The concept and ethics of modern warfare.

**AdityaMookerjee** · 27 Nov 11,, 13:26

Should modern warfare be fought along ethical concepts? What should those concepts be? Are all wars, ethical, for at least one party to the war? If the adversary is unethical in her war towards my state, then is my state ethical, in her war towards her enemy, or adversary?
Perhaps, just perhaps, wars are never ethical. Perhaps, the Republic of France, was unethical, in her war against Libya, even when Libyan armed forces were unethical in their war against the people of Libya. The Second World War, was never, also perhaps, an ethical crusade for the Allies, because of the suffering caused to Germany. It is true, that the Allies rebuilt Germany, but only after rending her asunder.
All my previous written statements, do not condone warfare as a necessary evil. They are meant to condone warfare altogether. Wars are not fought, to win. They are fought, because there is no other option.
Perhaps, my ideas are not relevant to the modern era, but to all eras of human history. On the gist of my ideas, is it ethical for a nation to grow her warfare capabilities, in number, and technologically, during peacetime?
The concept of modern warfare suggests that we destroy the adversary in large numbers, and if possible, not incur any losses in any number, ourselves.
We are perhaps, taking the unethical concept of war, to the next level of unethical concept, which has nothing to do with war. War should not be planned, when there is no war taking place.
What is the thin line, between preparing to defend ourselves against agression, and preparing for war, in peacetime? The question arises, can a nation defend herself against agression, so that she is not attacked? I don't believe so.

**Triple C** · 28 Nov 11,, 00:44

Negotiating the demands of law and necessity had been a feature of civilized warfare since ancient times. That it is difficult does not constitute an excuse not to pursue it. Just like anything worth doing, confronting it requires intellectual vigor and moral courage; I do not think, for my part, that "mere expediency" is interchangeable with "necessity". I will give you an ancient example and a modern example. In the Battle of Agincourt, Henry V executed French prisoners, but he was not condemned for it, because the real threat of a prisoner breakout and escape outweighed the demands of chivalry. In contrast, US troops in Iraq operated under a very restrictive RoE with regard to mosques and religious sites, which states that troops are forbidden to fire on mosques unless insurgents were putting effective fire on US troops from them. In this case, American causalities that might be incurred from the RoE is not sufficiently great to justify an overwhelming and undiscriminating use of firepower.

In juggling with those problems I suggest you to distinguish jus ad bellum (just cause for conducting war) and just in bello (just conduct of war). A nation can engage in warfare for a just cause but lapse into an unjust conduct thereof, just as a nation can fight for an unjust cause fairly. Also, keep in mind that international law implicitly recognizes the possibly that two nations can simultaneously wage just war against each other in a just manner.

**snapper** · 28 Nov 11,, 19:26

"The concept of modern warfare suggests that we destroy the adversary in large numbers, and if possible, not incur any losses in any number, ourselves." The concepy of war (moraly - and I'm NOT a ethics philosopher but an epistemologist) is to stop your enemy hurting your troops and people - that is if you have a jus bellum: were attacked first or threatened by it/or have allies attacked or threatened etc... Basic point is not to kill 'them in general' but to stop them being able to hurt you/ally: ie. Destroy their amy.

**lemontree** · 29 Nov 11,, 06:22

The Geneva Convention is an agreement that has laid down the basic ethics to be followed by armies during war time. Most good armies follow these ethics, and to a large extent the conduct of the enemy also dictates an army's behaviour.

In the Indian context, the PLA follows proper ethics and treat their POWs well, while the Pak Army has a rather savage reputation when it deals with Indian POWs.