Jason BennettEthics I The Ethics of War Discussed I choose to do my paper on the ethics of war, and plan to discuss the morality and rules of war. One of the biggest reasons that I chose this topic is that I was in the Army for a few years, and therefore have some insight and concern on the subject of war. I do not think that my opinions will be biased as I can still take an objective look at the arguments, but I do plan to argue that the morality of war is relative to the situation.I am generally in agreement with the author's of the articles in our textbook, and have read and understand their arguments. In "Morality of Nuclear Armanent", Connery discusses when it is and is not permissible to use nuclear weapons to resolve a conflict. He starts out with several statements that set the tone for his argument. He says that "Wars of aggression are always impermissible" and "The only just war is a defensive war...". This means that it is never permissible to attack another country, unless they have attacked or provoked you. Now this could be argued because there are many situations that I believe would warrant military aggression, that would not require an actual prior show of force. For example, the situation in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm. Sadam Hussien did not attack the United States, nor did his actions threaten the lives of U.S. citizens. I strongly believe however, that the U.S. had every right, if not an obligation to intervene with military force. The U.S. had economic interests to protect, as well as the defense of a small country that could not defend itself against the hostile attack. Connery also discusses the amount and type of force that is permissible. He says, "In a defensive war, only proportional responses are permissible to answer aggression. An exception is possible if the enemy is extraordinarily well-armed and likely to use dis-proportionate force. For instance, if my enemy ...
