ants in wartime. Why? Because they are innocent. That is, they are innocent of the violent and destructive action of war, or of any close participation in the violent and destructive action of war. It is such participation alone that would make them legitimate targets of violent repression themselves....they are innocent of the one thing which in our theology would make them legitimate targets of direct violence, namely violent war-making, or sufficiently close cooperation in violent war-making.While Ford makes a strong argument, I do not agree with his position on this subject. I believe that civilian lives must be spared whenever it is possible to do so. However, there are going to be situations where doing so would jeopardize the war effort or cause more casualties than would be spared.I consider myself somewhat of a utilitarian, so I believe in the greatest good for the greatest number of people argument. I also believe that this utilitarian argument is relevant to an "ethics of war" discussion. Obviously, if dropping a nuclear bomb on an enemy country is going to save more lives in the long run than would be killed by the bomb, then I would be all for it. There are, as I said before, going to be discrepancies in each situation. In his article titled, "The Morality of Using Nuclear Weapons", Velasquez says:If the evil of killing the many people that would die in a nuclear holocaust is greater than the good that would be achieved, then it would be wrong to use nuclear weapons...If more good than evil would result, and if no other alternative will produce a greater balance of good over evil, then it is moral to use such weapons.I would agree that there are many other relevant criteria that must be evaluated before I would condone the use of nuclear weapons. However, I must maintain that under certain circumstances, it would be morally permissible.In conclusion, the ethics of war is a very touchy, controversial subject that ...
