Call Back

24x7 Support Available

To Get the Best Price Chat With Our Experts

chat now

In A Hurry? Get A Callback

whatsapp whatsapp

shopping cart 0

Subject Solutions Code Description Price Delete

Amount Payable : $0

continue shopping proceed to checkout

World's Leading Assignment Library

Research Paper

Question Preview:

The most important problem related to Weapons of Mass destruction today is...... Note 1a: Definition of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Note on Weapons of Mass Destruction This note will focus on WMD in a more historical and a more general sense, including chemical and biological weapons. Historically, the term Weapons of Mass Destruction is fairly new. The term “weapons of massive destruction” can be traced back to 1937, just before World War II, as people became concerned about the prospects of massive aerial bombardment, using conv...

View Complete Question >>

Question Preview:

The most important problem related to Weapons of Mass destruction today is...... Note 1a: Definition of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Note on Weapons of Mass Destruction This note will focus on WMD in a more historical and a more general sense, including chemical and biological weapons. Historically, the term Weapons of Mass Destruction is fairly new. The term “weapons of massive destruction” can be traced back to 1937, just before World War II, as people became concerned about the prospects of massive aerial bombardment, using conventional explosives. The development of the airplane as a means of deploying weapons, and the large number that could be flown over a city at one time, suggested a new order of devastation. In part, this had already been seen in the “dive bombers” used by the German Air Force (Nazis) in support of the Franco rebellion in Spain, just a few years earlier. Picasso’s painting “Guernica” tried to capture the horror of this kind of bombing, at the Spanish city Guernica, a town in the Basque part of Spain that was assaulted on April 26, 1937, with anywhere from 400 to up to 1000 civilian deaths. The Oxford English Dictionary lists as the first appearance of the term “weapons of mass destruction” a Dec. 28 article on a radio speech “Christian Responsibility” given by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the leading cleric in the Anglican Church of England. He reminded he audience that a year earlier he given an address “A Recall to Religion”, and now followed up with an appeal to individual responsibility in the face of growing threats to democracy from state collectivism, presumably referring to the totalitarian regimes (of the left and right ) in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. He urged that inidividuals also assume responsibility for peace, writing in the context of growing war fears in Europe and Asia: “Who can think without dismay of the fears, jealousies and suspicions which have compelled nations, our own among them, to pile up their armaments? Who can think at this present time without a sickening of the heart of the appalling slaughter, the suffering, the manifold misery brought by war to Spain and China? Who can think Term “Weapons of Mass Destruction” 2 without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction? Yet how fruitless seem to be all efforts to secure a really settled peace.”1 The A-bomb was developed during World War II, and used just at its culmination against Japan. Now, a single plane could produce the damage formerly requiring a thousand; and the effects were more than just death and destruction from fire and blast: radiation was now added to the toxic mix. So atomic weapons were added to the concept of weapons of mass destruction, in which was included also chemical and biological weapons: The first post – WWII appearance of the term is in two articles appearing in the NY Times on Nov. 16, 1945 reporting and commenting on a meeting of the President of the US and the Prime Ministers of Great Britain and Canada on the issue of atomic weapons. The unsigned article notes that the agreement itself refers to “means of destruction hitherto unknown, against which there can be no adequate military defense” – presumably atomic weapons - and then comments on this, stating that the “agreement goes as far as is possible in the present state of the world to avert the further use of atomic bombs and similar weapons of mass destruction… “2 An accompanying article on the same page by Athur Krock imagined what a stronger declaration by the three might say: “We propose that a special commission of the United Nations shall begin at once to pan international means for the attainment and permanent operation of this arrangement. The Commision should proceed in four steps:… “third, to draw up a protocal by which all nations will agree to eliminate the atomic bomb and other weapons of mass destruction.”3 1 “Archbishop’s Appeal: Individual Will and Action; Guardian Personality”, The Times (London), 28 Dec. 1937, p. 9 [no author provided in original] 2 “The Atomic Agreement”, The New York Times, Nov. 16, 1945, p. 16 3 Krock, Arthur, “In the Nation: “In Other Words” – Truman, Attlee, King”, The New York Times, Nov. 16, 1945, p. 16 Term “Weapons of Mass Destruction” 3 In both these early uses, the notion of “weapon of mass destruction” was specific to one type of attack: massive air attack using conventional explosives (no longer considered as a WMD) or attack by atomic bomb (without explicitly considering biological or chemical weapons). Prior to 9/11 in 2001, when an unconventional, but non-nuclear assault occurred against the US – using airplanes to attack and destroy the World Trade Towers and severely damage the Pentagon – the term WMD was only occasionally used. Preference was often accorded to the acronym ABC for atomic, biological and chemical weapons, or NBC, for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The distinction between these two terms lies in the term “atomic”, referring to fission bombs of the type used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and the more encompassing “nuclear” including fusion (hydrogen) bombs developed in the 1950s. The term WMD now encompasses three types of weapons, as indicated by the current Oxford English Dictionary definition, added in 2004: “weapon of mass destruction n(oun). a weapon intended to cause widespread devastation and loss of life, (now) esp. a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon; usu(ally). in pl(ural)” The US Department of Defense Dictionary defines “weapons of mass destruction” as follows: “Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties, and excluding the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon. Also called WMD” 4 Note the inclusion of “radiological” weapons as a fourth category of WMD. This refers to the release or spreading of radioactive material (eg: uranium, plutonium) as a radioactive metal without using the fissionable capacity of the material; that is to say, not as an atomic explosion, but rather