In a government, on a battlefield, or a corporation, or a courtroom or a church, actual persons make actual decisions. If these persons are bound by one set of ethics when they shop, another when they enlist for the army, a third when they apply for a job, a fourth when they go to Friday, Saturday or Sunday service, a fifth when they run for public office, a sixth when they take the bar exam, a seventh when reach the status of CEO, general or senator or judge -- how can they ever make an ethical decision?

I don’t know, can you declare war as an individual? What makes a government declare war and not you if it’s all the same kind of decisions?

Clearly government has decisions that are things that can't obtain at the level of an individual. And it isn't just that the individual making decisions are doing it on behalf of himself, but is in some sense, on behalf of the state, in the capacity as an official in power, governing the state...

For example, how can one understand the "ethics" of "war" or "commerce" or "economic policy" AS APPLIED to individuals. These are inherently things only applied to state apparatuses and institutions. That is to say, "governmental entities". That is why I would split government or political ethics as a different domain than individual ethics. — schopenhauer1

Ok then.

What are the rules of these ethics that apply to states?

Since states do not exist and are merely abstractions, does it mean we can discuss other things that do not exist?

I guess there's a reason this thread is in The Lounge. :razz:

What are the rules of these ethics that apply to states? — Tzeentch

As I stated above:

I don’t know, can you declare war as an individual? What makes a government declare war and not you if it’s all the same kind of decisions?

Clearly government has decisions that are things that can't obtain at the level of an individual. And it isn't just that the individual making decisions are doing it on behalf of himself, but is in some sense, on behalf of the state, in the capacity as an official in power, governing the state... — schopenhauer1

In the OP it states that there is a good chance of success, that means that hypothetically someone must have done his hypothetical homework and reached that hypothetical conclusion. It is hypothetically possible that these particular invaders were to loaded down with admonitions to be able to carry gas masks. It is also hypothetically possible that the Germans thought that the British were to moral to use gas and eliminated them in favor of a couple of bottles of beer.
My point is that we are discussing the hypothetical question in the OP and not reality. — Sir2u

In history, using counterfactuals (what if's) is actually a way to think about actual reality that happened. It is using the history itself to answer the what if, not just assume historical persons without looking at what they actually thought and did.

OK, the first thing here is notice that when chemical weapons are used against you forces, Churchill is of the opinion to use them then against the enemy. This is simply a historical fact:

In his role as Secretary of State for War and Air in the wake of the First World War he ordered the use of mustard gas by the RAF in support of the pro-Tsarist White forces fighting to contain the Bolsheviks. This was after the Bolsheviks employed captured German gas shells against the Whites. When news of his intentions broke in Parliament there was uproar. ‘I do not understand why, if they use poison gas,’ he told the House of Commons, ‘they should object to having it used against them.’ When the raucous objections had died down he retorted, ‘it is a very right and proper thing to employ poison gas against them.’ Six Bolshevik targets were bombed by the RAF with little effect.

(See Churchill and mustard gas)

And the occasion of Churchill using chemical weapons against an enemy that didn't even have chemical weapons, in Iraq, but Afghanistan too:

When Afghanistan invaded British ruled India in 1919 Churchill urge the use of mustard gas against the marauding Afghan tribesmen. This according to Churchill was on the grounds that ‘Gas is a more merciful weapon than high explosive.’ When the India Office in London objected pointing out that this would set a dangerous precedent with the Muslim population on the Northwest Frontier and in India generally, the idea was quietly dropped. Instead conventional bombs were deployed and the invaders driven back over the border. Likewise, the following year when the widespread Iraq Revolt broke out in Mesopotamia, Churchill once more authorised the use of gas. However, as all the mustard gas bombs had been sent to Russia none were available. Undeterred he ordered the army to despatch 15,000 gas shells that were stockpiled in Egypt. Again though only conventional means were used to crush the rebels. A vexed Churchill wrote to his colleagues ‘I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.’ Subsequently the use of chemical weapons was banned internationally in 1925 under the Geneva Protocol. Churchill seems to have taken very little heed of this.

So Churchill had ordered the use of the gas weapon post WW1 and had advocated actually twice the use of the gas weapon and didn't understand "the squeamishness about the use of gas" simply portrays a person that actually has a quite positive view about the weapon system. There is absolutely no denying of this. And so yes, all the above is relevant when thinking what Churchill would have done in the situation described in the OP.

