Well, let's look at one of those lines on a map. If North Korea invades South Korea and has killed hundreds of thousands of citizens in Seoul using gas weapons, and is poised to overrun South Korea, would the U.S. be justified in nuking North Korea to save South Korea? — RogueAI

Oh dear, don't you think that maybe it would be unreasonable and immoral to do something like that? Just think of all of the prisoners innocent people that live in North Korea, it is not their fault that their leader is an ugly twat.

But there again, I have not heard about how they have tried to get rid of him by staging mass revolution or just shooting the ugly mother. So maybe it would be justifiable to do it to get rid of one more dictator. Just make it is small enough that it does the minimum amount of damage possible.

Disclaimer: To the north Korean hackers; the writing contained in this post is for the enjoyment of the readers and in no way is meant as an insult to any world leaders.

You wouldn't even have to target N. Korean population centers. In the event of an invasion, tactical nukes against their invading forces would be sufficient. China would object, but they're not going to commit suicide to come to an invading N. Korea's aid.

You wouldn't even have to target N. Korean population centers. In the event of an invasion, tactical nukes against their invading forces would be sufficient. China would object, but they're not going to commit suicide to come to an invading N. Korea's aid. — RogueAI

I am sure that they have lots of other weapons that are just as effective but less damaging. But if not, let the bad birds fly.
On second thoughts, they will need to send at least one to nail the boss man, and he will probably have a lot of people around him. Let em rip, or is it R.I.P.?

I would suppose that methods of doing this had already been tried, obviously without success. — Sir2u

Suppose on what evidence?

Maybe you could enlighten us on what you think might be the causes of some of the terroristsy things that have happened recently and give us some advice about prevent them from happening in the future. — Sir2u

I could. But it would take too long and you would never be convinced anyway, so it seems like a futile effort. You, as well as the world leaders in control, can read the effects of past foreign policy decisions for yourself.

Israel fails on 4 and 6 for decades already. It is also illegally occupying land and had Gaza turned into an open air prison. Its leadership had expressed genocidal intent again and again.

No. The use of nuclear weapons is categorically disproportionate.

Does the Western world have the moral fortitude to allow Israel to take the bloody but ethical steps to defeat Hamas? — Shlomo M. Brody

This sentence from the article reads like a bad joke.

Anyone who speaks of moral justification while excusing the intentional of bombing refugee camps is a joke, and probably doesn't know what the term means.

No. The use of nuclear weapons is categorically disproportionate. — Benkei

If a bigger, stronger, faster person than you is beating the crap out of you/trying to rape you, and you have a gun, would you use it?

A dumb analogy. I can shoot without killing plus the other guy is clearly not innocent. With a nuclear bomb, death is certain and killing innocent people as well.

Churchill never used gas as a weapon so that part is not about reality. — Sir2u

Read carefully: he advised to use chemical weapons.

We are discussing the possibility of him using it under certain specific conditions. — Sir2u

And therefore yes, someone that has advise the use of chemical weapons makes it clear how he does value the weapon system. It is worth mentioning in this purely hypothetical situation.

And no, chemical weapons were not used in Iraq by the British forces (or else it would be part of the academic curriculum now days in the UK with all the neocolonialism etc).

I think that this does not work in favor of your case, we were using gas as a defensive weapon. — Sir2u

Some might argue thus that genocide is a defensive weapon: if the enemy hostile to your people are multiple times larger, isn't it then good to erase the threat?

Besides, my point was that arguing about individual weapon systems goes quite off the mark here: if you use napalm, white phospherous, thermobaric weapons, mustard gas or so isn't the main issue here. Because you surely can use conventional high explosives, ordinary bullets quite irresponsibly and commit heinous war crimes with them too. Let's not forget that genocides have been done with a cheap pesticide and in Ruanda with machetes. It is something similar of the Pope calling for the limitation of the crossbows only to be used against the infidels and not fellow Christians, a rather hypocrite act of morality. Hence in my view arguing about the lawfulness of certain weapon systems simply drifts the focus from the obvious: how and in what manner are the weapon systems used. Yet the general thing here is that if the enemy commits warcrimes, then that doesn't give you the right to do the same, and warcrimes aren't a way to success in the battlefield (hence you can be victorious even without committing warcrimes).

