I just can not understand the concept of morality in war. People are dead, and it does not matter how they died. Women and children die. That's it. Bombs don't care.
War is not about justification. War is war. I think that laws involving war are made by politicians and people who feel guilty that they did not manage to prevent the war in the first place.
That is what the Geneva Convention was all about. Guilt.
How is deforestation worse than blowing the hell out of the forest with a fiery blast from TNT?
Permalink | Report

No, I don't.

How could it be justified? What's your point?
Permalink | Report

Hindsight is 20-20. I'm sure at the time they thought it was justified, especially because they weren't as aware of the long term consequences.
When you think about Agent Orange and other herbicides their only purpose was to destroy the vegetation. I don't think they knew about its harmful long term effects on the environment and on humans. And when you think that its purpose was to destroy the thick forests that prevented them from fighting properly, it's a justified strategic move.

But it's so hard to make moral judgments about acts war. Short of outright crimes against humanity most acts of war seem and may even be justified under the circumstances. War isn't the time to be soft and cuddly, it's brutal. It has its limits under international law but I don't think in this case the chemical warfare crossed the line, especially because it's not "chemical warfare" per se. Its stated purpose was not to kill humans.

So, at the time it seemed justified, in hindsight maybe it wasn't.
Source(s):
http://www1.va.gov/Agentorange/

Permalink | Report