as a heavy metal with associated radioactivity. This material could be released in the water, contaminating it for human consumption, or in the air, where the radioactive particles could be breathed in and 4 DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, as of 15 October 2016, p. 254 Term “Weapons of Mass Destruction” 4 cause biological damage. We will return to this type of weapon, for which there is no known case of use to date. Secondly, note the term “high order of destruction” producing “mass casualties” .Neither of these terms give an order of magnitude – whether hundreds, thousands, or millions of victims are implied. As conventional weapons (including machine guns and high explosives) can produce numerous victims it will be interesting to compare the scope of death and destruction produced by modern rapid fire and large capacity conventional weapons with that of WMD. In this course we will also look at the scientific, technological, political, economic, and ethical aspects of WMD. Note 1b: Just War Theory (origin of the theory) Note (1): Aquinas and Just War Theory The problems of war and peace affect everyone – from soldiers called to fight, civilians caught in cross‐fire, tax‐payers who pay for war, and academics who try to figure out why nations fight. Most people agree that war is not an end in itself, but a means to achieving a lasting peace; but as the evidence of the 20th and preceding centuries, and now the 21st indicates, that permanent peace seems always to elude us. This course introduces students to basic theoretical issues in the study of war and peace, and to several case studies. Although we may tend to agree on the goal of peace, we may also have very different intuitions or personal opinions about the need for war, the extent of war, and particular instances of war (eg: Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, etc.). Therefore, I’d like to begin the course by finding a common basis for reflection, and a shared theoretical position – which is why we start this course with Just War Theory. Just War Theory can be traced back, in its first systematic formulation, to Thomas Aquinas, the the 13th century theologian (1125‐1274) whose greatest achievement was combining Greek philosophy – Aristotle in particular, and Christian theology. He did this in his multi‐volume Summa Theologica, completed about 1271. In the course of his analysis, he had to deal with the following dilemma: what is the correct attitude of Christians towards war – which he addressed in Part II, Question 40. Your first reading assignment is to read that text, which is included in the Week 1 Reading Assignment folder. The context for Aquinas was something you’ve all heard about – the Crusades. You may recall from high school or college history that after the “decline and fall” of the Roman Empire, usually dated to around 500 AD, Europe entered what is not quite accurately known as the “Dark Ages”, when learning and economic organization declined under the impact of invasions by “barbarian” tribes. Although this is an over‐generalization, it nonetheless does give a picture of a difficult time for Western civilization – though not a fully accurate one, as learning was preserved in monasteries, and periods of economic progress, such as in France under Charlemagne, did occur. Moreover, this was a period of economic progress and knowledge for non‐Europeans, notably the Arabs, who following their unification under Islam by Mohammed, rapidly expanded their territory (as far west as southern Spain), acquired and developed the knowledge of ancient Greece and Rome, and enjoyed a period of enlightenment. By the new millennium (1000 AD and after), western Europe had recovered to a large extent, with economic consolidation under the feudal system, local political rule through absolute monarchs, and a common religious system headed by the Pope in Italy. By 1083 the Arabs (known as “Moors”) had been expelled from their European outpost in southern Spain, and Christian rulers and the Pope turned to another item on their agenda: recovering Jerusalem, where Jesus had founded his new religion, and which was ruled by Moslems (Arabs or Turks). A series of Crusades were launched, beginning with the 1st, from 1096‐1099. After an initial victory and recuperation of Jerusalem in 1099, a series of setbacks led to NOTE ON AQUINAS -2- more Crusades, of which at least eight more occurred up to 1272, resulting in a defeat for the Christian effort to regain Jerusalem, which remained in Muslim hands until the 20th Century, when Palestine, which contained Jerusalem, was placed under British mandate after the defeat of the Turks (allies of Germany) in World War I. To this day, Jerusalem (now part of Israel) is an object of contention, now in the context of the Isreaeli‐Palestinian conflict. Returning to Aquinas, we can now see the problem that led to Question 40 of Summa Theologica: what is the correct Christian attitude to war, given that Christians now control armies and are engaged in this series of Crusades? This was a new situation in the sense that only relation Christians at the time of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament had to an army was fleeing one – the Roman army, which was attacking them as dissidents from the rule of Rome. But, as Christianity survived, and eventually became the official religion of Rome (after Constantine who was baptized at his death‐bed, in 337 AD), the problem of Christianity and war became more important. Augustine (354‐430) addressed the problem in passing; Aquinas, some six centuries later, provided a systematic response. In your reading, note that Aquinas uses what is known as the “scholastic method”. He begins each of the four questions about war that he addresses with Objections to the answer that he will eventually provide. In other words, he begins with arguments AGAINST his own point of view. This will be new for most of you, who are more accustomed to reading an author first present arguments FOR their position. But Aquinas considered that his answer would be more convincing if he first presented the opponent’s point of view. So you will read first a series of Objections, then a statement which begins: “On the contrary …”, where Aquinas first states what will be his own view, usually quoting some authority (especially Augustine, Aristotle, or one of the early Church fathers) in opposition to the Objections. This is followed by a paragraph beginning “I answer that … “ where Aquinas fully states his position (again, backed up by Biblical references and quotes from philosophical and theological authorities). He then more fully “Replies” to each of the Objections. It takes a moment to get used to this kind of presentation, but you should especially focus on the part beginning “I answer that… “, which presents the core of Aquinas’ position. Note one special problem that Aquinas had, evident in some of the Objections to the basic question, (1): “Whether it is always sinful to wage war”. That is the