War

The recent conflict in Gaza resulted in what has been described as a high civilian casualty number. (Although, considering that in the Gulf War coalition forces killed over 3000 civilians and 3000 people die ever week in the Iraq War, I’m not sure several hundred constitutes as a high casualty rate.) But, I do think that there was an issue. Human Rights Watch claims to have investigated and discovered that most of the civilian deaths resulted from misuse of unmanned aircrafts, white phosphorus, and cluster missiles. The more I think about it the more I feel that weapons like these should be banned. Their lack of precision seems to be the main cause of civilian deaths in all three of the mentioned wars. For example, a bunker with 400 civilians (many children) was hit by a US stealth bomber during an air raid in the Gulf War. What is the UN’s stance on such methods of war and how would one go about influencing these in such a way that puts strict regulations on the usage of weapons that are so indiscriminate?

Comments

Lack of precison in warfare is inevitable once civilians and military are mixed up with each other, which is increasingly the case in modern war. So one could say then that war becomes entirely immoral, but this makes it even more likely that ruthless people will use civilians in their military operations. Or one could say that one will try to distinguish as far as possible between civilians and insurgents, which is a pretty empty policy once the bullets start flying. Right now the US and British military in Afghanistan have responded to pressure from the Afghan government to unleash less remote bombing operations to cut down on civilian deaths, and this has resulted predictably in increased military deaths among the allies.

Before we throw up our hands and say that moral decision making is impossible, we should reflect on the fact that in much of morality agents are put in difficult situations and have to choose the better of unpleasant alternatives. So rather than trying to establish a UN policy of regulating weapons that no-one would adhere to anyway it would be preferable to think seriously about what in a particular situation is the less bad action. For example, there are occasions when the police have to take risks with innocent hostages' lives to catch criminals and a balance has to be struck here between the competing rights and interests of all the parties. Blanket rules on the use of particular weapons is unlikely to be helpful.

A traditional component of the 'just warfare doctrine' emphasizes the importance of 'discrimination' between soldiers and civilians in carrying out a 'just war.' While often ignored, this requirement was easier to fulfill before technology changed the nature of warfare over the past couple centuries. After all, it was relatively easy to know whom you were attacking with a spear or sword. Compared to the indiscriminant carpet bombing and fire bombing tactics used during the conflicts of the mid-twentieth century I think things have improved considerably in recent years due to the creation of higher precision ammunitions. However, even high precision ammunitions require accurate intelligence and careful rules of engagement to avoid substantial civilian casualties. In the conflicts you mention, discrimination has also become more difficult because the use of 'irregulars' (non-uniformed combatants), the use of civillian areas for military cover, and the awareness that civilian casualties can be used to generate sympathy through the media have all increased.

All military weapons have the potential for misuse, but I am uncertain whether any of the weapons you mention are genuine examples of weapons that are inherently indiscriminate. If there is an ethical problem, it is in the nature of how they have been used not in the nature of the weapon itself.

Read another response by Oliver Leaman, Eric Silverman

Read another response about War