Air Force Cites New Testament to Train Officers on Ethics of Launching

[Telarus]

http://gizmodo.com/5826972/what-is-the-air-forces-jesus-loves-nukes-nuclear-missile-program

http://www.truth-out.org/air-force-cites-new-testament-ex-nazi-train-officers-ethics-launching-nuclear-weapons/1311776738

[Juana]

 

[Fast Eddy]

 

This is going to be a fun century.

[Cain]

On the other hand, Just War Theory is very widely cited.  I chose to do my final year course on Ethics and Conflict precisely because I had, in previous years, studied JWT inside out, making it a rather easier course to do than most (in fact, my A Level essay on Utilitarianism, Deontology and Just War is actually now used by the exam board as the example of how to do an essay right.  As it should be, since I scored full marks).

Just War Theory isn't derived directly from the New Testament.  Rather, it derives from Augustine, Aquinas and de Vittoria, among others, and actually is a fairly sensible heuristic for determining whether a war is just or not.  It is split into two parts, jus ad bellum, or when it is right to wage war, and jus in bello, which relates to how the war is fought.

Just ad bellum

Just Cause.  War cannot be for material gain, or solely to punish evildoers.  War can only take place when there is an imminent threat to innocent life, and intervention is required to protect it.  Self-defence is also a just cause.

Lawful Authority.  Only can the legally recognized authorities wage war.  Private disputes between citizens, organized crime groups and others are not war.  Illegitimate governments are also considered as being unable to prosecute Just Wars due to their very nature, and deceptive or covert actions are also often considered a violation of this.

Right Intention.  The intention must be the moral one, to right wrongs and protect the innocent, without thought to material gain or glory.

Comparative Justice.  There must be significant injustice done to one side for a war to be just.  A war in which everyone is somewhat guilty and tainted, but no one nation is more guilty of evil actions than another, is not a just war.

Probability of success.  Sending men to die in a war they cannot win is not just or moral.

Last Resort.  War must be the choice taken when all other routes have failed.  This does not apply if the other is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and not in good faith.

Proportionality.  The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.


Jus in bellum

Distinction.  The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against civilians.

Proportionality.  An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.

Military necessity.  Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Fair treatment of prisoners.  Self-explanatory. 

No means mala in se.  Clearly evil methods, such as rape and genocide, cannot be used, even if the war is just in terms of jus ad bellum.  Equally, using methods whose effects cannot be controlled, such as nuclear weapons, biological WMDs or ecological destruction, is evil.

For shits and giggles, apply this to the war on terror and war in Iraq.

Now admittedly, this doesn't excuse the blatantly Christian overtones of the examples, or citing Wernher Von Braun as a moral authority, but the basic Just War Theory is something I'd prefer soldiers to know than not.

[Disco Pickle]

Cain said it before I could, and probably better than I could.

As for citing Von Braun (and taking issue with it because he was a member of the Nazi party) If you were a rocket scientist in Germany in that time period, there really was only one guy to work for, and rockets were mostly used for weapons technology.  The Brain Drain post WWII of former Nazi scientists was extremely beneficial to us and his work in particular laid the groundwork for NASA and the last half century of space travel.  The people on that board take issue because a guy who designed rockets that were used as weapons also happened to be a Christian? 

I don't know, maybe I'm reading it wrong or taking the wrong thing from it.   

[Cain]

Citing Von Braun as a moral authority is an issue not because he worked for the Nazis per se, but that his rocket program was built using slave labour, which he was well aware of at the time.  And given one of his underlings was in fact forced to renounce his US citizenship and leave the country in return for not being charged with war crimes, it seems quite likely that Von Braun only escaped a similar fate due to his technical ability.

Out of all the people in the world to quote as a moral authority on ethics and warfare, Von Braun comes fairly low on the list.  Not at the very bottom, but certainly not in the top half.

[Disco Pickle]

Citing Von Braun as a moral authority is an issue not because he worked for the Nazis per se, but that his rocket program was built using slave labour, which he was well aware of at the time.  And given one of his underlings was in fact forced to renounce his US citizenship and leave the country in return for not being charged with war crimes, it seems quite likely that Von Braun only escaped a similar fate due to his technical ability.

Out of all the people in the world to quote as a moral authority on ethics and warfare, Von Braun comes fairly low on the list.  Not at the very bottom, but certainly not in the top half.

That's much more clear and yeah, not a good choice at all when you take that into account.

[P3nT4gR4m]

If some guy in a position of power spins a pretty line in bullshit which your superiors buy into and, subsequently, so do you where does that leave you morally?

If you honestly believe that the fate of western civilisation hinges on you nuking that daycare center are you culpably stupid or just following orders?

[Cain]

If some guy in a position of power spins a pretty line in bullshit which your superiors buy into and, subsequently, so do you where does that leave you morally?

If you honestly believe that the fate of western civilisation hinges on you nuking that daycare center are you culpably stupid or just following orders?

According to Just War Theory?  You're morally culpable under both.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I didn't mean that as two examples, second line followed from the first.

Reason I'm asking is I always had this problem with "blindly following orders". While I realise the whole concept of an effective military kinda hinges on a large degree of this, it seems to leave the door open to some serious "righteous" atrocities.