Otherwise it would be like asking if "the only viable method" to continue the existence of humanity would be to rape women, is then forced sex then OK? It's quite a bizarre and loaded question itself which tells something about the person that would ask something like that, because having children and child rearing has been usually done in a consensual manner. — ssu

It is in no way a similar question to the justification of using gas as a weapon. — Sir2u

As pointed earlier by others, a far better example for this thread would have been the actual terror bombings that happened. At least there Bomber Command Arthur Harris knew well that if the Allies lost the war, he would be in court for war crimes. Again, what I'm against is the whole wording of the problem of warcrimes as being the only option, or in the example using banned weapons systems as the only viable option. There has to be some grain of reality even in a hypothetical, hence why think that "the only viable weapon" would an ineffective weapon system especially when all German soldiers have gas masks? It simply is questionable. Just as is the hypothetical idea that women don't want to start families, so forced sex is the "only viable method". Especially when the cost effectiveness of chemical weapons on the battlefield and the deterrence of simply chemical weapons possibly existing within the stockpiles of the enemy made somebody like Hitler not to use them. That should tell a lot about the effectiveness of chemical weapons on the 20th Century battlefield.

Or to put it another way: if some weapons system is really a game changer on the battlefield, in this World it surely isn't going to be banned.

A dumb analogy. I can shoot without killing plus the other guy is clearly not innocent. With a nuclear bomb, death is certain and killing innocent people as well. — Benkei

So that's a "yes", then. You would use a gun against an enemy with no weapons. In your words, "categorically disproportionate".

That's clearly not what I said. Silly "gotcha".

I thought this the most salient passage because I think it the crux of the debate on the whole current conflict.

Walzer’s approach is well-intentioned but misguided. It repeats the same error made by many contemporary ethicists: prioritizing individual human rights to override other values. In this particular example, Walzer errs in two critical ways: 1) neglecting the obligation to protect one’s own citizens, combatants and noncombatants alike, from attacks on them; and 2) neglecting the associative duties that a country owes to its own brethren, including its own soldiers. To understand the point, let’s focus again on the common dilemma Walzer and Margalit reference:

Violating international law, Hamas launches mortars from the neighborhood toward a town in Israel. The IDF commander has two options: seek aerial support to bombard suspicious houses in the neighborhood, or order his subordinates to take the neighborhood house by house.

The advantage of the first option, using aerial support, is that it provides not only greater soldier safety, i.e., protection from risk of capture, injury, or death, but also velocity. Israel should stop the mortar attacks as soon as possible; otherwise, its civilians will continue to suffer. By failing to immediately halt these attacks with aerial fire, Israel would be prioritizing enemy citizens over its own citizens.

Israel’s citizenry, moreover, might not tolerate high “body-bag counts” from house-to-house combat and demand to end it prematurely. Indeed, over the past few decades, heads of leading democracies like Britain, France, and the United States have changed their military plans because of waning popular support following troop casualties. Morale among soldiers, moreover, regularly decreases when the troops feel their lives are being overly jeopardized. As one Israeli soldier lamented, “We’re like pizza delivery boys who have to come right to the door of the terrorists’ houses.” This is clearly a problem.

The decision to place soldiers at greater risk might also endanger the efficacy of the entire defensive mission. For this reason, countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand signed the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention (AP/1) treaty while insisting that “force protection,” i.e., actions taken toward protecting troops, must be taken into account when weighing the proportionality of a given action. (The U.S. and Israel never signed AP/1, in part because of these concerns.)

NATO, in fact, relied primarily on aerial strikes during its intervention in Yugoslavia while flying its planes at higher altitudes to avoid anti-aircraft fire. This protected the lives of soldiers and gained popular support at home, but it probably increased collateral damage, including incidents like the one in Korisa described earlier. The decision to “fly high” received much condemnation from philosophers, but citizens and soldiers lauded it.

