War, Weapons, and Terrorism PDF

# Chapter 9: War, Weapons, and Terrorism ## September 11th, 2001 On the morning of September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror the televised terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. Approximately 3,000 people died in the attacks on the World Trade Center, 184 in the attack on...

# Chapter 9: War, Weapons, and Terrorism ## September 11th, 2001 On the morning of September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror the televised terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. Approximately 3,000 people died in the attacks on the World Trade Center, 184 in the attack on the Pentagon, and 40 passengers and crew members in the hijacked plane that went down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. In addition, nineteen hijackers were killed in the four plane crashes. Following the attacks, President George W. Bush declared war on terrorism and launched a military campaign against Afghanistan's Taliban government and the Afghan-based terrorist organization al-Qaeda, which was held responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center. In 2003 President Bush launched a preemptive strike on Iraq which, he argued, not only possessed weapons of mass destruction but was harboring terrorist groups bent on destroying America. ## Background The September 11 attack and our response to it raise several moral issues. - Is terrorism ever morally justified? - What is the morally proper response to terrorism? - Are preemptive wars or wars of aggression ever morally acceptable? - What means should a government use to protect its citizens from attack or threats of attack? ## War War involves the use of armed violence between nations or between competing political factions to achieve a political purpose. Although there are some societies, such as the Eskimos, who have no term for war and have never engaged in warfare, war has been a fact of life in most organized states (including tribal states). - Some philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes argue that war is necessary for the survival of a civil society. The advent of the modern nation-state and the rise of nationalism increased the scale of war. - The nineteenth century witnessed efforts to put an end to war through international peace movements and plans to organize nations to ensure peace. - After World War I abolitionists sought to control war through the formation of the League of Nations. - Despite some initial hope for international peace and cooperation, the wars of the twentieth century dwarfed all previous wars in terms of their destructiveness. - In the twentieth century 191 million people were killed either directly or indirectly by war. - Half of these people were civilians. The United Nations (UN) was established in 1945 after World War II to promote world peace and justice. However, this objective was not achieved, possibly because of the UN’s lack of judicial and enforcement power. - Since the end of World War II there have been more than four hundred wars. - Worldwide, wars kill about 1.6 million people a year. - Many millions more have died of starvation and other war-related causes, or are maimed or forced to relocate. - Although still high, the number of war-related deaths have been on the decline since 1990, with the exception of conflicts in the Middle East. ### Motives for War - Self-defense against aggression or threat of aggression - The desire to expand one’s territory either directly or indirectly through control of markets and resources - Ideological/religious motives - The concept of a holy war emerged in the Christian tradition during the Crusades and is found today among certain radical Islamic groups. Most wars have mixed motives. For example, the current war on terrorism is a response to the threat of aggression and also has ideological/religious undertones in that both sides portray it as a war of good against evil and each side claims to be doing God’s will. ## Terrorism Terrorism involves the use of politically motivated violence to target noncombatants and create intimidation. Terrorism is most often used by groups that lack the power to engage in conventional warfare. - It is usually indirect and avoids direct confrontation with enemy military forces. - Terrorism can be sponsored by non-state groups, as in the September 11 attacks, the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India, which killed 179 people, and the 2014 attack in Nigeria by Boko Haram in which over 200 people were killed. - The line between war and terrorism is imprecise. Terrorism can be used as a strategy in the context of a war, such as when the United States dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. - Terrorism can also be domestic, as was the case in the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. ## The Philosophers on War and Terrorism Christian natural law theory has had a major impact on thinking about the morality of war. - In his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) lists three conditions that must be met for a war to be just: - The war must be waged by a legitimate authority. - The cause should be just. - The belligerents should have the right intentions. ### Just-War Tradition Just-war theory is not a single theory but an evolving framework. Theories of just war are found in both Western and non-Western religious and secular ethics. - The just-war tradition addresses the questions of *jus ad bellum* (the right to go to war), and *jus in bello* (the just conduct of war). ### Jus ad bellum *Jus ad bellum* states that the following conditions should be met before going to war: 1. War must be declared and waged by a legitimate authority. 