famous Sermon on the Mount (Matthew, 5‐7), where Jesus is quoted as saying “Blessed are the peacemakers” (5.9), “Resist not evil… turn the other cheek (5.39) and rejects the morality of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” (3.38). You may wish to look up Matthew 5 (readily available on the Internet in many formats) and compare. Go on to read the next two notes on Just War Theory in its modern, secular format. Note 2: Just War Theory (modern theory) Note (2): Johnson and Just War Theory Just War Theory passes from a theory within the Christian (and after the split, Catholic) tradition to a fully secular theory, as evidenced in books such as James Turner Johnson’s Morality and Contemporary Warfare (with a minor link to Catholic tradition) and Michael Waltzer’s Just and Unjust Wars (without any further link to Catholic tradition). We will see that this results in three major components: (1) Justice in going to war; (2) justice in waging war; and (3) justice in ending/after war (not included in Johnson) Note: the preceding three terms are sometimes given in their Latin form, as a mark of respect for the writings of Aquinas, also in Latin (the academic language of the Middle Ages). The correspondences are as follows, with the Latin “jus” (or sometimes: “ius” for the English “justice”) and the Latin “bellum” for the English “war”: English Latin Reason Justice in Going to War Jus ad bellum “ad” = going toward Justice in Waging War Jus in bellum “in” = during or in Justice in Ending/After War Jus post bellum “post” = afterward (1) Justice in Going to War: On p 28, Turner lists a number of issues associated with Justice in going to war. The first three refer back to the three criteria mentioned by Aquinas: (i) Just Cause (ii) Right Authority (iii) Right Intent The major difference is that (i) “Right Authority” can now be any state or government, not just the Pope or Christian monarchs acting under Papa authority, as for Aquinas. Moreover, the scope of (ii) “Just Cause” has narrowed: whereas in the 19th Century a country could be invaded for defaulting on bank loans, this would not be considered as acceptable in the 20th. The question for us is evaluate to what extent the concept of just cause been further narrowed, a question we’ll look at later in terms of “preventive war” when discussing the invasion of Iraq. (iii) “Rightful Intent” remains a mechanism for linking the individual soldier to the just cause: they must fight for that cause, not personal glory or gain. Johnson also includes the further items: (iv) Proportionality of Ends (v) Last Resort (vi) Reasonable Hope of Success (vii) The Aim of Peace Proportionality of Ends means that the overall good achieved must surpass (perhaps by a considerable extent) the harm caused. Waging war involves using armed force and destructive means – this results in death and destruction. Proportionality of Ends means that the good achieved by the war has to make these negative effects secondary in comparison. For example: If Canada were to invade the US and seize the town of St. Albans, Vermont (population 25,000), atom bombing Canada in response would not be a proportional response, since the harm caused (deaths of civilians in Canada, fallout over the Northern US) would not be worth the end achieved (the return of St. Albans to the Stars and Stripes). NOTE ON JOHNSON -2- Last Resort means just that – all means of settling the conflict short of the use of armed force must have been tried and proved futile before the resort to force. This includes diplomatic negotiations, economic boycotts, political alliances, etc. Reasonable Hope of Success implies that a government should not enter into a war without a reasonable expectation of victory. This can be a major problem, as the history of this and the last century shows that antagonists tend to underestimate their opponents : World War I was supposed to end in weeks; after less than a month of combat, Pres. Bush declared “mission accomplished” in Iraq, etc. The Aim of Peace is obvious, and indicates that the end of war is not more war, but exactly its opposite. Unfortunately, many wars end in more wars (eg: World War I led to World War II via the Versailles Treaty). Why? – we’ll see part of the answer when we examine the third component of JWT: justice POST bellum (see a further note on this I’ll post later on). (2) Johnson identifies just two aspects of Justice in Waging War: (i) Proportionality of Means. This is related to Proportionality of Ends in Justice in Going War in the following sense: just as more good must come from the war than harm it causes, the amount and type of force used (as means) must be such as to avoid unnecessary harm. This is related to the prohibition of excessive force: the amount of force used in a military operation must be such as is really needed to achieve the desired end, and not more. This is reflected in international law (Geneva conventions) on the use of force, taking and holding of prisoners, etc. (ii) Noncombatant protection/immunity. This is perhaps the most problematic requirement, as it presupposes that (a) military combatants are clearly distinguished (by uniform, place of action) from civilians, and (b) “collateral damage” – the unintentional harming of civilians as a byproduct of military action, is excused. In fact, this is often a problem – as the civilian casualties in the recent Israel‐Gaza war indicate. One further comment on Johnson’s division of Justice in Waging War into two aspects. A third component comes readily to mind, which he may already include in ( i) but could well be separated as a distinct item: (iii) Prohibited Weapons and Means: Some munitions has been excluded since the early 20th century – eg: expanding or “dum‐dum” bullets, which have hollow tips and expand inside the body when penetrated, causing extensive damage. Presumably, it is better to maim and kill more rapidly and with less extent of damage. Chemical and biological weapons have been outlawed by international treaties, even if chemical weapons were used in World War I, and biological weapons in World War II (by the Japanese in China). The question arises whether nuclear weapons, which do not discriminate between military and civilians (in violation of civilian immunity) should be banned, and we will examine this later in the course. What about torture? (more on this later too). Note 3: Just War Theory (Justice after war) Note 3: JUSTICE AFTER WAR ADDED WEDS, JUNE 29 BY PROF. BLITZ James Turner Johnson has elaborated a modern, secular conception of two key aspects of Just War Theory: justice in going to war, and justice in waging war. In a preliminary way, I encourage you to look at these (a) to determine what you find most important and/or interesting in Just War Theory; and (b) to determine what you consider the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. We can discuss all that via the discussion group. But now I want to turn to a limitation of the theory, which is addressed in the work of Brian Orend, among