Hence you don't have to use the hypotheticals so much as if Churchill would have to had a lot of encouragment to use chemical weapons. It's more like that if there would have been German landings on the UK, it would have been the military command reigning down Churchill from using the gas weapon.

Then there's the question of the OP, would this have been justified.

If the UK would have repelled the attack and the war would have ended as it did, obviously yes, Britons would see it justified. And the debate about the justification would be quite similar to the debate about terror bombings.

If the UK would have lost and UK would have been occupied, it would be seen as another huge error that the totally reckless Churchill did, who in his arrogant attempt to defend the country even when the army had been destroyed in France. The "what if" would have been if the reasonable "Lord Halifax" would have been chosen prime minister and a peace would have been done with Germany.

And the debate about the justification would be quite similar to the debate about terror bombings. — ssu

Bombing of terrorists you mean. One is a reaction of self-defense, the other is to attack in the first place, causing the defensive reaction.

I don’t know, can you declare war as an individual? — schopenhauer1

Heads of state often do. Or wage one without a declaration. Sometimes in secret.

What makes a government declare war and not you if it’s all the same kind of decisions? — schopenhauer1

Nothing makes a government declare a war or launch a war; a powerful individual or a small group of like-minded individuals entrusted with the governance of a nation, usually confer with the top generals and make the decision in camera. I very much doubt ethical considerations at the top of their agenda when deliberating. In some instances, that decision is then brought before a parliament or congress or senate for ratification. By then, the wheels are already in motion.

And it isn't just that the individual making decisions are doing it on behalf of himself, but is in some sense, on behalf of the state, in the capacity as an official in power, governing the state.. — schopenhauer1

Yes. On behalf of some elements of the state, on behalf of 'the state' in their opinion, at the expense of the people - even if they need to introduce conscription because the war isn't popular enough to attract enough volunteers, even if they have to use deception and coercion on the people.

The same ethic applies to those men in the Cabinet as applies to them in their homes. War - like every other executive decision - is not the same kind of decision as any other: it's bigger than most and involves other people, willingly or reluctantly, with informed consent or unwittingly. But it's not the size and scope of the decision that determines ethics, and there is not a closet full of ethical varieties to choose among for different occasions.They don't get to shed their citizen ethic like a robe and put on their governance ethic along with the striped suit.

In a government, on a battlefield, or a corporation, or a courtroom or a church, actual persons make actual decisions. If these persons are bound by one set of ethics when they shop, another when they enlist for the army, a third when they apply for a job, a fourth when they go to Friday, Saturday or Sunday service, a fifth when they run for public office, a sixth when they take the bar exam, a seventh when reach the status of CEO, general or senator or judge -- how can they ever make an ethical decision? — Vera Mont

Personal and professional ethics are quite different. Each role a person plays within a group, the person adopts the ethics of that group. If your are a mother, teacher, shopper, taxi driver for the kids your role dictates the ethical rules you follow.
For example, as a shopper you expect prices not to rise too much and curse the supermarkets when they do, but as a seller you try to get the best possible price for the second hand lawn mower you are selling.
And this brings us to where a lot of people get confused, your moral compass is the same in each of the roles you play. Your bitching at the super market is caused by the same thing as you wanting a bit more for the lawn mower, looking after yourself and your family.

Then there's the question of the OP, would this have been justified.

If the UK would have repelled the attack and the war would have ended as it did, obviously yes, Britons would see it justified. And the debate about the justification would be quite similar to the debate about terror bombings.

If the UK would have lost and UK would have been occupied, it would be seen as another huge error that the totally reckless Churchill did, who in his arrogant attempt to defend the country even when the army had been destroyed in France. The "what if" would have been if the reasonable "Lord Halifax" would have been chosen prime minister and a peace would have been done with Germany. — ssu

You are probably right that the winners are nearly always seen as being on the moral high ground.

The "what if" would have been if the reasonable "Lord Halifax" would have been chosen prime minister and a peace would have been done with Germany. — ssu

The final years in office. Chamberlain resigned as Prime Minister in May 1940 following the debacle of the Norwegian campaign. Halifax was seen as a leading candidate to replace him but he realised that Churchill would make a superior war leader and, pleading ill-health, withdrew from the race.

Maybe you would be interested in reading this.
https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-foreign-secretaries/edward-wood

Halifax was nicknamed ‘the Holy Fox’, reflecting his passion for hunting and his Christian moral outlook.