2. There must be a just cause for going to war. 3. War must be the last resort. 4. There must be a reasonable prospect of success. 5. The violence used must be proportional to the wrong being resisted. While these conditions seem reasonable in theory, it can be difficult to determine if they are being satisfied. - For example, what is meant by a legitimate authority? - The Hobbesian belief that the only legitimate authority is an absolute sovereignty is no longer accepted. - Today most people regard democratically elected governments as more legitimate. - The idea of legitimate authority also raises the question of whether governments are the only legitimate authorities. - The United Nations recognizes the right of self-determination of groups of people as well as states. - Do groups of disenfranchised people, such as the American colonists who waged war against the British, constitute a legitimate authority? - Also, what constitutes a just cause? - Former President George W. Bush reserved the right to make a preemptive or “preventive" strike against any nation he perceived as a threat, even though that nation had not taken any aggressive action against us. - Is this consistent with the requirements of *jus ad bellum*? - If so, would we be justified attacking Iran? - Furthermore, how do we know that we have tried all other options before going to war? - According to pacifists, there are always nonviolent alternatives to war, including nonviolent resistance toward an occupying force. - And how does one determine if the prospect for success is reasonable? - When the U.S. and British forces invaded Iraq in 2003, they felt confident that they had an excellent prospect of quick success. - Yet several years later the war was still going on. - On the other hand, few reasonable people thought the American colonists could win a war against the British Empire. - Finally, how do we determine what is proportional? - Was the destruction of thousands of civilian lives in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki worth the possible loss of American military lives in an invasion of Japan? ### Jus in bello For a war to be conducted justly, the following two conditions should be met: 1. Noncombatants should not be intentionally targeted. 2. The tactics used must be a proportional response to the injury being redressed. - It is possible for a justly waged war to be fought unjustly. - For example, even though World War II was a just war from the perspective of the Allies, some people maintain that the scatter bombing of German cities by the Allies (see Case Study 1: Allied Firebombing during World War II) and the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan violated both principles of *jus in bello*. - The My Lai massacre in the Vietnam War also violated the principle of noncombatant immunity. - In this incident American soldiers entered a Vietnamese village and found only women, children, and old men. - Frustrated that the male combatants had managed to escape, Lieutenant William Calley ordered his soldiers to open fire on the villagers. - Noncombatants include those who are not agents in directing aggression or carrying it out. - However, in modern warfare the line between noncombatants and combatants tends to be blurred. - Even children can be drawn into war as combatants, as happened in Vietnam and is happening in the Sudan (see Chapter 10, Case Study 5: The “Bambi Boom”). - Also, is it fair to hold individual soldiers responsible in countries where young people are forcibly conscripted into military service? - The politicians who launch the wars rarely serve on the front lines. #### Is the assassination of terrorist leaders morally justifiable? - See Case Study 5: Prisoners of War: Trials and Torture. ## Charter of the United Nations ### Chapter I, Purposes and Principles **Article 1** The Purposes of the United Nations are: 1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measure to strengthen universal peace; 3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all ... **Article 2** The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.... 3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. **Used with permission.** - Furthermore, is it just to kill enemy combatants who do not pose a direct threat to our lives, as in the case of the bombing of retreating Iraqi soldiers during the First Gulf War? - Should we treat those who work in weapons factories as enemy combatants? - Just-war tradition also does not give adequate guidance on what constitutes acceptable treatment of prisoners of war or enemy combatants, an issue addressed by David Luban in his reading in this chapter. - Is torture morally acceptable as a means of trying to get information from an enemy combatant about a possible future terrorist attack, information that could potentially save hundreds of lives? - In addition, the just-war tradition does not adequately address *jus post bellum*, or justice after war. - Is occupation of a defeated nation or territory morally acceptable and, if so, under what circumstances? - To what extent is it just for the victor to attempt to change the political system and culture of the occupied country? - Do countries have a moral obligation following a war to make restitution to civilians harmed by war? ## Chapter VII, Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression **Article 39** The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. **Article 41** The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. **Article 42** Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. **Article 51** Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. **Used with permission.