What should be the ethical limits of a defensive war?

[SGR]

These days, with all of our international treaties, codified and agreed upon conducts of war (e.g. Geneva Conventions), mutual economic international codependencies, and the PR disaster that might manifest through the internet when pictures and videos of your brutalities are shared to the entire world (ensuring you get much less, if any, international economic aid), we generally don't have to think deeply about this question very often anymore (and of course, that's probably a good thing).

But, the situation with Russia and Ukraine got me thinking: in a defensive war, what should be your ethical limits in terms of dealing with an aggressor?

Let me give an example: in late 1937, for the duration of six weeks during WWII, the Imperial Japanese Army invaded Nanjing, (Nanking) China after battle - and massacred the people, raped girls and women, looted en masse, etc. There were stories of Japanese soldiers bisecting a pregnant woman and throwing the fetus into boiling water - horrific, terrible stories. Deaths estimated up to 300,000 - cases of rape estimated up to 80,000. Pictures from the massacre linked below:

"Gore"

[close]

"Stabbing"

[close]

"Dead bodies"

[close]

So, would you have begrudged the Chinese at the time if they used deadly chemical weapons against their Japanese aggressors (assuming they had access to it)? If they had fought back their aggressors into retreating, would you take issue if the Chinese felt it fit to torture the prisoners they took until their death out of a sense of vengeance for what they did to their families?

Now what if the Chinese managed to mobilize and started to take the fight to Japan to beat them back until Japan either surrendered or agreed to peace? How far would be too far? Bombing religious buildings? Bombing hospitals? Targeting civilians?

From what I've read, Japan has yet to truly reckon with this part of their history, so let us reckon with it a bit - what should be the ethical limits in a defensive war? For the sake of argument, let's assume we're not worrying about all these modern day agreements, defense treaties, economic codependencies, etc. For the sake of argument, it's your country and an aggressor country in isolation.

[Trollheart]

Any sort of atrocity only dehumanises those who practice it or them. So while actually establishing "rules of war" seems ridiculous on the face of it, there do have to be some. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, propaganda is put about that the "enemy" (is it Eastasia or Eurasia? Not sure what the Party line is this week) have "committed atrocities" (not specified beyond something like raping women and children, probably all made up anyhow) so this then gives the Oceania army the "right" to say "It is no longer war: it is cold blooded murder!" And I ask the question, what's the difference?

Every side - Allies as well as Axis - practiced atrocities on the other in both World Wars (wasn't just the Germans using mustard gas: that's how Hitler was blinded) but I think there have to be some limits, some agreement whereby at least civilians are not directly targeted. If they're killed in shelling, crossfire, air-raids etc, nothing you can do. Can't programme your bombs to hit only military targets - well, you probably can now, but they still hit hospitals and schools and weddings - part of the terror I guess. But as far as actual soldiers taking it out on the civilians, that should be off the table right from the bat. It happens, and will happen, but if there's a limit that should be one. Also, no children attacked directly. Hospitals and other non-combatant buildings should be left alone; they've enough on their plate dealing with the results of the war anyway. Prisoners should always be treated under the GC, and killing prisoners outright should be a war crime (though even Henry V did it back at Agincourt). Black market profiteering should carry heavy penalties, as these people make their money on the misery and loss of others. Funerals should not be targeted, nor place of worship.

And so on. But every nation will either ignore or find ways around these rules, and the only true and unalterable rule of war is that it is Hell.

[SGR]

I'd agree with just about everything you said. Still, I think there's a part of the human condition - the tribalistic, vengeful side - that has been dulled and suppressed (again, probably for the better) by the safety of our modern civilization. I think, given the right set of conditions and circumstances, it wouldn't be difficult to bring that side of people roaring back to life. I suppose that's probably what propaganda is useful for. 9/11 is probably a decent example in recent times.

The barbarisms of history - a field of stakes with bodies impaled, charred flesh of the herectic on the pyre, or streams of traitorous heads rolling down the steps to the cheers and whoops of the enthusiastic crowd - nowadays there's a tighter intersection between real ethics and lawfulness, but one has to wonder how much further we have to go and what people 200 years from now will think of us and our actions.

To your point, unlike in times past, we now internationally agree to dress up our cold blooded murder with a bow-tie - and we've still managed to publicly maintain it as one of the most noble and honorable pursuits. And perhaps that's a good thing as it's likely some level of cold-blooded state-sanctioned murder is a necessity.

[Guybrush]

Good answer, Trollheart.

It's disturbing reading some of the abuses that russian soldiers have recently submitted ukrainian civilians to. Rape, murdering people in front of their beloved ones, etc. I've wondered what the psychology of atrocity is like. If you're a soldier and you see atrocities, maybe thinking less of the people it is committed against will help shield your own mental health from harm? I assume there may be many facets to it. It seems weird to me that war atrocities could become so pervasive in a conflict in 2022/23 that involves peoples that were basically neighbours.