others. Logically, if we consider a war as a means to settle a dispute, it has a beginning, middle and end. For our purposes, let’s focus on the lead up to the war, during which time justice in going to war is key; the war itself, during which justice in waging war is essential (for Just War Theory, that is: someone who rejects JWT would not be interested in the niceties of warfare, though there are international laws that cover some aspects that can’t be completely ignored). That leaves one more aspect: ending the war and the period following the war. Consider the above diagram, which actually contains five points or periods of interest: According to JWT all means short of war have to be exhausted during the pre‐War period (1) and the cause must be just. Supposing that these conditions have occurred, a Declaration of War (1a) may, and indeed, must occur, for the war to begin. We then have the period of war (2) during which justice in waging war comes into play. Most (though not all) wars are ended by a Peace Treaty (3), and what Orend insists on is that JWT be extended to include Justice in ending the war and Justice after the war, which seems, from the above diagram, to be required if only for the sake of symmetry. We can immediately think of the bad consequences of failing to end a war justly, and failing to maintain justice in the post‐war period. The Treaty of Versailles ending World War I is considered as a major cause for the rise of the Nazis and the subsequent World War II. This is due to the reparations imposed on Germany, which had to pay back to the Allies the cost of the war it had just lost. This led to the ruin of the German economy, hyperinflation, massive unemployment, and bad feelings – just the conditions for a strongman like Hitler. ‐2‐ Today, we have a major conflict with North Korea over nuclear weapons. But what is usually forgotten is that the Korean War (1950‐53) is not officially over; it has been stopped by an “armistice” agreement, which led to the DMZ (demilitarized zone) between the two Koreas. But neither N. Korea, nor either of S. Korea of the US (the major force in the UN sponsored war) have signed a Peace Treaty with the communist regime; a source of constant tension for over 50 years. Incidentally, not only was there no Peace Treaty officially ending the war, the US never declared war in the first place. Rather, Pres. Truman relied on a UN resolution as the basis for sending forces, so technically, the whole action is called a “police action”. Finally, consider the problem of lack of justice after war, in the case of Afghanistan. When the former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to shore up a collapsing communist‐led regime, the US supported the anti‐Soviet “mujahideen” or “fighters for jihad – the Muslim equivalent of just war). Key to the outcome (Soviet defeat) was the US supplying sophisticated Stinger shoulder launched missiles that were used to shoot down Soviet helicopters and destroy Russian tanks. But once the war end, the US (and the UN) left the area to its own ends, and in the resulting chaos, two things happened: a mujahideen group known as the “Taliban” (“the teachers”) eventually took over to end political chaos with iron‐fist rule, and another, known as “Al Qaeda” (“the house”) entered into close association with it, and began to prepare terrorist actions abroad. You can read the book Charlie Wilson’s War (or see the movie); the eventual outcome was 9/11. (Note: this is not to say that Al Qaeda and their hosts, the Taliban were not fully guilty of the crimes of war they committed; it is rather to note that favorable circumstances were provided for their actions by the lack of interest in the US to events in Afghanistan, and more importantly, lack of interest in establishing a just social system after the war.) The problem of “Justice after War” was recognized at least once much earlier. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724‐1804) is best known for his famous “critiques” (of pure reason, practical reason, and judgment). But in the 1780s he wrote a very important text for Peace Studies, “On Eternal Peace” , which set out arguments for the plausibility and necessity of world peace (on philosophical grounds); and in the 1790s he wrote a work entitled The Metaphysics of Morals, intended mainly as a textbook for his classes, in which he identifies three, not two aspects of JWT, and sets out a vision of international law based on world peace as its goal. Each section of the book is numbered, and Kant discussions the “right to go to war” in sect. 56, “right in waging war” (sect. 57) and “right after war” (sect. 58). Note that Kant talks of rights in the sense of rights of the state, considered by him as equivalent to a moral person whose actions can be right or wrong, just or injust. Brian Orend, a young academic at the University of Waterloo, in Waterloo, Ontario was a student of Michael Waltzer, whose book Just and Unjust Wars is a classic in the field; Orend has written a book on Waltzer and also a volume entitled War and International Jutice:A Kantian Perspective, where he sets out his own views and has a whole chapter on “Jus post bellum” (Justice after War). The article we have to read is a good sum‐up of Orend’s reading of this concept, with contemporary examples. I’ll add a discssion board for Justice after War later on Wednesday. Note 4: WMD - Chemical and Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction 1 Chemical Weapons..................................................................................................................1 Biological Weapons ................................................................................................................4 Humanitarian Law regarding Chemical and Biological Weapons ..........................................6 Chemical Weapons Chemical weapons are molecular compounds which act against victims in a number of ways: ∗ Blistering agents, such as mustard gas were used during WWI and cause blistering of the skin, eyes and other sense organs through contact; they burn the lining of the lungs through inhalation resulting in choking, and the burn the lining of the stomach resulting in vomiting. ∗ Blood agents, such as hydrogen cyanide once inhaled enter the bloodstream and prevent the blood from using and transporting oxygen, causing suffocation. ∗ Nerve agents, such as sarin and tabun disturb the transmission of electrical and chemical impulses in the nervous system; they are usually the result of combining two inert chemicals that are mixed to form the agent. ∗ Toxins are chemical poisons produced by biological organisms; though chemical in nature, they are usually discussed under biological warfare. Chemical agents are also used in a non-military context to disable individuals in police actions and riot control. These include tear gas used to dispserse mobs, and pepper spray, which is available for civilian self defence. When used both cause excessive tearing of the eyes and disable the