Halifax realised earlier than Chamberlain, but later than others, that Britain would have to stand firm against Nazi demands for territorial aggrandisement. But it came too late to avoid him being cast in 1940 as one of the ‘Guilty Men’ (in the publication of the same name), held responsible for the war by appeasing fascism.

We are talking here in the context of WW2 about the strategic bombing campaign. Naturally the industrial base of the military industrial complex is a rightful target, but from there you can easily enlarge the target scope to the population in general. After all, Douhuet's idea of bombing cities was to make the population loose support for the war and have peace come more quickly.

Typically the impact was quite the opposite: bombing of cities increased the determination of the civilian population to support the war.

The same ethic applies to those men in the Cabinet as applies to them in their homes. War - like every other executive decision - is not the same kind of decision as any other: it's bigger than most and involves other people, willingly or reluctantly, with informed consent or unwittingly. But it's not the size and scope of the decision that determines ethics, and there is not a closet full of ethical varieties to choose among for different occasions.They don't get to shed their citizen ethic like a robe and put on their governance ethic along with the striped suit. — Vera Mont

This is a bit of a straw man, as it isn't just size and scope that is different here, but the very content is different. "War" is something between states. You can use the word analogously, "I am going to war with you!" but the fact that there is a legitimacy in using violent, large-scale means that bring with it other phenomena like collateral damage, drafts, and the like means that it is something different in kind than anything that an individual can do. That is to say, "War" is seen as something legitimate when done for self-defense, on a state level, and involves aspects that can never really be analogous to the individual (i.e. collateral damage, sending other people in harms way, etc.).

Thus, if we agree that "war" is something that is legitimate to wage in certain circumstances, we must understand all that entails... which means possible civilian deaths due to war, which presumably, would be part of this phenomenon, legitimate or not.

Naturally after the "darkest hour" had passed, nobody will admit that they were for negotiating with mr Hitler. In fact, any possible attempts to end the war with something else than later unconditional surrender was (is?) obviously hushed away.

This is perhaps something that we forget now when talking about the war in Ukraine: both sides ardently will declare to keep on fighting... until some agreement is found, which comes quite "spontaneously" for the people.

You are probably right that the winners are nearly always seen as being on the moral high ground. — Sir2u

And this actually is the answer to the question of the OP in my view. Natural you can take the stance that something that a country has accepted to be unlawful... is also unlawful in war.

Perhaps the only exception might be the modern discourse of Imperialism/Colonialism, where there's few defenders for obviously otherwise stunning military campaigns of conquest of the past. But this has no political weight anymore, especially when those colonies have gotten independence or the native people that have been fought with genocidal strategies pose little or no political threat anymore.

Naturally the industrial base of the military industrial complex is a rightful target, but from there you can easily enlarge the target scope to the population in general. After all, Douhuet's idea of bombing cities was to make the population loose support for the war and have peace come more quickly.

Typically the impact was quite the opposite: bombing of cities increased the determination of the civilian population to support the war. — ssu

Ah gotcha.. What about bombing Nazis/Japanese Imperial forces that hid within population centers? The intent is not to kill civilians, but the outcome might be civilian deaths if one pursues them. Also if we couple this with Social Contract theory, do states not have obligations to protect its own citizens if possible from undue death in its calculations? In theory, if there were no sides, but we were but robots, the universal rule would be that civilians and protecting one's own troops from sending in a hellish ground assault that would be way costlier on one's own troop's levels and morales, would be considered equal, but is is it even moral to not consider protecting one's own troops and not prolonging a war, putting one's troops in what would look to be a way more deadly approach? This is why I said earlier here:

But this is my point. This is why "ethics proper" would be a category error to apply to "governments". For example, how can one understand the "ethics" of "war" or "commerce" or "economic policy" AS APPLIED to individuals. These are inherently things only applied to state apparatuses and institutions. That is to say, "governmental entities". That is why I would split government or political ethics as a different domain than individual ethics. It is now dealing with abstract entities of state actors, which are liable to things such as "wars", "tariffs", "treaties", and the like, all things that are not done at an individual level.

So here we have a situation whereby Israel is claiming that it was attacked, which, similar to say, a Pearl Harbor situation, would lead it to declare war, or some military response to the attacker.

