Monday
Jun232008
On War, Weapons, and Humanity
Monday, June 23, 2008 at 12:31PM
Jakob Lodwick quoted a Times Online story about the use of especially brutal and destructive explosives in Afghanistan by British and American forces. I'm not 100% sure, but I get the impression (from the quote he used) that Lodwick's point was the moral bankruptcy demonstrated by a military and/or government that simply changes the description or definition of a weapon to make it legally acceptable. "Oh, that's not vomit. We can't serve vomit at this restaurant. That, there, is digestion-enhanced and recycled gazpacho."
But the full article itself makes several references to human rights organizations and the international community condemning, for humane reasons, the use of these weapons. I think this makes a poor argument for a couple of reasons.
First, in war, people die. People can die slowly, painfully, and gruesomely from a blade or bullet wound, and often with greater trauma than some of the terrible weapons devised by modern arms developers. When the goal of the weapons designer and the weapons users lines up under the same heading of "kill the enemy," I think it matters little whether the killing comes from a bullet, a cluster bomb, a shillelagh or a fine mesh screen. It's a little silly to discuss more humane ways to end a man's life.
Second, I don't believe the ultimate objection many folks have here is the weapon used. I think it's the war itself (for the record, I'm against this war, and 99% of wars past and present), and in light of that assumption (yes, I'm assuming, yes, I may be very wrong...this is my inferred opinion) I feel like people making arguments based on the wrong premises. Rather than try to dissuade people from war by claiming they're fighting the wrong way, we should try to persuade them the war is fundamentally wrong. Trying to convince people that certain tools of war are cruel isn't going to end the war. It will, at best, lead to different weapons. It will, at worst, lead to mind-bogglingly lame responses from officials like it did in the United Kingdom.
I'm not a debater or educated philosopher, so my own premises/assumptions are completely full of holes, I know. But I think there are too many times when opposing sides can't see eye-to-eye because they're not even looking at each other in the midst of their arguments.
But the full article itself makes several references to human rights organizations and the international community condemning, for humane reasons, the use of these weapons. I think this makes a poor argument for a couple of reasons.
First, in war, people die. People can die slowly, painfully, and gruesomely from a blade or bullet wound, and often with greater trauma than some of the terrible weapons devised by modern arms developers. When the goal of the weapons designer and the weapons users lines up under the same heading of "kill the enemy," I think it matters little whether the killing comes from a bullet, a cluster bomb, a shillelagh or a fine mesh screen. It's a little silly to discuss more humane ways to end a man's life.
Second, I don't believe the ultimate objection many folks have here is the weapon used. I think it's the war itself (for the record, I'm against this war, and 99% of wars past and present), and in light of that assumption (yes, I'm assuming, yes, I may be very wrong...this is my inferred opinion) I feel like people making arguments based on the wrong premises. Rather than try to dissuade people from war by claiming they're fighting the wrong way, we should try to persuade them the war is fundamentally wrong. Trying to convince people that certain tools of war are cruel isn't going to end the war. It will, at best, lead to different weapons. It will, at worst, lead to mind-bogglingly lame responses from officials like it did in the United Kingdom.
I'm not a debater or educated philosopher, so my own premises/assumptions are completely full of holes, I know. But I think there are too many times when opposing sides can't see eye-to-eye because they're not even looking at each other in the midst of their arguments.
Reader Comments