victim; in rare cases, they can be fatal if they produce a heart attack. . Chemical weapons had been used in the First World War – specifically, mustard gas, which caused blistering on the skin and internally in the lungs. This latter brought about death by asphyxiation, as the victim could no longer breath. Troops were equipped with gas masks to try and counter the gas. An important limitation of this weapon was the problem that with a shift of wind, the gas could be blown back on the troops that had used it in the first place. As a result, this weapon was not subsequently used in World War II. However, napalm, a form of gasoline in gelatin form, was widely used during World Weapons of Mass Destruction 2 War II and subsequently in Vietnam. During World War II the Allies conducted aerial bombardment of Germany and Japan using two different strategies: conventional explosives were used during daytime bombing aimed at strategic targets: rail yards, munition factories, and military emplacements. But nighttime “area bombing” was also extensively practiced, using incendiary bombs (made of magnesium or thermite) aimed at saturation bombardment of cities, and consequently, their civilian population. Civilian casualties were very high, due to the fire storms that the saturation incendiary bombing produced – much like a forest fire sweeping over buildings, the fire storm set buildings ablaze, killing individuals through their collapse. Individuals in direct contact with the fire succumbed to third degree burns; those who sought shelter in basements were suffocated as the fires overhead consumed all available oxygen. In both Germany and Japan hundreds of thousands died this way. The most famous (or infamous) of these attacks occurred towards the end of the war, when German and Japanese anti-aircraft batteries were largely ineffective. On Feb. 13, 1945 a series of British led (with US assistance) fire bombings of the city of Dresden resulted in over 50,000 and perhaps up to 100,000 deaths. The American Kurt Vonnegut was a prisoner of war in the city at the time and he writes of the aftermath in his novel, Slaughterhouse Five. The following month, on March 9, a US attack on Tokyo using fire bombs resulted in the destruction of most of the city (largely made of paper and wood buildings) and the deaths of over 100,000 people. During the Vietnam war, the US used “Agent Orange”, a defoliant which was used to clear tree canopies that shielded the “Ho Chi Minh Trail” created by the North Vietnamese to move equipment, supplies and troops to the VRXWK. Agent Orange was not directed primary at troops, but rather at the vegetation and leaves, but residual quantities did affect both the North Vietnamese troops who were caught under it, as well as US troops spraying the defoliant from helicopters. This brought about the subsequent death of many Vietnamese soldiers and US troops. Chemical weapons were used by the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war (1978 – 88) both against Iranian forces, and against Kurdish population in Iraq itself, notably on March 16, 1988. Estimates of deaths range in the thousands Weapons of Mass Destruction 3 (3000 – 5000), and the exact chemical composition of the agent(s) used is not fully known. Use of a chemical weapon against his own population was one of the war crimes with which Saddam Hussein was charged after his capture in December 2003, and for which he was ultimately executed. It is believed that US authorities were aware of this attack when it occurred, but as the US covertly supported Iraq in the war, did nothing at the time. It is reported that the Iranians also used chemical weapons. Sarin, a powerful nerve agent, was used in a series of attacks by a doomsday cult group Aum Shinrikyo : on the Tokyo subway (killing 12 injuring thousands) on March 20, 1995, and in the town of Matsumoto on June 27, 1995 (8 killed, hundreds injured). The cult was subsequently broken up by police and its leader, Shoko Asahara convicted and sentenced to death, though the penalty has not been carried out. Most recently, chemical weapons were used in the civil war in Syria by the Assad government. Attacks were launched against rebel forces in the suburbs of the major cities of Damascas, the capital, and Aleppo in 2013. This provoked a major crisis, as western powers, notably the US and Great Britain prepared to attack the Syrian government in response to these actions. However, the parliament in Great Britain in an unexpected setback to the British government. rejected the call to the use of armed Force on Aug. 30, 2013. US President Obama then contemplated a unilateral action to punish the Syrian regime, but was unsure of passage of authorization to use force by the Senate. During a press conference held abroad, Secretary of State Kerry, in response to a journalist’s question of how war could be averted, said that the US would not use force if the Syrian government agreed to give up its chemical weapons, and have them destroyed by international forces. Perhaps to Sec. Kerry’s surprise, that same morning, the Russian foreign minister Lavrov, whose government is an ally of the Assad regime in Syria, called Kerry to say that indeed Syria would agree to that demand. Chemical weapons were then removed by UN convoys to the coast, placed on board ships, and taken out to sea to be destroyed. (The Syrian regime, however, continues to attack its own rebellious population, using “ barrel bombs” of conventional explosives dropped by helicopters). Weapons of Mass Destruction 4 Biological Weapons Biological weapons are usually divided into categories based on the type of agent: ∗ Bacteria are single cell micro-organisms which do not have a nucleus; they are called prokaryotes in contrast to cells with nuclei, termed eukaryotes. Multi-celled organisms, such as plants, animals and humans are based on eukaryotic cells. Bacteria can infect eukaryotic cells and cause them to malfunction; hence their value in biological warfare. Bacteria can reproduce and multiply their impact on an organism or population of organisms. Examples include anthrax and cholera. ∗ Viruses, unlike bacteria, cannot live alone but must be incorporated into a cell in order to grow and multiply. Examples are the common (and sometimes lethal) flu virus, polio, smallpox, and AIDS. ∗ Rickettsiae are organisms that are intermediate between bacteria and viruses; like viruses they have to live in a host, usually a eukaryotic cell (such as humans have); but like bacteria they have cell walls and can be treated with antibiotics. An example is Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever. ∗ Toxins are chemicals produced by biological agents that are noxious to humans and other organisms. Naturally occurring toxins include snake venom and the toxins produced by bees and delivered in their sting. Toxins include necrotoxins, causing necrosis or death of the cells affected, neurotoxins which affect the transmission of nervous impulses, and mixotoxins which harm the muscles. Toxins