The IDF’s decision in 2008 to send soldiers to fight house-to-house, moreover, fails to consider that those soldiers are also citizens. They are “civilians in uniform” sent on behalf of the state. Yes, we send them to fight to protect their fellow citizens. This makes them liable to attack by the enemy, but that does not mean that the state that sent them can neglect their security. On the contrary, the state that sent them to fight must constantly justify why it is endangering them. The state bears special duties toward its citizens and agents alike. Force protection, in other words, is a deep moral obligation. There is no compelling reason why the state should jeopardize soldiers’ lives to save the terrorist’s neighbor.

The lead author of the IDF’s first code of ethics, Professor Asa Kasher, and the former head of the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate, General Amos Yadlin, have repeatedly emphasized this point, including in a pointed exchange with Walzer and Margalit. Israeli forces, they argued, should try to separate enemy noncombatants from fighters. After that, “not only is the state no longer obligated to endanger the lives of its own soldiers to attempt to further such a separation, it is forbidden from doing so.”

They further argued, compellingly but with great controversy, that the IDF Code of Ethics demanded only that soldiers do “all that they can” to avoid harming noncombatants. This does not include risking their lives and those of their comrades. A very distinguished group of Israeli philosophers lined up to disagree. Yet Kasher correctly held his ground. When push comes to shove, brother trumps other.

This doesn’t mean that we allow the army to protect its soldiers by carpet bombing the enemy nation and indiscriminately killing. That strategy may (or may not) stop the mortar fire, but it would treat the enemy civilians as disposable means to achieving the end of protecting our own. Moreover, it would negate our attempt to balance the values of communal defense and loyalty with respecting the inherent dignity of all humans.

Yet at some point, these values can conflict. Choices must be made. At this stage, we should prioritize the safety of our brethren at the expense of increased enemy collateral damage. Not because we appreciate the divine image of all human beings any less, but because we value our filial responsibilities even more.

This is all irrelevant because they don't have a just cause. If you really want to argue that war crimes are permitted then Hamas did the right thing since everybody is equating them with Palestinians which are an oppressed group.

The writer does not understand the nature of international law.

International law is a method of communication between states, and first and foremost a matter of credibility.

One can interpret international law to fit their agenda all they want; given the amount of grey area and tension between articles that is hardly a challenge.

The real question is whether the rest of the world finds that interpretation plausible, and in the case of Israel that is overwhelmingly not the case.

It's not like "the police" would come and invade Israel to "arrest" Israeli politicians, even if they were convicted of war crimes. That's simply not how international law works.

The rules and stakes in an international court are completely different. Contrary to a civilian court, what's at stake here is not punishment but credibility.

Arguing technicalities and producing skewed interpretations of the law may save one from the former, but won't produce an iota of the latter.

This isn't addressing the author's position on duty to one's own citizens versus duty to the enemy's citizens, so I find this comment irrelevant.

The writer does not understand the nature of international law. — Tzeentch

I'm not sure the writer is completely commenting on law as much as ethics, which could be the basis of the laws or perhaps ways of applying them. It's a bit of both.

The real question is whether the rest of the world finds that interpretation plausible, and in the case of Israel that is overwhelmingly not the case. — Tzeentch

Granted, but this is a philosophy forum and he's making claims on what seems to be more ethical matters, as much as (international) lawful ones.

International law offers a very simple answer to the question in the OP: No.

A war crime is by its very definition against international law.

Involving international law just serves to muddy the waters. Besides, arguing in favor of Israel on the basis of international law is not very credible. They've ignored literally decades worth of (legally binding) resolutions and rapports coming from the highest bodies in international law.

I was referring to the article I was quoting that relates ti the ethics of war. Clearly the debate is about collateral damage and the article gets to the heart of the current conflict and perhaps gives insights into some thinking on the matter. It is more nuanced way to answer the OP.

International law offers a very simple answer to the question in the OP: No.

A war crime is by its very definition against international law.

Involving international law just serves to muddy the waters. Besides, arguing in favor of Israel on the basis of international law is not very credible. They've ignored literally decades worth of (legally binding) resolutions and rapports coming from the highest bodies in international law. — Tzeentch

This begs the question of whether laws should always be followed, and since we're talking about WW2...suppose Nazi Germany had a law requiring people to report the whereabouts of any Jews that were hiding. Tzeentch, if you were a citizen in Nazi Germany, would you follow that law?