They have obviously now done so against Hamas, who had initiated the current conflict by killing civilians indiscriminately, brutally, and whathaveyou.

So now, Israel is conducting a war where it must face various modern dilemmas, that state actors must do in war. The main dilemma is, unlike battles in the 1700s or 1800s which were often done on open fields, these asymmetrical wars, are often conducted in urban environments, whereby the soldiers hide in plain clothes. In this case, it is even more stark because billions of dollars were put into tunnel systems that wrap around, under, and into civilian infrastructure, basically making the whole city a web-fortress.

Then the calculations of how to conduct the war. In such a messy, web-like urban environment, let's say there are two ways of conducting the war to get rid of Hamas.

Let's say there are two broad approaches:
A1) Just ground troops
A2) Aerial bombardment and ground troops.

A1)Let us say, if the first approach was the one taken, 10x the casualties on one's own side would take place, and the war would become bogged down to indefinite, hellish levels for one's own troops because it would become essentially an unending maze or trap.

A2) The second broad approach allows your troops enough room to maneuver and eventually go in and fight more aggressively, saving lives for your own troops, and ending the war more quickly.

So, I am fine discussing international law.. But it will simply get bogged down to various instances whereby "Did this fighter, by ducking into a building, make that building a legitimate target in the eyes of international law".. Having civilians as "human shields" doesn't make the enemy use it as a "get out of jail free" during a war. As we both agreed, (even if we detest war and violence), war is a "legitimate" thing countries can wage. — schopenhauer1

This is a bit of a straw man, as it isn't just size and scope that is different here, but the very content is different. "War" is something between states. — schopenhauer1

'States' are ruled by persons. The decisions in war, as in manufacturing, as in agriculture, as in trade, re made by individuals either separately or in groups that communicate and agree on a conclusion.

You can use the word analogously, "I am going to war with you!" but the fact that there is a legitimacy in using violent, large-scale means that bring with it other phenomena like collateral damage, drafts, and the like means that it is something different in kind than anything that an individual can do. — schopenhauer1

It is not a bunch of phenomena. It is a series of actions taken by human beings, following a series of decisions made by other human beings. An individual, or co-ordinated group of individuals has to do what an individual orders them to do after an individual has decided on a strategy. At every point in that process, a human being has to consult his own conscience: "Is this the right course of action?"

Thus, if we agree that "war" is something that is legitimate to wage in certain circumstances, we must understand all that entails... which means possible civilian deaths due to war, which presumably, would be part of this phenomenon, legitimate or not. — schopenhauer1

Yes, all that, plus the fact that from one hour to the next both leaders and followers will individually have to decide what to do next -- and what not to do.

Personal and professional ethics are quite different. Each role a person plays within a group, the person adopts the ethics of that group. If your are a mother, teacher, shopper, taxi driver for the kids your role dictates the ethical rules you follow. — Sir2u

You mean, it's okay for mothers and teachers to speed in a school zone, as long as taxi driver and shoppers don't?

For example, as a shopper you expect prices not to rise too much and curse the supermarkets when they do, but as a seller you try to get the best possible price for the second hand lawn mower you are selling.

It's okay for a shopper to pocket the odd can of tuna because prices are too high, and for the seller of a lawn mower to lie about its condition to get a better price?

And this brings us to where a lot of people get confused, your moral compass is the same in each of the roles you play. — Sir2u

Then what is it you're confused about?

Ah gotcha.. What about bombing Nazis/Japanese Imperial forces that hid within population centers? — schopenhauer1

Sounds more like the present sanctimonious propaganda of trying to give an excuse why population centers should be bombed in the first place. Because you don't hide formations in cities, you deploy them to the field where they can move and operate. You can choose which terrain you defend, but choosing an urban environment isn't hiding. It's more about trying to make that urban area your fortress.

During WW2 and prior ot WW2 the idea was of bombing urban centers was to force the countries to surrender ...without a long WW1 -type of war. Douhet started from the idea that strategic bombing, bombing of the cities and hence the civilians, would bring a quick peace. From Air and Spaceforces magazine writes on Douhet:

What, exactly, did Douhet preach? The main assumptions of his airpower concept, all contained in The Command of the Air and other writings, can be summarized briefly.

Wars are no longer fought between armies, but between whole peoples, he believed, and future wars would be total and unrestrained, with civilians as legitimate targets. Wars are won by destroying “the enemy’s will to resist”—and only this produces “decisive victory.” Defeat of enemy forces is a poor indirect route. It is far better to strike directly at “vital centers” of power inside an enemy nation.