are produced by plants as well. An example is ricin, which is produced by castor beans. You can think of toxins as organically produced poisons. Use of biological weapons has been rare in 20th century warfare, though there have been claims that the US cavalry in the 19th Century Indian Wars 1delivered blankets infected with small pox to Indians in an attempt to decimate their population. This claim, however, is disputed and evidence is inconclusive. Weapons of Mass Destruction 5 Anthrax spores were used during World War II by the Japanese in China, in particular by Unit 731 of the Japanese occupation army in the Chinese province of Manchuria. After the war, this was considered as a war crime. However, those officers who surrendered to American forces were not tried, in exchange for providing information on their weapons production and delivery; those captured by the Soviets were put on trial.. After World War II sll major powers produced anthrax-based weapons, usually to be delivered by artillery shells, presumably to be used against troops rather than civilian populations. This includes the US, which produced a large quantity of anthrax based weapons, as did the Soviet Union and many others. Recent cases of the use of biological agents against civilian population are rare, but there are a few cases. There have been two cases in recent US history. In 1983 followers of a cult leader, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh set up a colony in Wasco Country, Oregon. They antagonized local residents, and tried to assert themselves by winning control of the county government by sickening the rest of the population just before election day, hoping that they would be unable to go to the polls. The cult members distributed salmonella, a bacteria, in the salad bars of local restaurants. Over 700 persons were sickened, though none died, and the plot was discovered. The perpetrators were prosecuted in court and jailed or deported. Just after 9/11, in September and October 2001 envelopes containing anthrax spores were sent through the mail to a number of individuals, including politicians and broadcasters. 17 people were sickened and 5 died, including an individual in Connecticut. Steps were taken to quarantine mail being sent to the US Senate and other government agencies. First one, then another scientist working for the US government were suspected of the crime. The first was exonerated, the second, Bruce Ivens, a scientist who worked at the Fort Detrick biowarfare lab, committed suicide before his case could be heard in court. Subsequently, in April 2013 envelopes containing ricin were mailed to a US Senator (Roger Wicker, R-Mississippi), President Obama, and a Mississippi county judge (Sadie Holland). All letters were detected befoe delivery. A resident of Mississippi, Everett Dutschke, was arrested, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Weapons of Mass Destruction 6 Humanitarian Law regarding Chemical and Biological Weapons Since the mid 19th Century efforts have been made to ban classes of weapons deemed in some way to be excessive. This is part of what has become known as “humanitarian law” and begins with a Treaty agreed to in Geneva (Switzerland) and then the Hague (Netherlands). The 1st Geneva Accord was agreed to in 1864 and dealt with improving care for soldiers injured on the battlefield. The best known of the Geneva Accords is that of 1949 stipulating the rights of prisoners of war (“name, rank and serial number”), and prohibiting the use of torture. A number of conventions deal with chemical and biological weapons that are relevant for our course. Hague Convention 1899 The Hague Convention of 1899 called for the peaceful settlement of international disputes (article 1) and the respect of laws of war on land and sea (articles 2 and 3); it incuded three additional declarations dealing with weapons of war, the second of which (article 5) banned the use of poison gases: ∗ Prohibition of the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons or by Other New Analogous Methods (article 4) ∗ Prohibition of the Use of Projectiles with the Sole Object to Spread Asphyxiating Poisonous Gases (article 5) ∗ Prohibition of the Use of Bullets which can Easily Expand or Change their Form inside the Human Body (article 6) With the advent of World War I, article 1 was clearly violated, and as the war progressed, the use of airplanes to drop bombs on opposing troops and the use of mustard and other gases on the ground clearly violated articles 4 and 5. Hollow point bullets are in regular use by both police and hunters, as these bullets by design tend to stay within the Weapons of Mass Destruction 7 shot body, and do not pass through the target or ricochet to hit bystanders. Geneva Protocol, 1925 Following World War I a meeting of the major powers in Geneva, Switzerland agreed on June 17, 1925 on the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War or Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. As the title indicates, it banned some chemical weapons (“asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases”) as well as biological weapons (“bacteriological methods of warfare”): Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world; and Whereas the prohibition of such use has been declared in Treaties to which the majority of Powers of the world are Parties; and To the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of International Law, binding alike the conscience and the practice of nations; Declare: That the High Contracting Parties, so far as they are not already Parties to Treaties prohibiting such use, accept this prohibition, agree to extend this prohibition to the use of bacteriological methods of warfare and agree to be bound as between themselves according to the terms of this declaration. The US signed through executive (presidential) action, but did not ratify it, which required a 2/3 vote of the Senate. Japan did not sign it. As we have seen above, biological weapons were used in World War II by Japan in China; and arguably, incendiary bombs used in the fire bombings of German and Japanese cities constituted a type of chemical weapon. Ban on Biological Weapons,1975 Biological weapons were banned world-wide by a treaty, the Convention on the Weapons of Mass Destruction 8 Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and their Destruction. This UN sponsored treaty was opened in 1972 and entered in force in 1975. The US destroyed its bioweapons, though research laboratories maintain small quantities of the various agents in order to develop antidotes. Ban on Chemical Weapons, 1997 The Chemical Weapons convention – in full, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, is a UN sponsored treaty that entered in to force in 1997. A special group, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is charged with the application of this Treaty. This is the Treaty that Syria violated in 2013 when it used chemical weapons against its civilian population in rebel held areas. No