for other reasons than the justice or lack of involved.

Loss of life does not, in and of itself make a war unjust by Just War doctrine. I know it sounds callus, but poeple die. All are grieved for by someone. Many die without any chance for their death to serve a greater purpose. Some die outside of Grace and must depend on God’s mercy and love. What needs to be done is to reduce the loss of life the the extent possible.

Patrick

Ok, but that’s not “guesswork”

 

[itinerant1]

The problem I see with it remains however. Starting before WWII, when Germany became a Nazi state, the Jews, generally, did not actively opose the Final Solution. Some emigrated, some hid, some (very few proportionately) fought, but many went quietly into the night. I wonder what the Final Solution would have looked like if every arrest attempt would have required what would now be considered a major SWAT operation?

We have not learned what we should have from the Third Reich. The pogroms could not have been carried out without the government first instituting gun control laws. The people must be unarmed before a tyrannical government can do as it wishes. Some of our early gun control laws were modeled on those of the Third Reich. Our Second Amendment rights get chipped away every day in the U.S. by those who foolishly equate crime control with gun control.

Also, the legal system in Germany had done away with natural law jurisprudence and replaced it with legal positivism. Legal positivism asserts that whatever man made law is enacted it is the supreme law. Morality does not enter in to the equation. Hence, when Jews were stripped of their property, they had no legal recourse because the man made laws were considered the final word.

Our Constitution and Declaration are based on natural law philosophy of government. Under natural law jurisprudence, man made laws are only true laws insofar as they conform to the natural moral law. Natural law is the objective standard by which human laws are judged to be just or unjust. The problem now for the U.S. is that our legal system has done away with natural law jurisprudence and replaced it with legal positivism just as the Germans had done prior to WWII. This is why we get immoral laws like Roe v. Wade and can’t seem to get rid of them. Now there is no higher law that the legal system recognizes, which can be appealed to in order to overturn Roe and its companion case, Sullivan.

Americans have not learned anything at all from the Nuremberg Trials, which were trials based on natural law jurisprudence. Six million Jews were exterminated; mentally and physically disabled persons were exterminated, a million or more Christians, and others were exterminated. But since then, Americans have exterminated 50 million pre-born children.

A bigger holocaust is going on right here under our noses. So what could be the point in fighting in highly questionable wars such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, or having military bases in over 100 hundred countries, when there is fast going to be nothing left at home worth fighting for?

 

[itinerant1]

I am not aware of a definition of WMD. I do not believe that they are mentioned in the current Geneva Accords by that name if at all. I would imagine a definition would be something along the lines of “Weapons that cause a great deal of damage in proportion to their difficulty of employment.” In other word, easy to use and a large combat power proportionally.

Some facts about WMD definitions and treaties:

“The most widely used definition of “weapons of mass destruction” is that of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons (NBC) although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition. Instead, international law has been used with respect to the specific categories of weapons within WMD, and not to WMD as a whole.”

“The Geneva Protocol, prohibiting use of chemical weapons in warfare, was signed in 1925. Several nations, the United States included, signed with a reservation forswearing only the first use of the weapons and reserved the right to retaliate in kind if chemical weapons were used against them (the United States did not ratify the Protocol until 1975).”

“A variety of treaties and agreements have been enacted to regulate the use, development and possession of various types of weapons of mass destruction. Treaties may regulate weapons use under the customs of war (Hague Conventions, Geneva Protocol), ban specific types of weapons (Chemical Weapons Convention, Biological Weapons Convention), limit weapons research (Partial Test Ban Treaty, Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty), limit allowable weapons stockpiles and delivery systems (START I, SORT) or regulate civilian use of weapon pre-cursors (Chemical Weapons Convention, Biological Weapons Convention).”

 

[itinerant1]

I think this article here on Catholic Answers, Just War Doctrine does a good job of explaining the Catholic view. It addresses the power of modern weaponry, including WMD, collateral damage, and so on.

 

[sidbrown]

Americans have not learned anything at all from the Nuremberg Trials, which were trials based on natural law jurisprudence. ?

Suppose that Germany had won the war. Would they have been justified in hauling American and British leaders and soldiers to court for war crimes on the basis of the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima?

 

[itinerant1]

Suppose that Germany had won the war. Would they have been justified in hauling American and British leaders and soldiers to court for war crimes on the basis of the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima?

Theoretically, yes. War crimes are war crimes regardless of which country is the offender. Practically, it would be awkward for Germany to be involved in any international war crimes tribunal. It’s not like the Third Reich was accustomed to conducting just and fair trials, and Germany had dispensed with natural law jurisprudence, which provides the objective basis for trying war crimes. But it happens throughout history that the victor in war calls gets to call the shots even though he may have been the greater villain.

General Sherman, of total war against the South infamy, said in a letter to his wife that if the South wins the war then he will surely be hung as a war criminal. Sherman knew the rules of just war that were taught at West Point, as did all the generals, both North and South. And Sherman knew well he had committed war crimes.