World War I was a turning point, showing armies and navies can no longer end wars; the power of the defense—poison gas, machine guns—makes offensive action futile.

The airplane, though, is revolutionary, “the offensive weapon par excellence,” able to bypass surface defenses and carry out massive attacks on cities, destroying the enemy’s will to resist.

Prior to WW2, this idea of "destroying the enemy's will to resist" was quite popular. You can notice the stark difference to the present attitudes towards war. Douhet wouldn't have a following today, but he sure did in the pre-WW2 era.

Air power advocates like Giulio Douhet advocated the use of air power as a tool to avoid
trench warfare and dramatically shorten wars. Aircraft would attack an enemy’s sources of
strength, namely its population centers to force the enemy to sue for peace. The key was to
destroy the enemy’s will to fight. Great Britain’s RAF was a strong proponent of using strategic air power to avoid another major ground war. Air Marshal Hugh Trenchard was a major advocate for the role of strategic bombing. In the United States, Brigadier General Billy Mitchell was another strong air power advocate.

Of course somehow the idea doesn't take into consideration the enemy also believing this. As Arthur Harris, the commander of the British Bomber Command, put it: "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

Harris was true to his word.

You mean, it's okay for mothers and teachers to speed in a school zone, as long as taxi driver and shoppers don't? — Vera Mont

Please read the post again. I don't feel that I should have to explain something that is basic high school intro to sociology and psychology. I will give you a clue, look up how the word "role" is used in either of the subjects I mentioned. Write "role psychology" in google

It's okay for a shopper to pocket the odd can of tuna because prices are too high, and for the seller of a lawn mower to lie about its condition to get a better price? — Vera Mont

This is even more pathetic than the previous one. Please show me anywhere it mentions stealing or lying.

Then what is it you're confused about? — Vera Mont

I was talking about you.
Please stop making a fool of yourself by posting nonsensical ideas. If you insist on posting, please read carefully and make sure you understood what you read. If you have problems with anything, you can always ask for explanations here.

As Arthur Harris, the commander of the British Bomber Command, put it: "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. — ssu

Or they thought that they British were to ethically/morally upright to do such dastardly deeds.

Harris was true to his word. — ssu

Yep, they got a bollocking, and he was justified in his thoughts and actions.

you deploy them to the field where they can move and operate. You can choose which terrain you defend, but choosing an urban environment isn't hiding. It's more about trying to make that urban area your fortress. — ssu

So that is the question at hand.. What do you do in this case in modern warfare.. The extent by which you engage the enemy in a fortress whereby they use the public and private buildings...

During WW2 and prior ot WW2 the idea was of bombing urban centers was to force the countries to surrender ...without a long WW1 -type of war. Douhet started from the idea that strategic bombing, bombing of the cities and hence the civilians, would bring a quick peace. From Air and Spaceforces magazine writes on Douhet: — ssu

Indeed, I would say that is not even what is happening in the current conflict as a strategy (though various tactical errors can be questioned)... More apt is the fortress analogy here.

Of course somehow the idea doesn't take into consideration the enemy also believing this. As Arthur Harris, the commander of the British Bomber Command, put it: "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." — ssu

That truly is a ridiculous belief.. as if the Germans had some monopoly on that strategy...Indeed you reap what you sow...

It is not a bunch of phenomena. It is a series of actions taken by human beings, following a series of decisions made by other human beings. An individual, or co-ordinated group of individuals has to do what an individual orders them to do after an individual has decided on a strategy. At every point in that process, a human being has to consult his own conscience: "Is this the right course of action?" — Vera Mont

But what is this "war"? What is "war"? It is not something that an individual can have... Do you think war is can be legitimate? Tacitly saying that war is legitimate, means something..but what? What is that implying?

Also, as @ssu is at pains to point out, the nature of war changes over time, and looks quite different from ancient times, to the 1200s and Ghengis Kahn, to the 1700s and in the colonial territories, to the 1800s and various imperial wars, or civil wars, to the 1900s with total wars...

That truly is a ridiculous belief.. as if the Germans had some monopoly on that strategy. — schopenhauer1

It is not quite the ridiculous belief you think it is, Harris actually said that because it was the truth.

