[SIZE=3]معمر القذافي [/SIZE]
does that help? 
So, in 2003, during the build-up to the war, if some crack Iraqi infiltration team had decided there was only one chance to avoid war, and they successfully assassinated some critical combination of key war architects, like George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Tenet, Wolfowitz, Libby, Douglas Feith, William Luti, Stephen Hadley, Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, John Hannah, David Wurmser, Andrew Natsios, Dan Bartlett, Mitch Daniels, etc., you would consider that a moral and legitimate action by the Iraqi government?
Would it be more or less moral/legitimate than Iraqis avoiding war by killing thousands of soldiers and sailors? (Or thousands of American civilians holding no military or government positions?)
This is why, once upon a time, nations actually formally declared war on each other. A declaration of war legally justified acts that would otherwise be considered terrorism, brigandage or piracy. In the leadup to the second war with Iraq, the US fig-leafed it’s actions against Saddam’s regime by talking piously of “UN resolutions” and such, but basically it was an undeclared war.
Well, as I’ve stated, it’s only a positive moral good if it’s used in the context of a just war. A butcher and a dictator like Sadaam would not be justified in using lethal force to protect his position.
That being said, if he was determined to stay in power and fight for it, then yes, targeted assassinations against world leaders would have been a less-immoral action than having two armies clash, complete with the damage that inflicted.
Here’s an interesting question.
Now the consensus is that a war can be moral if the ends of the war justify the means. And the consensus here is that assassination as a tool of war is more moral than conventional fighting.
So could there be a situation in which the ends achieved would be enough to justify an assassination but not enough to justify a conventional war?
For example, let’s say that Republic of Elbonia is ruled by President-for-Life Ivan the Brutal. Another country determines that Ivan’s a bad guy and Elbonia and the world would be better off without him running Elbonia.
They could launch an invasion of Elbonia, conquer the country, and throw Ivan out of power. But such a war would cause the death of millions of Elbonians (plus a lot of their own soldiers). And they concede that the Elbonians are better off suffering under Ivan’s rule than they would be suffering the consequences of a war. So they do not invade.
But if they assassinate Ivan, that changes the numbers. The average Elbonian won’t suffer because of Ivan being assassinated - in fact, they’ll probably be better off.
So logically it would be immoral to invade Elbonia while it would be moral to assassinate Ivan.
And, for me, the logical conclusion I’ve arrived at seems off. I can see how an assassination can be better if a war is the alternative. But in this case war is not the alternative. So can assassination still be moral?
No point to read further because you seem to be ignorant of History and Social Science and Biology in general.
Bio-engineer humans with lower testosterone and/or a few other androgens and there is no violent hostility left for your “Nations” to go to war.
Read.
As “don’t fight any wars” is outside the scope of a thread on how to most morally fight a war, science fiction about “genetically engineer all of humanity… so we don’t fight any wars” is also outside the scope.
Thanks.
Sure, just like it might be a just war if you have clear targets and hit them with smart bombs, but not if you engage in total war and just firebomb your enemy’s population centers.
Agreed. I think that’s pretty similar to Libya now, actually. If the US invaded it’d almost certainly be a horribly bad thing. If, however, Quadaffi and his loyal family members/generals were killed, it’s likely that the country could be spared what’s coming.
Sure. In this case war is still an alternative, it’s just not a viable one. Even if it wasn’t though, assassination can be a positive moral good if not-war and war still lead to greatly increased human suffering and misery.
I also do not believe that there is necessarily any real dichotomy between war and assassination ; I’d say that assassination is a subset of the use of lethal force, as is conventional war.
As an aside, I think that this thread broke Google ads. Or, at least, Google is not secure enough to start trying to sell us the use of assassins.
I highly recommend reading the Wikipedia article on targeted killings. Targeted killing is the preferred term for what you’re talking about, since supposedly assassination (like murder) implies illegality.
The US has a longstanding policy opposing assassination, but it’s been interpreted to apply to killings that occur outside the scope of legitimate combat. When, prior to the policy, the CIA tried (unsuccessfully) to kill Casro, that would have been assassination, because the US was not engaged in combat against Cuba. OTOH, we’ve been fighting al-Qaeda for years now, and we’ve been using snipers, Predator drones, and whatever else we can get to work to take out their leaders. If we could get bin Laden that way, we would (unless we could capture him), and we’ve been pretty open about it.
The article on military manhunts also has some good information.
Do you want to expand on this? Who is doing the bio-engineering anyway? What are we suppose to read?
Also where is **FinnAgain **showing ignorance of History and Social Sciences and Biology.
I disagree with him about assassination being more moral as I think it is not a useful tool most of the time. But I don’t see your argument and challenge you to back it up.
Mine is providing an ad for ‘clean your criminal record now’. 
… could well be relevant!
A counter-point: a possible argument against the use of assassinations/targeted killings of leaders is that this is an open incetive to removing all restraint from war-making, once a military conflict is inevitable. If the leaders face killing as a normal incident of conflict, what incentive do they have to keep to the “rules’” of war, such as they are?
OTOH, of course, it may actively deter conflict from arising in the first place …
I still don’t buy that there’s any clear line defining assassination in the case of a legitimate war. Someone directing military operations is a legitimate military target, no different from an officer in uniform, or a factory, or a tank. If you’re at war, then you’re at war, and the term @assassination" has no useful meaning.
The Master speaks:
Regarding Bio-Engineering:
Pro or Con: Take it to a new thread. Continuing that line would be a hijack of this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
I think what Cecil says in that column is well known to everyone participating here. And it doesn’t constitute a substantive response to my plea.
(Note that none of the common spellings noted by Cecil feature a QU at the beginning.)
I don’t think that leaders would start discarding the Geneva Conventions simply because of potential consequences. After all, that would still lead to war crimes charges.
The argument isn’t that. It is like this. Assume leaders stick to the rules because they fear the consequences to themselves personally, but that sticking to the rules has certain costs in terms of military efficiency.
A rule or code part of which precludes killing those leaders as a normal incident of war is more likely to get those same leaders to “buy into” paying the cost of sticking to the rules - for one, because they benefit personally from rule-abiding, as they are more likely not to be targeted for assassination; and for another, because they are more likely to be around after the conflict to be tried for war crimes if they don’t.
If rulers are more likely to die during a conflict because they are considered legitimate, highly moral targets, they have less incentive to follow the “rules” in other respects.
Sort of reminds me of a joke in the Cartoon History of the Universe about the rebellion against Shih Huang Ti - some solders are talking among themselves: “what is the penalty for being late on patrol?” “Death.” “What is the penalty for rebellion against the state?” “Death.” “Well, guess what - we’re late!”