Ban on Nuclear Weapons Although there are treaties limiting nuclear weapons, in terms of where they can be tested (only underground), and their numbers and means of delivery; there is no treaty banning nuclear weapons outright. In 1994, the General Assembly of the United Nations approved sending the following question to the International Court of Justice, which was established after World War II to attempt to adjudicate conflicts between states before they went to war. The question submitted was “Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances permitted under international law?” A panel of 15 judges from around the world heard the case. Their decision, which had only the status of an “advisory opinion” since it could not be enforced, was indecisive. Though the judges agreed that there was no “customary or conventional” international law allowing for the threat or use of nuclear weapons, and that their use seemed contrary to “humanitarian law”, the court could not discount the use of nuclear weapons as an ultimate defence by a country about to be defeated. The key ruling was: “"the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be Weapons of Mass Destruction 9 contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law; However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake" (Response to question 6 by the Court) Note 5: International Humanitarian Law Major Treaties and International Organizations Restricting War, Tactics and Weapons International Humanitarian Law 1 Year Place Title Note Application 1864 Washington, DC ‘Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field’ Rules of Land War in Civil War, commissioned by Lincoln, produced by Francis Lieber, originally issued as General Order 100. Intended for Northern (Union) forces; includes prohibition of cruelty in combat (article 16); but see 17 on starving enemy 1864 Geneva I First Geneva Convention, for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field Initiated by Henry Dunant, Swiss businessman after witnessing the Battle of Solferino in the Austrian-Sardinian war (part of 2nd Italian War for Independence) Signed by 14 European States; linked to foundation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) 1899 The Hague I The 1st Hague Convention of 1899 • Peaceful resolution of conflict, extension of laws of war to both land and sea; interdiction of some types of weapons1 Convened by the Russian Tsar, Nicholas II. 1906 Geneva II Second Geneva Convention For the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea Adapts 1st Geneva convention to war at sea. 1907 The Hague II 2nd Hague Convention of 1907 Deals with numerous aspects of declaring war and waging war.2 Significant development of laws of war; includes application of laws of war to air combat (not yet undertaken); and to underwater combat (submarines) • 1 I: Pacific Settlement of International Disputes • II: Laws and Customs of War on Land • III: Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of Principles of Geneva Convention of 1864 • IV: Prohibiting Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons • Declaration I: On the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons • Declaration II: On the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases Declaration III: On the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body • 2 I: The Pacific Settlement of International Disputes • II: The Limitation of Employment of Force for Recovery of Contract Debts • III: The Opening of Hostilities • IV: The Laws and Customs of War on Land Major Treaties and International Organizations Restricting War, Tactics and Weapons International Humanitarian Law 2 Year Place Title Note Application 1918 Paris League of Nations Creation of an international organization to prevent war among members US did not join; both Japan and Germany withdrew in 1933 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare Based on WWI experience of use of nerve and toxic gases (mustard gas, etc.) Early prohibition of the use of chemical and biological weapons (other treaties in 1975 – biological and 1982 chemical) 1928 Kellogg- Briand General Treaty for the Renunciation of War Began as Pact to renounce war between US and France; extended to other signatory countries; no sanctions or means of enforcement Kellogg was Sect. of State of US; Briand was Foreign Minister of France; also signed by Weimar Germany, Canada, other countries 1929 Geneva III Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Name, rank and serial number; gift packages and letters from home. Famous for its application during World War II 1945 San Francisco, Paris United Nations Replaced defunct League of Nations; includes International Court of Justice for resolution of disputes between member nations. All countries now belong; issue of Palestine membership to be debated this session. 1945 Nuremberg Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribuna Tribunal Established (retroactively) war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against peace Applied to Nazi political and military leaders; 12 were executed, 1 committed suicide (Goring) • V: The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land • VI: The Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of Hostilities • VII: The Conversion of Merchant Ships into War-Ships • VIII: The Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines • IX: Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War • X: Adaptation to Maritime War of the Principles of the Geneva Convention • XI: Certain Restrictions with Regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War • XII: The Creation of an International Prize Court [Not Ratified][4] • XIII: The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War • Declaration I: extending Declaration II from the 1899 Conference to other types of aircraft[5] • Declaration II: on the obligatory arbitration Major Treaties and International Organizations Restricting War, Tactics and Weapons International Humanitarian Law 3 Year Place Title Note Application 1946 Tokyo The International Military Tribunal for the Far East Trial of major Japanese military and political leaders Japanese emperor and family not indicted; 7 military and political leaders were executed 1948 UN United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Prohibs "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group” Requires action by signatories; ratified by the US in 1988 (40 years after adoption by the UN) 1949 Geneva IV Fourth Geneva Conveiton relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War Covers civilians in Occupied Territories US ratified in 1955 1967 Stockholm, Copenhagen (International War Crimes Tribunal on US War Crimes in Vietnam) Political event; accused US leaders, including Johnson, who ignored it and did not attend Organized by Bertrand Russell, and Jean Paul Sartre, 1975 UN Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction Prohibits production, stockpiling and use of biological weapons Ratified by US (Nixon), which has destroyed its stock of biological weapons. 