I mean, from the other side, a good soldier realises that if the chain of command falls apart him and his mates could all be killed, right? So he is conditioned to follow orders without question, right? Presumably there's some kind of "commander has lost the plot, it's time to relieve him of duty" clause built into that but there seems to be a lot of no-man's land in there. Seems to me that's where the real "evil" shit happens and it further strikes me that a lot of this is not due to someone's direct responsibility as much as a gap where two people aren't really paying attention.

[Disco Pickle]

If some guy in a position of power spins a pretty line in bullshit which your superiors buy into and, subsequently, so do you where does that leave you morally?

If you honestly believe that the fate of western civilisation hinges on you nuking that daycare center are you culpably stupid or just following orders?

According to Just War Theory?  You're morally culpable under both.

After a slower reread of that article I think my issue is that I get the feeling if I did a bit of digging on that site I'd find a bunch of people who reject Just War Theory and are anti-war no matter what the reasons are.

Also, I realized the   that should come from expecting good, moral decisions to come down from Air Force brass.  They're basically the major weapons development arm (wing?) of the military.

[Cain]

Ah, right.  But either way, unless nuking the daycare centre really will save western civilization from certain doom, and a nuke is the only way to do it, it's considered evil.

I believe most modern militaries do say illegal and immoral orders actually are not orders...the problem with that is, as you say, soldiers are conditioned, to a degree, to follow orders, plus the guys giving the orders also have guns and things.  Having not gone through the training, I can only speculate, however.  Coyote and Dok would probably know more about the particulars of how it works, at least for the US military.

[Disco Pickle]

That, and I believe most famously since Nuremberg, "Just Following Orders" will not excuse war crimes carried out by a soldier, given those orders from a superior officer.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Ah, right.  But either way, unless nuking the daycare centre really will save western civilization from certain doom, and a nuke is the only way to do it, it's considered evil.

I believe most modern militaries do say illegal and immoral orders actually are not orders...the problem with that is, as you say, soldiers are conditioned, to a degree, to follow orders, plus the guys giving the orders also have guns and things.  Having not gone through the training, I can only speculate, however.  Coyote and Dok would probably know more about the particulars of how it works, at least for the US military.

Yeah, totally. I find ethics in conflict really interesting exactly because of this added layer of complexity.

[Don Coyote]

On the other hand, Just War Theory is very widely cited.  I chose to do my final year course on Ethics and Conflict precisely because I had, in previous years, studied JWT inside out, making it a rather easier course to do than most (in fact, my A Level essay on Utilitarianism, Deontology and Just War is actually now used by the exam board as the example of how to do an essay right.  As it should be, since I scored full marks).

Just War Theory isn't derived directly from the New Testament.  Rather, it derives from Augustine, Aquinas and de Vittoria, among others, and actually is a fairly sensible heuristic for determining whether a war is just or not.  It is split into two parts, jus ad bellum, or when it is right to wage war, and jus in bello, which relates to how the war is fought.

Just ad bellum

Just Cause.  War cannot be for material gain, or solely to punish evildoers.  War can only take place when there is an imminent threat to innocent life, and intervention is required to protect it.  Self-defence is also a just cause.

Lawful Authority.  Only can the legally recognized authorities wage war.  Private disputes between citizens, organized crime groups and others are not war.  Illegitimate governments are also considered as being unable to prosecute Just Wars due to their very nature, and deceptive or covert actions are also often considered a violation of this.

Right Intention.  The intention must be the moral one, to right wrongs and protect the innocent, without thought to material gain or glory.

Comparative Justice.  There must be significant injustice done to one side for a war to be just.  A war in which everyone is somewhat guilty and tainted, but no one nation is more guilty of evil actions than another, is not a just war.

Probability of success.  Sending men to die in a war they cannot win is not just or moral.

Last Resort.  War must be the choice taken when all other routes have failed.  This does not apply if the other is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and not in good faith.

Proportionality.  The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.


Jus in bellum

Distinction.  The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against civilians.

Proportionality.  An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.

Military necessity.  Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Fair treatment of prisoners.  Self-explanatory. 

No means mala in se.  Clearly evil methods, such as rape and genocide, cannot be used, even if the war is just in terms of jus ad bellum.  Equally, using methods whose effects cannot be controlled, such as nuclear weapons, biological WMDs or ecological destruction, is evil.

For shits and giggles, apply this to the war on terror and war in Iraq.

Now admittedly, this doesn't excuse the blatantly Christian overtones of the examples, or citing Wernher Von Braun as a moral authority, but the basic Just War Theory is something I'd prefer soldiers to know than not.

A lot of this is, or was, taught during Basic Combat Training as Rules of Engagment, and I wholeheartedly agree

Ah, right.  But either way, unless nuking the daycare centre really will save western civilization from certain doom, and a nuke is the only way to do it, it's considered evil.

I believe most modern militaries do say illegal and immoral orders actually are not orders...the problem with that is, as you say, soldiers are conditioned, to a degree, to follow orders, plus the guys giving the orders also have guns and things.  Having not gone through the training, I can only speculate, however.  Coyote and Dok would probably know more about the particulars of how it works, at least for the US military.

I am under no obligation to follow illegal or immoral orders, and, last time I checked, obligated to inform the Authorities that someone attempted to give me an illegal order. But things get messy where morality is concerned. Also, most soldiers will in fact act on an order without thinking about it, assuming that it is a lawful order. Part of why we get, or are supposed to get training periodically on what is and isn't illegal.