were in possession of nuclear bombs which I had good reason to believe he would use, it would be suicidal for me to choose the more leisurely precision bombing." This means that if the situation could be resolved with a limited display of military force, then it is not necessary or permissible to exceed this level of aggression in the attack. However, if the enemy you are facing has superior weapons or is willing to use devastating force against you, then you are permitted to use whatever actions necessary to resolve the situation and save your own country. The majority of Connery's argument focuses on the morality of waging indiscriminate warfare on non-combatants, i.e. non-soldiers, civilians. In his article he says:Moralists agree that the noncombatant may not be the direct target of any destructive weapon, large or small. This means that one may neither deliberately aim his attack at noncombatants nor drop bombs without distinction on combatants and noncombatants alike. Such bombing would be contrary to sound moral principles, even if resorted to only in retaliation.But granted a sufficiently important military target which could notbe safely eliminated by any less drastic means, nuclear bombing would be morally justified, even if it involved the resultant loss of a large segment of the civilian population. It is presumed, of course, that the good to be achieved is at least equal to the expected damages.I would tend to agree with this argument, that it would be morally permissible to bomb civilians as long as the end justifies the means. But what justifies the merciless slaughter of innocent people? Connery says, "But to be justified, the loss of civilian life must be unavoidable and balanced by a proportionate good to the defender."This view is not shared by Ford, who in his article "The Hydrogen Bombing of Cities", he argues that it is never permissible to kill noncombatants.It is never permitted to kill directly noncombat...