A dumb analogy. I can shoot without killing plus the other guy is clearly not innocent. With a nuclear bomb, death is certain and killing innocent people as well. — Benkei

Suppose a woman is being raped and strangled. She has a gun and the only shot available to her is a headshot. Furthermore, she also knows the rapist is a neighbor in the grips of a drug-induced psychosis brought on by an unforeseen reaction to a prescription drug, and is therefore "innocent" by reason of insanity. You would condemn her if she shot the innocent person in the head to save herself?

Incredible! The thought-experiment gets less plausible by the minute. — Vera Mont

You think that's implausible??? Let's suppose you were kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers and hooked up to a dying violinist... stupid, right? How did it ever get published?

First it was Germans, then Nazis, when pressed further, you will change the script to the say the ideology is evil instead. But the comments defending the murder of German civilians will remain. Funny. — Lionino

This was not about bombing Germany, but about litmus tests for moral theories. If a moral theory concludes Nazi Germany was not evil, it should be scrapped. It's worthless. Do you agree?

You think that's implausible??? — RogueAI

I thought the example was about WWII. Quite a lot is known about WWII.
Other implausible thought experiments, and I'm sure there are many, notwithstanding.

I thought the example was about WWII. Quite a lot is known about WWII.
Other implausible thought experiments, and I'm sure there are many, notwithstanding. — Vera Mont

I think my point is obvious. The implausibility of a moral thought experiment is beside the point. I mean, what are you doing standing next to a switch near a runaway trolley car with five people tied to the track?

If you like, imagine the Brits have developed some super duper nerve gas that kills if it touches any exposed skin and the only effective defense is a hazmat suit. All civilians near the landing site have been given an antidote.

I think my point is obvious. The implausibility of a moral thought experiment is beside the point. I mean, what are you doing standing next to a switch near a runaway trolley car with five people tied to the track? — RogueAI

Yes, that one is pretty silly, too. Your point is not entirely obvious to me. Do you mean that however preposterous a hypothetical situation, we should treat it seriously? Or that we should pretend to know nothing about how things work, for the sake of a question the answer to which has no effect on anything?

If you like, imagine the Brits have developed some super duper nerve gas that kills if it touches any exposed skin and the only effective defense is a hazmat suit. All civilians near the landing site have been given an antidote. — RogueAI

Why bother?
I think the concept of ethics and ethical behaviour exist in a realm of real events and people. I see no point in making up these far-fetched scenarios, when there are plenty of examples to contemplate in the world we actually inhabit, where we actually have to make ethical decisions and judge other people who make them.

Yes, that one is pretty silly, too. Your point is not entirely obvious to me. Do you mean that however preposterous a hypothetical situation, we should treat it seriously? — Vera Mont

Yes. Why do you think Trolley Car is so popular? Or Thomson's violinist analogy? Or Plato's allegory of the cave? They're totally absurd and people will be talking about them a thousand years from now. It's like reading a good fiction book. Some suspension of disbelief is required.

It's like reading a good fiction book. — RogueAI

Let's just do that then. I'm up for discussing novels.
But if you really want people to think about the moral choices they make, disbelief shouldn't have to be hoisted up into the bell-tower.

This begs the question of whether laws should always be followed, [...] — RogueAI

That's what I'm trying to point out.

One ends up in a moral debate about which laws are good and which aren't.

Apparently there is some confusion about this, with people trying to invoke selective interpretations of international law, which is foolish on many levels.

which highlights your own ignorance and shows you just squarely walking in the trap of acceptance of the premise that Israel is on the just side of this war. It isn't. As a result all military action is tainted by the unjust cause and there cannot be just military action to begin with. It's therefore supremely relevant: it needs to be resolved before you can even get into this debate. But you need to actually know about the just war tradition to realise this.

That's why I shared my own analysis of the just war tradition because it's an analysis entirely separated from any actual conflict and doesn't have an axe to grind for any international actor.