Hindsight is 20/20

Shue basically lays out the ground work for a discussion about the problems of a just war. I will agree that there were many semi-obvious points that were brought up but what I really liked was the contradiction in the ethical questions concerning war. I really don’t have much to say about the specific points he brings up but I do have one large concern with the overall argument. This point is that a nation, especially one that thinks it is acting justly, does not have to follow these guidelines. These rules work best for larger nations that act within the global sphere and because war between nations with nuclear weapons would most likely end in unparalleled destruction, a fact leaders are aware of, then these rules apply to smaller more unstable nations. And because they are less stable they are less likely to follow these principles, which they had no part in creating, especially if a radical government is in place. Also, these are really only applicable when there has been time to judge actions taken after the fact. For example the destruction of civilian centers that also serve military purposes may or may not be a “must destroy situation.” The thing is at the time most commanders don’t know and feel morally obligated to the nation and to soldiers under their command to destroy a dual purpose facility. This I coupled with the fact that they are operating in a kill or be killed situation. When humans are forced to go to war morality probably has already been left behind to a large extent. Also, most often the victor gets to write history so outside of cold hard facts it seems like the necessary evils will be covered up or forgotten in the public’s memory. So it is a deliberate attempt to justify actions that had to be taken which creates more of a problem when trying to find out the larger ethical problems when fighting a war.