About the japanese and their treatment of the chinese (and prisoners), I was reminded of Unit 731, a japanese biological and chemical warfare research facility that did extensive and lethal human experimentation during the time of WW2. You probably know of it and if not, it's good reading if you like feel-bad topics.

Unit 731 and the atrocities there inspired the video nasty Men Behind the Sun from the late 80s, a movie depicting some of the tortures that went on there. According to the director, they used real entrails and also human body parts for the special FX.

Disclaimer: With the above in mind, the clip below is kinda nasty.

[SGR]

Good answer, Trollheart.

It's disturbing reading some of the abuses that russian soldiers have recently submitted ukrainian civilians to. Rape, murdering people in front of their beloved ones, etc. I've wondered what the psychology of atrocity is like. If you're a soldier and you see atrocities, maybe thinking less of the people it is committed against will help shield your own mental health from harm? I assume there may be many facets to it. It seems weird to me that war atrocities could become so pervasive in a conflict in 2022/23 that involves peoples that were basically neighbours.

About the japanese and their treatment of the chinese (and prisoners), I was reminded of Unit 731, a japanese biological and chemical warfare research facility that did extensive and lethal human experimentation during the time of WW2. You probably know of it and if not, it's good reading if you like feel-bad topics.

Unit 731 and the atrocities there inspired the video nasty Men Behind the Sun from the late 80s, a movie depicting some of the tortures that went on there. According to the director, they used real entrails and also human body parts for the special FX.

Disclaimer: With the above in mind, the clip below is kinda nasty.

Yikes, never seen that movie before - and honestly, probably won't. I wouldn't mind reading about it though - I haven't stumbled upon a good book on Unit 731 (unlike the Rape of Nanking, by Iris Chang, which is a great book if you don't mind staring into the abyss [wink, wink, nudge, nudge] of the human soul) before but I've read a fair amount about it. If memory serves, they made the Nazis look rather humane in comparison. I forget where I read this, but I believe the military aspect of indoctrination in the schools of Imperial Japan was very pronounced at the time and leading up to WW2. From a young age for example, Japanese children were taught to view the Chinese as, well, let's say less than human. And their loyalty was obviously drilled into their head - which is why so many were willing to die for the Emperor. The dehumanization of military enemies is important or else soldiers might think twice before pulling the trigger - or become remorseful, guilt-ridden, and ineffective after they do. Of course, what comes with the dehumanization of enemies is not only soldiers experiencing less moral/ethical difficulty with killing them - but also with commiting barbarities against them.

The samurai mindset back then, vicious and unrelenting - and now they have a serious population problem (too many elderly, not enough young) and some of their citizens are 'marrying' anime characters. Crazy what a nuclear bomb and the succeeding comforts and placations of the western world and a more interconnected world economy can do.

[Toy Revolver]

I've read Unit 731 Testimony: Japan's Wartime Human Experimentation Program which has been in print since the 90's and I consider just as good as The Rape of Nanking. Another excellent book along the same lines is True Stories of the Korean Comfort Women (Cassell Global Issues Series). Unfortunately, that last one is out of print. Unlike the other two, Comfort Women isn't pieced together by an historian but simply direct testimonies from the victims. All three are very dark, obviously, but the truth is the truth.

[Toy Revolver]

to address the question i think i'm in the same territory as trolls - the international laws concerning war crimes should be upheld but there are likely to be outliers that call for more aggressive and unorthodox approaches- international borders have become more sacrosanct and crossing borders with the intent of territorial acquisition has become taboo- so ultimately how far would be too far for ukraine to go to protect their sovereignty - if it was an endgame scenario would nuking moscow be justified if that's what it took to avoid becoming a russian state - i think it's ok to take a dichotomous intellectual approachi to this moral dilemma- more specifically it's ok to understand that this is justifiable from a ukrainian standpoint but still has to be condemned from an international standpoint- sort of like when chris rock joked that he didn't think oj was right but he got it

it would be unpalatable to punish ukrainian officials for doing what they had to do but sometimes there's no good answer

in general technology makes it easier to destroy things but perhaps in the new technological age it will be possible to use some sort of ai or future technology to simultaneously disarm all nuclear weapons - perhaps with drones and a future surveillance capability biological and chemical agents will be eliminated as well - the programming could be an unhackable system signed onto by scientists and engineers from all nations to eliminate existential threats - perhaps too there will be an evolutionary step towards global cooperation and the homosapien species or whatever we call ourselves will become something new

but to get back on it - yes there are ethical limits even from a defensive posture and being backed into a corner doesn't magically make the unethical ethical- but still in an outlier situation you do what you have to do and the international tribunals will do what they have to do and everybody will have to man up and accept some blood on their hands and then try to get on with the work of trying to see to it that it doesn't happen again