I will give you a clue, look up how the word "role" is used in either of the subjects I mentioned. — Sir2u

Yes, I got that: Different roles, different ethics.

Each role a person plays within a group, the person adopts the ethics of that group. — Sir2u

So, what are the different kind of ethics that would guide your decision according to the hat you were wearing? How exactly does the ethical system of teachers differ from the ethical system of taxi drivers? If it is not in the matter of honesty, fair dealing, observance of public safety or respect for property, what is the salient matter of each role-specific ethic?

This is even more pathetic than the previous one. Please show me anywhere it mentions stealing or lying. — Sir2u

They were examples for the application of different ethics to different roles, as you failed to mention any. No, grumbling is not an ethical choice, nor is desire for profit.

What is "war"? — schopenhauer1

War is armed conflict between two or more groups with opposing objectives.

Do you think war is can be legitimate? — schopenhauer1

Legitimate is a legal term. Any act that conforms with the pertinent law is legitimate. Laws are drafted and legislated by human agencies constituted for the purpose. If a war falls within the currently accepted international definition, it's legitimate.

Tacitly saying that war is legitimate, means something..but what? — schopenhauer1

Whether you say it aloud or just think it, considering a war legitimate means you agree with its objectives. That may imply - or someone may infer from it - that you accept whatever methods are used to attain those objectives. This could the 'ends justify mean' territory - can't be too sure about implications.

Also, as ssu is at pains to point out, the nature of war changes over time, and looks quite different from ancient times, to the 1200s and Ghengis Kahn, to the 1700s and in the colonial territories, to the 1800s and various imperial wars, or civil wars, to the 1900s with total wars... — schopenhauer1

Yes. And people keep making new rules in futile attempts to cover the changed situations. And people keep breaking those rules.
If they win, they're considered - at least by themselves - justified. If they lose, they're punished.

Remember also that Stalin was constantly clamoring for a second front and the Allies were always afraid Stalin might make a peace with Hitler. Bomber command was the only way for Britain to fight back, and it did divert significant German resources away from the Eastern Front.

So that is the question at hand.. What do you do in this case in modern warfare.. The extent by which you engage the enemy in a fortress whereby they use the public and private buildings... — schopenhauer1

I think the laws of war are quite clear on this case: if a combatant uses an otherwise restricted area as a fighting position, let's say a hospital or a church/mosque, it can be attacked.

Naturally in the present climate this has lead to simply to hospitals being attacked in Ukraine and in Gaza. It has gone so bad that one of the lessons from the war in Ukraine is for medical personnel to hide their status simply by not using the red cross. Why use a large red cross, when it means that you just paint yourself as a target?

During WW2 the most famous example was the bombing of Monte Cassino. As the monastery has such a prominant view over the whole valley, the Allies presumed it had to be used by the Germans. It wasn't, but after the monastery was demolished, it was.

In my view here there is the obvious case of where appliance to laws of war have degraded from the past. Far too easily if one side chooses to disregard the laws of war, the other side opts similar ways. Even if it's an anecdotal and a single event, it's still telling that unarmed Israeli hostages trying to surrender to Israeli forces were gunned downed... because the Israeli soldiers thought "it was a trap", or so at least they justified their actions. Compared to the 19th Century, in many ways warfare has become far more barbaric than before starting with the idea of total war. We don't want to acknowledge it, but I think it's the truth.

Legitimate is a legal term. Any act that conforms with the pertinent law is legitimate. Laws are drafted and legislated by human agencies constituted for the purpose. If a war falls within the currently accepted international definition, it's legitimate. — Vera Mont

Is it legitimate to wage armed conflict though? Is it not silly that conflict has any legitimacy? Should for example, it have been legitimate to make the Nazis totally surrender Germany after they attacked Poland and France, or should the Allied militaries simply have contained the Nazis once their troops had reached the German borders in 1945?

In my view here there is the obvious case of where appliance to laws of war have degraded from the past. Far too easily if one side chooses to disregard the laws of war, the other side opts similar ways. Even if it's an anecdotal and a single event, it's still telling that unarmed Israeli hostages trying to surrender to Israeli forces were gunned downed... because the Israeli soldiers thought "it was a trap", or so at least they justified their actions. Compared to the 19th Century, in many ways warfare has become far more barbaric than before starting with the idea of total war. We don't want to acknowledge it, but I think it's the truth. — ssu

No, I don't think it is less barbaric, but the tactics have changed. My point is, war itself is a sort of absurdity, because it means death and destruction, and yet it has "legitimacy" (for good or bad). Yet, it seems in many arguments, people don't acknowledge that this indeed is what war pretty much entails. It isn't just Rambo going into a building getting the bad guys, saving the good guys and the end.

