# Assassination is the refinement of war to its most moral form **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2011, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928 "2011-02-28T15:49:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/61 "2011-03-01T11:56:48Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > These statements are mutually exclusive. No they aren’t. Stopping the Nazis was a moral goal; doing so by killing everyone in Germany would not have been a moral or necessary method of doing so. > [@MrDibble](#): > > No, it’s special pleading. Nazis (and not every German was a Nazi) were no more evil than anyone else. The British, or the Americans, say, were \*just \*as capable of unthinking \*and \*calculated evils as the Nazis. Irrelevant, since the non-Nazis weren’t the ones in charge. As for the British & Americans, what matters was their attitudes at that particular historical moment, not what they are “capable of”. They were, as demonstrated by history perfectly _capable_ of killing everyone in India down to the babies and rendering them down into leather goods; what matters is that _at the particular time_ that nonviolent resistance was used against them they were _unwilling_ to do so against nonviolent protesters. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/62 "2011-03-01T12:12:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No they aren’t. I’m not sure what you aren’t understanding here. On one hand you want to claim that a tool which can reduce the casualties of war has “no moral difference” with another method that cannot. On the other hand, you claim that reducing the casualties of war is a moral goal and makes war more more than otherwise. It’s a very clear contradiction. That you immediately leap to stopping the Nazis by exterminating entire population centers is, shall we say, a bit hyperbolic. The whole point I’m making is that assassination has the potential to _reduce_ casualties. The actual argument would be that if we had stopped the Nazis by using assassins to remove Hitler and his inner circle and then did something like negotiate a truce with those involved in the Officer’s Plot, that the war would have been significantly ameliorated. We’re discussing assassination, Der, not “killing everyone in Germany”. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/63 "2011-03-01T12:52:04Z")
If a means is immoral, it doesn’t necessarily become moral because the ends are moral or because other means are more immoral. Sometimes there might exist no moral means for achieving a moral end. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/64 "2011-03-01T14:23:17Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > No, it’s using an infamous example to make a point. > > No, it’s special pleading. Nazis (and not every German was a Nazi) were no more evil than anyone else. The British, or the Americans, say, were \*just \*as capable of unthinking \*and \*calculated evils as the Nazis. > > > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > > > Absolution’s a rare thing. But as a pacifist, wouldn’t you agree that less violence is better than more violence? And therefore, killing a dozen politicians and generals is better than killing a million soldiers and sailors? > > " > “Lesser of two evils” is moral capitulation. It’s how you end up greasing your cornhole for Stalin just because you hate Hitler. It doesn’t work - Law of Unintended Consequences is a bitch that way. Sure, this week they’re killing their politicians and generals. Next week, the local Democrat leaders. **MrDibble** , if you would like to argue the point of the actual OP, please do so. Your efforts, here, are taking the form of _Nego Majore_ and simply denying the OP. Wandering into a discussion on a particular point and simply claiming that the discussion is about the wrong topic may have a value in such a debate, but continuing to argue that point turns your efforts into a hijack. Having established your position, if you wish to continue that discussion, please open a separate thread to do so. Thank you. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/65 "2011-03-01T14:53:47Z")
By the way, I think that this largely sums up the point I am arguing: > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > less violence is better than more violence[…] And therefore, killing a dozen politicians and generals is better than killing a million soldiers and sailors I would, however, like to slightly amend my OP; I think Malthus’ devil’s advocate argument is somewhat correct on an essential point. Whereas I originally argued that “there is no more humane method of prosecuting that than by targeted assassinations”, I should not have used an absolute claim. I will amend that to state, instead “In a great many situations where military force is justified and is going to be used, there is no more humane method of prosecuting that than by targeted assassinations.” There can be situations in which, for example, assassinating a leader makes him into a martyr and the resulting backlash actually prolongs and intensifies the conflict in terms both of severity/ferocity and duration. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/66 "2011-03-01T17:50:52Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > **MrDibble** , if you would like to argue the point of the actual OP, please do so. Your efforts, here, are taking the form of _Nego Majore_ and simply denying the OP. Wandering into a discussion on a particular point and simply claiming that the discussion is about the wrong topic may have a value in such a debate, but continuing to argue that point turns your efforts into a hijack. Having established your position, if you wish to continue that discussion, please open a separate thread to do so. Thank you. > > [/Moderating] I think this is bullshit, but fine, I’ll cut it out, or take it to ATMB. My other point, about unintended consequences, stands. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/67 "2011-03-01T20:55:17Z")
The current situation in Libya offers an excellent example. Currently, in his bid to hold on to power, Quadaffi is slaughtering members of the opposition and it looks as if the country will descend into a full-blown civil war. If Quadaffi, his children (at least any who support him and would take up the fight should he fall), any loyal generals were assassinated, it is likely that hundreds if not thousands (or tens of thousands) of lives would be saved and massive property damage would be avoided so that the Libyans could more easily rebuild their home. The potential to eliminate so much human suffering, death and devastation stands as a distinct moral good. And short of Quadaffi surrendering and permitting democracy to take hold, is most likely the single most humane alternative in the conflict. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/68 "2011-03-01T22:51:23Z")