** ## Weapons of Mass Destruction Unlike conventional weapons, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), such as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, indiscriminately target both combatants and noncombatants. In the years following World War II nuclear weapons were used as a deterrent by the United States and the Soviet Union. - The reasoning behind deterrence is that the consequences of retaliation would be so catastrophic that neither side would risk a first strike with nuclear weapons. With the end of the cold war, instead of disarmament, the threat of global nuclear war between the two superpowers was replaced by the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the world and concerns about the use of nuclear weapons by terrorist groups. - In 2002 former President Bush rejected the long-standing commitment of the United States not to use nuclear weapons in a first strike or against nonnuclear nations. Worldwide, there are about 15,000 nuclear weapons, many of which are ready to launch at a moment’s notice. - The United States alone has about 6,500 nuclear weapons positioned at sites in the United States and Europe. - Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea also possess nuclear weapons. - Arab nations are particularly concerned about Israel’s arsenal of nuclear weapons, whereas Israel is concerned about the possibility that Iran and other Arab nations may be producing nuclear weapons and other WMDs. - Jonathan Granoff, in "Nuclear Weapons, Ethics, Morals and Law," questions the legitimacy of using nuclear weapons, even for deterrence, and urges that all countries work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. Chemical and biological weapons have been around much longer than nuclear weapons. - During the French and Indian War the British gave smallpox-infected blankets to the Delaware Indians. - Anthrax and mustard gas were both used by the Germans in World War I. - The use, though not the production and possession, of chemical and biological weapons was prohibited by the 1925 Geneva Convention. - Despite the prohibition, thousands of people died as a result of Soviet chemical and biological weapons that were used in Afghanistan, Laos, and Cambodia. - Saddam Hussein also used chemical weapons against the Kurds in Northern Iraq. - Today many countries have biological weapons programs. - Unlike the production of nuclear weapons, which requires expensive facilities and highly enriched uranium, biological and chemical weapons are sometimes called "the poor man’s atomic bomb" because their construction is much cheaper and their effects can be just as devastating. - In addition, recent developments in biotechnology and genetic engineering have made it possible to produce biological agents that have greater resistance to detection and treatment. - According to the U.S. Department of Transportation more than 220 million people flew between the United States and foreign countries in 2017. - It usually takes up to two weeks for the symptoms of a contagious disease contracted in another country or on a plane to appear, which gives potential terrorists ample time to go into hiding. ## Pacifism and Conscription There are different types of pacifism. - Absolute pacifists believe that all violence is wrong, even for self-defense. - This position has been criticized for being contradictory because it assumes a right not to be attacked, but not the right of self-defense to defend that right. - It is immoral and irresponsible, critics argue, not to allow countries to defend their citizens against aggression. - Some pacifists get around these objections by maintaining that while they have a duty not to meet force with force, this is a supererogatory duty (morality that goes beyond what is normally required) and not one that is binding on all people. - Other pacifists oppose violence except for self-defense and may even participate, though not as combatants, in a war of self-defense. - In line with this, some argue, one could own a gun but could only use it in self-defense. - In his "Remarks on Common-Sense Gun Control," President Obama lays out some steps citizens of the United States, as a country, could take to cut down on gun violence. Pacifists actively seek peaceful alternatives to war. - Indian political activist Mohandas “Mahatma” Gandhi (1869–1948) opposed all war and advocated nonviolent resistance (*satyagraha*) as a response to violence and oppression. - *Satyagraha* is not passive “non-violence,” but a method of unconditional love (*ahimsa*) in action. - Peace is not simply the absence of war but the presence of justice and the practice of *ahimsa*. - Others, including Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas, reject pacifism as a morally untenable position and argue that the Bible permits and even requires war in some instances. ### Conscription Conscription, or mandatory military service, raises issues of justice as well as freedom of conscience. - The first national draft in the United States was during the Civil War. - However, there was a proviso that allowed a person drafted to buy a substitute for $300 (about a year’s wages). - The draft was reinstated in World War I. - Sixteen million young American men were conscripted between 1917 and the end of the Vietnam War in 1973. The military defines conscientious objection (CO) as “opposition to war, in any form, based on a moral, religious, or ethical code." - Pacifists, by definition, are conscientious objectors when it comes to war. - There were an estimated 37,000 conscientious objectors in World War II and 200,000 in the Vietnam War. - In addition to proving they are sincere in their