Why didn't the allies just send in some really stealthy people to take down the Nazis and leave the German citizens alone? Ditto with Japan?

Why couldn't the Allies simply negotiate a peace rather than demand total surrender? Are you telling me there was something inherently expansionist and threatening about Nazi and Imperial Japanese actions and intentions? (Sarcasm implied of course).

That seems unethical. You are not allowed to defend yourself now if someone does you harm? I think that is a universally accepted notion... And again, the issue then becomes about collateral damage, not waging a war against an aggressor who wants to see your people, state, or both destroyed, and are actively and repeatedly doing this. Should FDR have declared war against Japan? Perhaps he should have waited for other Pearl Harbors... — schopenhauer1

This doesn't make sense based on the exchange we had. I said the moral case is clear "we're all people". You say "Hamas doesn't think that way". I say "It's irrelevant what others think to decide what is moral". Obviously I meant that with respect to that moral case and you start about the right of self-defence, which is not at all in question.

Noticed I said "close family member" and not just named a family member. So yeah, that already was not my argument, and thus a straw man.. — schopenhauer1

How is that a straw man? As if close family members cannot be assholes or immoral people? Or is there an implied point that your close family members are saints? The point is, it is hubris to claim you can weigh one person's life against another when you don't know them. And in armed conflict, we don't know.

But the main argument one might make is that the state is obligated to its own citizens more than protecting other citizens. This doesn't mean they are COMPLETELY devoid of considering other country's citizens. The author stated as such. Rather, that the balance is weighted more for one's own citizens in the state's obligations above other countries when weighing decisions of life and death.

And as I've tried to clarify, this point is irrelevant in an ethical discussion. State borders, the luck or misfortune being born one side of the border, are not moral facts and therefore shouldn't be part of moral consideration. Nothing in the just war tradition takes this into account other than the obvious requirement that governments actually represent the people over which they've been established.

It's also problematic because through incorporation in the state you should not be able to create more rights than people would otherwise individually have. Because that would obviously put the door open for all sorts of abuse.

Is it legitimate to wage armed conflict though? — schopenhauer1

If people decide it is the legal way to settle their territorial claims or religious differences or political disagreements, of course it's legitimate. This was not even an issue until the 20th century: imperial aggression, crusades and national expansion, as well as local disputes, were simply accepted as perfectly normal.

Is it not silly that conflict has any legitimacy? — schopenhauer1

Sure. What human endeavour on a mass scale is not absurd?
But in reality, the very existence of standing armies is a testament that people do consider the waging of wars perfectly normal.

Should for example, it have been legitimate to make the Nazis totally surrender Germany after they attacked Poland and France, or should the Allied militaries simply have contained the Nazis once their troops had reached the German borders in 1945? — schopenhauer1

That's not a question about the legitimacy of war in general. It is a question about allied strategy after a particular conflict was already underway. Should Poland and France ever have been in jeopardy? Of course not. Should Germany ever have been in the state of national upheaval that spews out a Nazi leadership? Of course not. Could the entire giant debacle have been prevented? Of course.
People create the conditions in which they then make war on one another. Then they say "War broke out" as if it were some natural phenomenon, like wildfire.

Remember also that Stalin was constantly clamoring for a second front and the Allies were always afraid Stalin might make a peace with Hitler. Bomber command was the only way for Britain to fight back, and it did divert significant German resources away from the Eastern Front. — RogueAI

Well, when it came to Poland, Stalin had been an ally to Hitler. So by his standards, that was a totally reasonable possibility (which many Nazis in the end hoped to happen).

But the strategic bombing didn't really do much compared the Ostfront, even

Yet do notice that even with the strategic bombing, actually Germany's military production went all the time up during 1941-1944. For example aircraft production is telling that it didn't



As it comes to air power, I think the idea of forcing the population to surrender by strategic bombing has been shown to be a quite dubious and questionable idea. What has been showed to work in strategic bombing is actually attacking the military-industrial complex and simple interdiction: to take away the ability to move troops and materiel to the frontline troops. Here air superiority and dominating the skies have showed just how effective air power can be.