How likely is it that a dictator who has held power for decades and knows that rivals would kill him if they could, can be assassinated that easily? I’ll bet no one comes within a kilometer of Quadaffi without being thorougly vetted by his security detail. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/69 "2011-03-01T23:25:05Z")
Absolutely. Qauadaffi is most likely a very hard target. Just like we weren’t able to kill Sadaam because we couldn’t get at him. I’m not saying that it’s at all feasible to kill Quadafi, just that if we could then it would be a positive moral good in terms of reduced suffering. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/70 "2011-03-01T23:29:55Z")
For the sake of my sanity, can we agree on a single spelling of Qaddafi for the purposes of this thread? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2011, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/71 "2011-03-01T23:51:59Z")
Xylophone. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/72 "2011-03-02T04:16:56Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > For the sake of my sanity, can we agree on a single spelling of Qaddafi for the purposes of this thread? With any luck, we’ll be able to read it off his gravestone within a few weeks. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/73 "2011-03-02T07:13:31Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > **As to assassination** , it is a better tool only were it would stop a war. Assassinating Hitler early would probably have been great, but assassinating FDR before Pearl Harbor would not have prevent bloodshed. Assassinating FDR in 1941 might have won the war for the Axis. That would have made Henry Wallace President. The damage done at Pearl Harbor would be trivial in comparison. Also keep in mind that FDR signed the papers authorizing the Manhattan Project on December **6th** , 1941. Of course assassinating Hitler in May, 1941 might have won the war for the Axis also, if he was replaced with someone who wasn’t stupid enough to invade the Soviet Union. Of course, it might also have resulted in the first nuclear weapon being dropped on Berlin. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/74 "2011-03-02T08:26:00Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Gandhi also had half a billion Indians; he could afford to lose a few million of them to prove a point. Us Jews never had the numbers for that kind of luxury. As someone said previously, he took his ideas seriously. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have excluded the extermination of his half a billion Indians as a valid option. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/75 "2011-03-02T08:40:29Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Which is why such tactics would have been terrible ones to try against the Nazis. The Nazis were not only cruel and ruthless, they _liked the thought_ of being cruel and ruthless. I don’t think so. Even though there were certainly sadists amongst the Nazis, the line advocated by Nazi leaders was rather that compassion was a weakness one should get rid of when dealing with everybody who was perceived as a liability for the German nation. They didn’t want good German Nazis to become sadists or even emotionless, but rather to be strong willed enough to be able to eliminate in cold blood whoever was in their way (or to sacrifice willingly their own life, depending on the circumstances). ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/76 "2011-03-02T08:52:40Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > So when we were invading Iraq it would’ve been OK if they had started to assassinate key decision makers here? I don’t think that would even do much. They’d have to kill all the Congress critters, the Pentagon and all the military leadership, everyone in the executive branch, probably all the governors…but all these would be quickly replaced and wouldn’t stop our war aims. So hmm. I don’t think the point was “assassination is always the best tool to win a war” but rather “if it can achieve the same goals, assassination is superior in every respect” ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/77 "2011-03-02T12:26:20Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I don’t think the point was “assassination is always the best tool to win a war” but rather “if it can achieve the same goals, assassination is superior in every respect” Exactly. Smart bombs are superior to carpet bombing in all respects. But just because they won’t work against an entrenched enemy in a labyrinthian cave network, that doesn’t mean that it’s not far more desirable to use precision weaponry rather than carpet bombings when it’s viable. When assassination is viable, used in a just war and carried off properly, there is little to no collateral damage and the war itself can be shortened in duration and reduced in severity. This makes it a positive moral good. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/78 "2011-03-02T14:19:59Z")
Wait, are we talking about a trained uniformed soldier sniping at an enemy officer, here, or a false flag operation targeting civilians? Because, while I find both reprehensible, the latter is a lot more morally repugnant than the former. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/79 "2011-03-02T14:30:20Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Exactly. Smart bombs are superior to carpet bombing in all respects. But just because they won’t work against an entrenched enemy in a labyrinthian cave network, that doesn’t mean that it’s not far more desirable to use precision weaponry rather than carpet bombings when it’s viable. > > When assassination is viable, used in a just war and carried off properly, there is little to no collateral damage and the war itself can be shortened in duration and reduced in severity. This makes it a positive moral good. You don’t always know the results of assassination though. If you killed Hitler before 1936 it probably would have been a very good thing. By 1941 though he was almost surely hurting the German effort more then he was helping it. Let’s connect JFK and Vietnam. In all likelihood this accelerated the build up of American troops in Vietnam by putting Johnson in charge and leading to a Nixon Presidency. Now I don’t believe his assassination was motivated by Vietnam but lets say instead it was, this was an assassination that would have worked terribly for the goal. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2011, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928/80 "2011-03-02T14:36:10Z")
You are correct, assassination may appear viable but not be, and like everything from butterfly wings to a roll of the dice, may have unforeseen consequences. It’s neither a panacea for the ills of war nor a magic bullet for guaranteeing an outcome. But in situations where it is viable, it takes war to the most humane level we are capable of bringing it to. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assassination-is-the-refinement-of-war-to-its-most-moral-form/572928.md?page=5)