opposition to all wars (no easy task), a conscientious objector still must go through boot camp, although not weapons training, and then be assigned to some sort of civilian duty after the training. - Only a small percentage of people who apply for CO status receive it. - (See Case Study 3: Ehren Watada: The Officer Who Refused to Be Deployed.) Some objectors choose to engage in civil disobedience and go to prison. - Henry David Thoreau, in his essay on “Civil Disobedience" (1849), writes that when breaking an unjust law and engaging in civil disobedience, one should do so in a manner that is consistent with moral principles; in keeping with this, civil dissidents must: - Use only moral and nonviolent means to achieve their goal. - First make an effort to bring about change through legal means. - Be open and public about their actions. - Be willing to accept the consequences of their actions. Other conscientious objectors choose to leave the country or go into the military but refuse to fire on the enemy. - Sometimes people become conscientious objectors after joining the military and experiencing war. - (See Case Study 3: Ehren Watada: The Officer Who Refused to Be Deployed.) - According to a survey conducted by the U.S. military at the end of World War II, up to 75 percent of soldiers in some of the units refused to fire on the enemy or fired their weapons into the air. ### Selective Service System Although the Selective Service System still exists and young men are required to register with it within a month of their eighteenth birthday, conscription was abolished in the United States after the Vietnam War. - In 2003, the Universal National Service Act was introduced in Congress in response to the strain being placed on the professional military by the war in Iraq. - The act was rewritten and reintroduced in 2005 and again in 2006, 2007, 2010, and 2013 without success. - If it ever passes, it would reinstate conscription, making it “the obligation of every citizen [male and female] of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of [two years] of national service.” - Deferments would be granted to full-time high school students under the age of 20 and exemptions given for extreme hardship or physical or mental disability as well as for those who have “served honorably in the military for at least six months.” - People who are conscientious objectors would be assigned to either noncombat or national civilian service. Americans have a long history of ambivalence about military conscription. - The primary moral argument against conscription is based on autonomy. - Conscription, which puts the draftee at risk for death or permanent disability, is a violation of a person’s liberty rights and lowers the quality and motivation of the military. - Senator Ron Paul disagrees. - He argues that conscription discriminates against poorer Americans and constitutes forced servitude. (See Ron Paul, “Conscription-The Terrible Price of War" at the end of this chapter.) - In fact, the voluntary army is made up disproportionately of poorer people. - One of the complaints of the current voluntary system is that military recruiters tend to target poor youth in urban centers–the so-called “poverty draft.” - During the economic recession that began in 2008, military recruitment figures went way up and all branches of the military exceeded their recruitment goals as Americans who were laid off sought stable employment. Arguments for the draft focus on social justice and equality. - A draft, it is argued, would promote a sense of unity and a common vision. - Opponents of the draft note that equality was not promoted when the draft existed. - They claim that a universal draft will accomplish only the indoctrination of draftees into nationalistic and militaristic attitudes. - On the other hand, research suggests that democracies that have conscripted armies are more cautious about going to war because people are more personally affected. ## The Moral Issues ### Respect for Persons Pacifists argue that war is incompatible with the moral imperative to treat persons as ends-in-themselves. - War, by dividing people into us and the enemy, dehumanizes the so-called enemy and creates an us-versus-them/good-versus-evil mentality. - In a 2017 Gallup poll, almost half of the Americans polled stated that they had an unfavorable view toward Muslims and Islam. - In addition, despite our claim that civilians in enemy countries are innocent, their deaths as “collateral damages" are not given the moral weight of deaths of American combatants. Jonathan Granoff argues that war violates the principle of reciprocity or the Golden Rule, which is based on respect for persons. - On the other hand, those who support the just-war theory, such as Aquinas, point out that for a government to stand by and not defend its citizens against an aggressive attack involves not taking the personhood and security of its citizens seriously. ### Rights In the military, autonomy is restricted for the sake of the greater good. - This is particularly evident in conscription, in which the duty of fidelity to one’s country is seen as overriding one’s liberty rights. - War raises the issue of the rights of political communities as well. - Hobbes regarded the right to security and freedom from violence as one of the most basic rights and the primary purpose of the social contract. - This entails the right of a state to defend itself against attack. - The right to a preemptive strike is generally regarded as an extension of the right to self-defense. - However, how great and how imminent does the threat need to be to justify a preemptive strike? - Was the invasion of Iraq morally justified on the grounds of self-defense? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent international human rights laws protect the rights of all people. - Noncombatants have a right to life and a basic standard of living. - In addition, prisoners of war have a right to decent treatment under international law. - However, many nations continue to violate these basic human rights. The United States has refused to adopt international human rights law, arguing that U.S. law provides adequate protection of human rights. - The rights of 171 “enemy combatants” being held, as of May 2011, by the United States government at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba raised questions about the adequacy of this policy. - The U.S. Supreme Court in 2006 ruled that former President Bush had overstepped his power in ordering war-crimes trials for detainees. - President Obama issued an executive order to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay and end torture and harsh interrogation techniques. - However, in 2011 he reversed his position, signing the Defense Authorization Bill which prevents the transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to mainland United States or to other foreign countries. - In 2018, President Trump issued an executive order to keep the prison open indefinitely. - As of May 2018, there were forty prisoners remaining at Guantanamo. - (See Case Study 5 Prisoners of War: Trials and Torture.) The USA Patriot Act, which was passed soon after September 11, and the targeting of more than 5,000 Arabs and Muslims for detention and questioning also have serious implications for the protection of human rights. - (See Case Study 2: USA Patriot/Freedom Act and the War against Terrorism.) - The U.S. government justifies these policies on the grounds of national security, arguing that the positive right of U.S. citizens to security outweighs the liberty rights of potential terrorists. - Luban argues that the war on terrorism may be seriously eroding international human rights. Justice was also an issue in the ban against permitting those who are openly homosexual to serve in the U.S. military. - The ban was overturned in 2011. ### Consequentialism and Nonmaleficence The restriction on rights and the harms associated with war are generally justified as a means of preserving the greater good of society. - However, is war the most utilitarian means to preserve beneficial ends such as our freedom, culture, and standard of living? - Was World War II, for example, the best means, from a utilitarian point of view, of defeating Hitler? - What about the war in Iraq? - While most people agree that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein’s regime, many disagree that an American invasion of Iraq was the best means of achieving this end. - The question of consequences has come up again with Iran. - What is the best means—war, negotiation, embargos—of reducing these countries’ threat to us and other nations? Utilitarians such as Bentham and Mill, although not pacifists, were opposed to war because of the grievous harms associated with it. - According to the World Health Organization, war is one of the leading public health issues of our time. - In the four decades following World War II, more than 100 million people were killed during wars, with millions more dying of starvation and disease related to war. - Millions of people have lost their homes and sometimes even their homeland as a result of war. - More than 6 million people were displaced in Sudan and Sierra Leone alone as a result of civil wars. - In addition, there are the harms to the men and women who serve or have served in the military. - While thousands have lost their lives in battle, the Wounded Warrior Project estimates that one-third of those who survive suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). - Even with the use of remotely operated drones for targeted killings, many of the operators of the drones who are working out of Virginia suffer from PTSD. - The National Center for PTSD has also found that, although most vets with PTSD never engage in violence, PSTD is associated with an increased risk of violence, including the use of guns and other weapons. ### Principle of Double Effect The principle of double effect is found in Catholic just-war theory. - According to this principle, if a course of action, such as bombing a town, is likely to have two quite different effects, one legitimate and the other not, the action may still be permissible if the legitimate effect was intended (e.g., the disabling of a military installation or the bringing of a war to an end) and the illicit effect (e.g., the killing of civilians) unintended. - The principle of double effect was used to justify the unintended killing of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One of the problems with this principle is that unintentional harms are still harms. - Killing civilians unintentionally with another end in mind does not justify knowingly killing them, especially if the unintended harms of the action outweigh the intended benefits. - The principle of double effect also reduces people being unintentionally harmed to a means only, and thus violates Kant’s categorical imperative. ### Justice The condition of proportionality in the just-war tradition is based on the principle of justice. - This principle states that the violence used must be in proportion to the injury being redressed. - Justice is also a concern surrounding conscription and in treatment of citizens in an occupied or conquered country. - Some people maintain that justice requires that we share the burden of military service through conscription. - It is