Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal mercedo's Journal: Morality Of War 11

Journal by mercedo

War means killing each other. There must be no morality in it. But in fact there is a morality of war. First thing. War has to be a last resort. War has to be started after all possible peaceful means turned to be useless. So first, diplomacy, then eventually after ultimatum was not accepted, only war starts.

War has to be held between militaries. No civilians ought to be hurt from the battle, however, it is just an ideal of war act. How about using a radicon helicopter like this. Yesterday motor and piano company Yamaha was raided from police whether their shipment of this product to China is violating a law prohibiting an exporting of weaponry.

If the aim of war is to minimise the damage of our side and maximise the damage of their side, unmanned weaponry meets these demands, but how about the morality of war? Here's the related article from BBC.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Morality Of War More

Morality Of War

Comments Filter:
    • I reject the Just War theory. While it is best to avoid war where it can reasonably be avoided, when it does come it is best to use as much force as you can possibly bring to bear. Preferably such overwhelming violence that the enemy is not just defeated, but demoralized and crushed so severely (psychologically, if not physically) that they literally will be willing to even contemplate acting against you in the future.

      However, while being ruthless in war, it is also important to be magnaminous in victory.
    • Thanks for the link. It will take some time for me to conceive some idea from this useful article, when I could do, I would like to write an article about it.

  • In the south inner chamber (the old house chamber) of the Captol building (where few are allowed to go these days), there is a statue [aoc.gov]. The rattle snake in this statue represents war. A rattlesnake never attacks unless provoked, and never without warning (by shaking it's tail), but when it does attack, it does so quickly, and fiercely.

    I think our government does not take the time to actually look at the clues left for them by those who came before them.

    • I still remember the days to visit Washington D.C. It was many years ago at age 25. I stayed for a week in an apartment of a friend of mine who were majoring in public administration in American University. We took sightseeing tour by bus, and we went to see around many monuments there. I still remember the big statue of Lincoln sitting on the chair. It was very impressive.

      I don't know when I can visit Washington D.C. again, though, I would like to visit inside Capitol Hill to see these statues.

  • The notion of not attacking civilians is really quite a recent development. Indeed, historically it used to be a chief tactic to attack civilian populations, usually for the purpose of extermination or enslavement.

    Is the modern way "better"? Well, for those of us who are civilians, yes, it is better we not be indiscriminately slaughtered. But in terms of military and political effectiveness of the militaries involved, it may not be.

    It is a matter of morality that we don't attack civilians, but as Stargoa
    • If we thought there's a morality in war, probably we would be mislead. There's no morality in war in the first place, which means anything's possible to overcome our enemy. If we thought so, everything is explicable. Unmanned weaponry is second to none as a means to win the war.

      As you pointed out, massacre has always been taken place in the history of war. Relatively recently in Rwanda, Serbia, Kosovo, in Europe during World War II under German occupation, in Nanjin China under Japanese occupation, etc. Th

      • Have you read "The Art of War" by Sun-Tzu? He also prefers to avoid military conflict as much as possible. Not going to war is his first rule of war!

        Of course, one might suggest that warfare is a means of population control - when populations get too large, their resource demands increase and it becomes cheaper to just take resources by force than to purchase them. War kills off some amount of the population, decreasing the resource needs and allowing again for peaceful means of acquisition to become che

  • War isn't about maximizing damage. That is just the means to an end, and not always an effective means. Sometimes more focused, less general damage is much more effective, as witness Hitler's strategic blunder in the battle of Britain.

    The aim of war( outside of pure animal aggression) as I see it, is to impose your will on your enemy, or to prevent him from imposing his will on you.

    • The aim of war( outside of pure animal aggression) as I see it, is to impose your will on your enemy, or to prevent him from imposing his will on you.

      Yeah, exactly. This describes the psychological phase of all wars.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Turn on, tune up, rock out." -- Billy Gibbons

Close