 

[itinerant1]

A Presumption of Peace:

I recall once reading a presentation by a Professor Antonio Baggio, who pointed out the significance of the structure in which the Catechism presents the arguments regarding war. The Catechism treats the argument of war under the article entitled, The Fifth Commandment: You shall not kill. The subheading is then entitled, Safeguarding Peace, and finally the argument on war entitled, Avoiding War.

The structure in which the Catechism presents the arguments, reveals on the part of the Church a preliminary negative judgment regarding war. Thus, the central perspective of just war doctrine is actually the search to avoid war.

What is often missed in discussing war is that the conditions of just war are only part of the doctrine. The conditions of just war merely regulate the exception. The very sense of the traditional Catholic doctrine of just war lies in the search for peace.

This is evidenced, for example, by St. Augustine’s letter (Letter 229) to Darius written during the year 429 A.D., which makes the invaluable point that it is better to seek peace through peaceful means than to seek peace by war: “But it is a higher glory still to stay war itself with a word, than to slay men with the sword, and to procure or maintain peace by peace, not by war.”

+++
To Darius, his deservedly illustrious and very powerful lord and dear son in Christ, Augustine sends greetings in the Lord.

Your character and rank I have learned from my holy brothers and co-bishops, Urbanus and Novatus. The former of these became acquainted with you near Carthage, in the town of Hilari, and more recently in the town of Sicca; the latter at Sitifis. Through them it has come to pass that I cannot regard you as unknown to me. For though my bodily weakness and the chill of age do not permit me to converse with you personally, it cannot on this account be said that I have not seen you; for the conversation of Urbanus, when he kindly visited me, and the letters of Novatus, so described to me the features, not of your face but of your mind, that I have seen you, and have seen you with all the more pleasure, because I have seen not the outward appearance but the inner man. These features of your character are joyfully seen both by us, and through the mercy of God by yourself also, as in a mirror in the holy Gospel, in which it is written in words uttered by Him who is truth: "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

Those warriors are indeed great and worthy of singular honour, not only for their consummate bravery, but also (which is a higher praise) for their eminent fidelity, by whose labours and dangers, along with the blessing of divine protection and aid, enemies previously unsubdued are conquered, and peace obtained for the State, and the provinces reduced to subjection. But it is a higher glory still to stay war itself with a word, than to slay men with the sword, and to procure or maintain peace by peace, not by war. For those who fight, if they are good men, doubtless seek for peace; nevertheless it is through blood. Your mission, however, is to prevent the shedding of blood. Yours, therefore, is the privilege of averting that calamity which others are under the necessity of producing. Therefore, my deservedly illustrious and very powerful lord and very dear son in Christ, rejoice in this singularly great and real blessing vouchsafed to you, and enjoy it in God, to whom you owe that you are what you are, and that you undertook the accomplishment of such a work. May God “strengthen that which He hath wrought for us through you.” Accept this our salutation, and deign to reply. From the letter of my brother Novatus, I see that he has taken pains that your learned Excellency should become acquainted with me also through my works. If, then, you have read what he has given you, I also shall have become known to your inward perception. As far as I can judge, they will not greatly displease you if you have read them in a loving rather than a critical spirit. It is not much to ask, but it will be a great favour, if for this letter and my works you send us one letter in reply. I salute with due affection the pledge of peace, which through the favour of our Lord and God you have happily received.

 

[Corruich]

I have some concerns with the arguments against Weapons of Mass Destruction that seem to be prominent in this thread.

The argument seems to have issue with the number of “innocents” are killed by the use of WMD. We must remember that the Church values ALL human life. This is the same argument that is applied with the death penalty. The Church does not forbid the death penalty. Instead, the Church says it is allowed if it is the only option available for protecting the community. All other options must be considered before applying the death penalty. The Church does not say, “The death penalty is allowed if you can prove they are guilty.” Instead, She wants to use ever possible option available to protect the life of the guilty person, but concedes that we must protect the community too.

Now it is obviously true that WMD kill more people than convention weapons, but that fact is considered in the Just War Doctrine as follows:

the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Using this criteria, even war using WMD would not be forbidden by the church - IF their evil was less than the evil it eliminated.

-Corruich

 

[Corruich]

IF their evil was less than the evil it eliminated AND -

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective
• there must be serious prospects of success

-Corruich

 

[sidbrown]

IF their evil was less than the evil it eliminated AND -

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective
• there must be serious prospects of success

-Corruich

However, one thing that I look at is the statement in the CCC:
Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons – especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons – to commit such crimes (CCC 2314).
As I read this statement, it is clear to me that the bombing of Dresden and of Hiroshima and Nagasaki meet the criteria for “a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation”. Further the use of nuclear weapons to wipe out cities would fall under that category.