not fair that the burden of protecting our country is borne primarily by those who come from less privileged parts of society, as tends to be the case with a voluntary military. - President Ronald Reagan, contrast opposed a military draft arguing that an all voluntary military is more motivated and effective. The principles of justice as equality raises the question of who should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, a question recently raised with North Korea. - In "Nuclear Weapons, Ethics, Morals and Law," Jonathan Granoff argues that allowing some nations to possess nuclear weapons while forbidding others to do so violates the principle of equality. - Justice is also an issue in the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians in occupied countries. ### Self-Determination The United Nations recognizes the right of people to “self-determination, freedom and independence." - The efforts of a victorious country to impose its form of government, its concept of freedom, and its cultural and economic values on another country have been criticized as a violation of a people’s right to self-determination. John Stuart Mill argued that self-determination and political freedom are not the same. - A state has the right to self-determination even if its citizens are struggling for political freedom. - Self-help, not occupation and liberation by another country, is the best way for citizens to develop the virtues necessary for self-governance. - One of the arguments for withdrawing American troops from Iraq was that Iraqis should be allowed to determine the future course for their country, even if this means civil war. On the other hand, assisting people in their struggle for freedom does not always violate their right to self-determination. - For example, the French assisted the American colonists in the American Revolution. - Knowing where to draw the line between interference and assistance in a people’s struggle for self-determination has always been difficult. ### Duty of Fidelity In 2002 U.S. citizen John Walker Lindh was sentenced to twenty years in a federal prison for his association with al-Qaeda. - Treason is considered worse than betrayal by a noncitizen because treason violates the duty of fidelity. - Living in a country of one’s own volition and benefiting from its protection and advantages create a prima facie duty of fidelity or loyalty to that country. - However, what does this duty entail? - Does the duty of fidelity justify conscription, or does it merely prohibit treason and terrorist acts against one’s own government? - What about instances in which one’s own government is unjust? Soldiers and others involved in a war effort also have a duty of fidelity to their commanders. - However, this duty must be weighed against other moral duties. - The argument by Nazi war criminals that they were just obeying the orders of their superiors was found unacceptable in international courts. - People need to take personal responsibility for their choices. - The duty of fidelity to serve the country can also come into conflict with the duty of fidelity to one's children. - This raises the question of whether parent(s) of young children should be made to serve on active duty. - (See Case Study 4: When Parental Duty Conflicts with Military Duty.) ### Personal Responsibility Soldiers are not merely passive instruments of war. - In the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, while most of the soldiers followed orders to “waste” the villagers, others refused to obey. - One junior officer even stood between the soldiers and the villagers in an attempt to stop the slaughter. Conscientious objection in the face of conscription also entails taking personal responsibility for one’s decision. - During the Vietnam War many conscientious objectors chose to leave the United States and take up residence in another country. - Others engaged in civil disobedience and willingly accepted the punishment for their actions as a means of raising public awareness. The people who design and produce weapons also must accept responsibility for their actions. - Because much of the technology used in the production and delivery of weapons of mass destruction can have both peacetime and military applications, researchers need to be aware how the technology they are developing might be used. ## Summary of Readings on War, Weapons, and Terrorism - Granoff, "Nuclear Weapons, Ethics, Morals and Law." Possession of nuclear weapons is unethical. We should work toward their elimination.. - Luban, "The War on Terrorism and the End of Human Rights." The current war on terrorism may seriously erode international human rights. - Obama, "Gun Safety." The United States needs better background checks and restrictions on gun ownership. - Paul, "Conscription-The Terrible Price of War." The draft should not be reinstated . ## Conclusion Internationally, the world exists in a state of nature or anarchy. - Weapons of mass destruction, globalization, and the development of new technologies make war and terrorism a greater threat than ever before. - What is the solution? - If the formation of a state under a social contract is the best means for controlling violence between individuals, is international government the answer for controlling violence between nations? - Or is war just a natural part of life and is the solution to develop and enforce ethics for war, such as the just-war tradition? - In the end, the responsibility lies with each of us as individuals to critically examine the justifications given for war and to work toward making the world more peaceful, whether that means taking up arms or becoming a conscientious objector.