1. Military Ethics in the New Millennium
“The Ethics of Warfare in the 21st Century”
NE 203: Dr. Lucas

2. Military Ethics in the New Millennium
                                                                                                                                                                                                           WANTED FOR                                        
MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES;
CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES;
ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH
USAMA BIN LADEN
Military Ethics in the New Millennium
Legalist paradigm applies to nation-states
What about “non-state actors” (terrorists)?
What happens when nations “fail” or collapse (Rwanda), or turn on their own citizens (Sudan, Ivory Coast, Liberia)
Is it ever legitimate for one or more states to act proactively, preemptively, to prevent harm from occurring?
NE 203: Dr. Lucas

3. After Vietnam and the Cold War
Weinberger doctrine: war only in clear national interest, with full public support, massive commitment of resources, and clear definition of success and “exit strategy”
Albright doctrine: use force to protect human rights throughout the world
Bush doctrine: use force preemptively to take the fight to the terrorist or rogue enemy BEFORE he can strike the homeland
Humanitarian and counter-terrorist interventions largely fail the Weinberger criteria
NE 203: Dr. Lucas

4. Asymmetric Warfare
“Asymmetry” results when one nation’s or coalition’s conventional (or nuclear?) forces are VASTLY superior to any adversary’s (training, equipment, performance)
Weaker opponents driven to unconventional methods of pursuing conflict resolution, e.g.: terrorism (attack on USS Cole)
When the opposition violates jus in bello, are we entitled to do likewise? Should we?
NE 203: Dr. Lucas

5. “Virtual War”
Kosovo campaign achieved its objectives without a single NATO combat fatality
Michael Ignatieff (Harvard) calls this “virtual war” or “war without casualties”
Does this pose any new or unexplored moral dilemmas?
NE 203: Dr. Lucas

6. Some Possible Moral Problems
“Riskless war” (for the superior force) is “easier to fight”
“violence which moralizes itself as justice, and which is unrestrained by consequences” (Ignatieff)
Risk is almost entirely exported to the opposing side, and to its civilian non-combatants
NE 203: Dr. Lucas

7. Cyber War (“Information War”)
Kosovo again: do we target fielded forces (Gen. Wesley Clark) versus Belgrade command center
“Destroying the credibility and reliability of the data on which the enemy bases his decisions becomes just as effective as killing his people or wrecking his cities.” (Ignatieff)
Examples of “dual use” targets: TV stations, power stations and grids, telephones, satellite communications, financial systems
“Cyber terrorism”: computer viruses, hacking
NE 203: Dr. Lucas

8. Moral Issues in Cyber War
“warfare directed at a society’s nervous system, rather than against its fielded forces, necessarily blurs the distinction between civilian and military objectives” (Ignatieff)
As with economic sanctions, attacks aimed at an enemy’s infrastructure do disproportionate harm to non-combatants
Do we respond to a cyber-invasion with a similar computer attack, or a conventional pounding with cruise missiles?
NE 203: Dr. Lucas

9. International Law and the “Legalist Paradigm”
“International community” of independent states
International law protects territorial integrity (self determination and a “common life”)
Aggression/use of force = criminal act
Aggression justifies two responses: self defense and law enforcement (allies)
NOTE: very sharp limitation on use of military; aggressor states may be repulsed and punished
NE 203: Dr. Lucas

10. Classical Just War Theory
declared by a legitimate authority
fight for a just cause
and with the “right intention”
War is a last resort; exhaust all other options
Likelihood of success
Comparative Justice or Proportionality of ends – “the value of the benefits sought or the injustices redressed must be proportional to the sacrifice and damage to be incurred”
Just or “right” means -- principally not to target non-combatants
NE 203: Dr. Lucas