h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In my personal opinion, war is only justified when there is no other way to halt the human right violations that are occuring. In this light, I feel World War II was justified, becuase there was no other way to halt Hitler, since he was so aggressive anyway. In addition, war may be the only way to legitimize a government, such as the American Revolution, as Britian would have never given over control without a fight. The sanctitiy of life is precious, and we must remember that, no matter how terrible a person in charge of a country may be, they are still persons, and should be treated as such.

G.E.M. Anscombe, a well-known woman philosopher from England, disagrees with me on the conditions for a just war. She never stopped believing that World War II was unjustified, because innocent civilians were killed. In a piece entitled "The Justice of the Present War Examined" she systematically goes through her conditions and shows how the "present war" (AKA WWII) does not meet these conditions. The key point for her analysis was her third condition, namely "the warring state must have an upright intention in making war: it must not declare war in order to obtain or inflict anything unjust."

Some say that in light of new technological warfare, conditions for a just war are somewhat obselete, and in some cases that is true. It is more likely now than ever that innocent civilians will be killed by errant bombs and unavoidable collateral damage. But, her third condition, outlined above, is still a powerful statement. The intentions of the warring state must necessarily be upright. It should not be for corporate profit, conquering territory, or for revenge. It should be declared only when the offending state has left no other choice for the other countries, and the other countries have exhausted all other forms of diplomacy. That is something as true today as it has been since the beginning of warfare in human history.

"It is more likely now than ever that innocent civilians will be killed by errant bombs and unavoidable collateral damage."

Some mistake, surely? It is now LESS likely than ever that innocent civilians will be killed. There will never again be a blitz like that which hit London, or Coventry, or Dresden. One of the defining characteristics of the recent war on Iraq was the surprisingly low civilian casualties. Of course, saturation media coverage inflates how much we see of the relatively few casualties there are, but the fact remains that modern munitions simply don't kill as many non-combatants as old-style carpet bombing did.

H.

Collateral damage would be accidental, not intentional. 9/11/01 3000+ humans were murdered with absolute suicidal intention. Since that time it is interesting that the U.S. has managed to kill 5000+ in Afghanistan and Iraq with no intention whatsoever.

For accurate substantiated civilian casualties in Iraq go to . There are links to figures concerning Afghanistan.

9/11 is unjustified but what is the difference between what we call terrorism and what we call war. 9/11 may as well be considered a part of war which makes the whole war unjustified.

I strongly disagree with Hoovooloo. Just because bombs are more precise and sophisticated, does not mean that less civilians die. In fact I stand by my original statement. These new bombs can target key locations of cities, such as water treatment plants and factories. Taking these targets out would mean doom for all citizens, including civilians. Also, bombs are explosive, they can take out large portions of land, and they don't care whether civilians or military personnel are present. Certainly it is never the intent of the military to target civilians, but they know that collateral damage is inevitable. But it is not unavoidable. Those same civilians could have been saved if another avenue, such as negotiation or diplomacy had been utilized to its fullest extent and solved the same conflict. Oftentimes, war is the first resort, and not the last. But as a result of war, millions of people die, both during the conflict and afterwards during reconstruction. The land and infrastructure is not working properly, so many things, such as food and clean water, are denied to citizens. As a result many starve to death or die of disease. This is not intended either, but is not included in calculations of collateral damage. This is what Anscombe is arguing, that war is rarely justified, because its outcome is almost as bad as the original situation.

The difference in numbers of civilians killed has almost nothing to do with the bombs, and it is all about tactics. If we wanted to kill civilians we would do it with accurate bombs, if we didn't when the bombs werent accurate we wouldn't have.

On April 7 2003 the U.S. forces targeted a resturaunt in Iraq having been given information that Saddam Hussien was there.
A) Civilians would have been working in and around this resturaunt and were considered unavoidable colateral targets. So the accuracy of the bomb meant nothing as far as reducing civilian casualties.
B) The bombadier mistakenly targeted two houses across the street and dropped six tons of munitions on them killing eight civilians. Again the accuracy of the weapons meant nothing.
Before and up to the first world war 90% of casualties were in the military. Now that ratio is reversed. In the current Iraq conflict the ratio of Iraqi solders to civlians killed was probably more toward the soldiers but that is only one of the conflicts underway and if you include the long list of civilians that will die and be injured in the comming years from mines, unexploded munitions and disease caused by the destrucion of water treatment facilities,hospitals etc. I think the 90% ratio has a chance of being met again.

"...U.S. forces targeted a resturaunt ...
A) Civilians would have been working in and around this resturaunt and were considered unavoidable colateral targets. So the accuracy of the bomb meant nothing as far as reducing civilian casualties."

Hang on. They targetted a RESTAURANT. A single building, in a built up area.

Even twenty years ago, that was simply impossible.

Twenty years ago, given the same intelligence, the US would have had two options:

1. Do nothing. Allow Saddam to finish his dinner in peace - if he's there.

2. Carpet the entire area with high explosives, killing everyone within a half mile radius.

Improved accuracy of munitions OBVIOUSLY reduces civilians killed, if the comparison is between using accurate missiles rather than inaccurate bombs.

"B) The bombadier mistakenly targeted two houses across the street and dropped six tons of munitions on them killing eight civilians. Again the accuracy of the weapons meant nothing."

Um... again, I'd say the accuracy meant a lot. Killing only eight civilians in a city centre area despite dropping six tonnes of explosives on them is incredible.

For comparison, the 'Real IRA' bomb in Omagh in 1998 weighed less than a third of a tonne, and killed 29 people and injured over 200.

THAT is what you get with inaccurate munitions - indiscriminate destruction on a massive scale.

H.

"Before and up to the first world war 90% of casualties were in the military."

It is estimated that during the 30 years war 30% of the population of Germany was killed. For your 90% figure to be correct, that means that 27% must have been in the military, which I severely doubt.

"Civilians would have been working in and around this resturaunt and were considered unavoidable colateral targets"

These civilians did not have to be killed. These people lost their lives because of information that was probably false. We bombed the restruant because we wanted Sadam dead and a quick end to the war with minimum American casualties. We are placing the lives of our men and women who are in Iraq, accepting the danger that they are in, over the civilians who did nothing to put themselvs in the position they were in.