1977 Geneva Protocol I Protocol I relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts See in particular Article 51 prohibiting the use of excessive force US has signed but not yet ratified (by vote of Senate) 1977 Geneva Protocol II Protocol II relating to the Protection of Victims of Non- International Armed Conflicts Applies to Civil Wars US has signed but not yet ratified (by vote of Senate) 1982 UN Chemical Weapons Convention Outlaws production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons Signed by US, includes on-site inspection measures Major Treaties and International Organizations Restricting War, Tactics and Weapons International Humanitarian Law 4 Year Place Title Note Application 1984 UNB United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Outlaws “Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession,… “ Ratified by the US in 1994; torture is outlawed in US criminal code at 18 U.S.C.§2340. 2002 Rome, the Hague, UN International Court of Criminal Justice Prosecutes individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and eventually (after 2017) for the crime of aggression 116 countries belong; the US does not. 2005 Geneva Protocol III Protocol III relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem Deals with terminological issues. Ratified by US St. Thomas Aquinas Of War The Summa Theologica Part II, Question 40 (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947) We must now consider war, under which head there are four points of inquiry: Whether some kind of war is lawful? Whether it is lawful for clerics to fight? Whether it is lawful for belligerents to lay ambushes? Whether it is lawful to fight on holy days? Whether it is always sinful to wage war? Objection 1: It would seem that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Mt. 26:52: "All that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Therefore all wars are unlawful. Objection 2: Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Mt. 5:39): "But I say to you not to resist evil"; and (Rm. 12:19): "Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath." Therefore war is always sinful. Objection 3: Further, nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of virtue. But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin. Objection 4: Further, the exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a sin in itself. On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion [*Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [*Lk. 3:14]. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering." I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): St. Thomas Aquinas, On War file:///Users/dsb/Desktop/Aquinas_JustWar.html 1 of 6 6/26/09 11:02 PM "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority." Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Questions. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly." Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [*The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1]): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war." Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 70): "To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority." On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to "take the sword," but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword. Reply to Objection 2: Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): "Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy." Reply to Objection 3: Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Mt. 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace." St. Thomas Aquinas, On War file:///Users/dsb/Desktop/Aquinas_JustWar.html 2 of 6 6/26/09 11:02 PM Reply to Objection 4: Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. In olden times warlike exercises presented no such danger, and hence they were called "exercises of arms" or "bloodless wars," as Jerome states in an epistle Whether it is lawful for clerics and bishops to fight? Objection 1: It would seem lawful for clerics and bishops to fight. For, as stated above (Article [1]), wars are lawful and just in so far as they protect the poor and the entire common weal from suffering at the hands of the foe. Now this seems to be above all the duty of prelates, for Gregory says (Hom. in Ev. xiv): "The wolf comes upon the sheep, when any unjust and rapacious man oppresses those who are faithful and humble. But he who was thought to be the shepherd, and was not, leaveth the sheep, end flieth, for he fears lest the wolf hurt him, and dares not stand up against his injustice." Therefore it is lawful for prelates and clerics to fight. Objection 2: Further, Pope Leo IV writes (xxiii, qu. 8, can. Igitur): "As untoward tidings had frequently come from the Saracen side, some said that the Saracens would come to the port of Rome secretly and covertly; for which reason we commanded our people to gather together, and ordered them to go down to the seashore." Therefore it is lawful for bishops to fight. Objection 3: Further, apparently, it comes to the same whether a man does a thing himself, or consents to its being done by another, according to Rm. 1:32: "They who do such things, are worthy of death, and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them." Now those, above all, seem to consent to a thing, who induce others to do it. But it is lawful for bishops and clerics to induce others to fight: for it is written (xxiii, qu. 8, can. Hortatu) that Charles went to war with the Lombards at the instance and entreaty of Adrian, bishop of Rome. Therefore they also are allowed to fight. Objection 4: Further, whatever is right and meritorious in itself, is lawful for prelates and clerics. Now it is sometimes right and meritorious to make war, for it is written (xxiii, qu. 8, can. Omni timore) that if "a man die for the true faith, or to save his country, or in defense of Christians, God will give him a heavenly reward." Therefore it is lawful for bishops and clerics to fight. On the contrary, It was said to Peter as representing bishops and clerics (Mt. 16:52): "Put up again thy sword into the scabbard [Vulg.: 'its place'] [*"Scabbard" is the reading in Jn. 18:11]." Therefore it is not lawful for them to fight. I answer that, Several things are requisite for the good of a human society: and a number of things are done better and quicker by a number of persons than by one, as the Philosopher observes (Polit. i, 1), while certain occupations are so inconsistent with one another, that they cannot be fittingly exercised at the same time; wherefore those who are deputed to important duties are forbidden to occupy themselves with things of small importance. Thus according to human laws, soldiers who are deputed to warlike pursuits are forbidden to engage in commerce [*Cod. xii, 35, De Re Milit.]. Now warlike pursuits are altogether incompatible with the duties of a bishop and a cleric, for two reasons. The first reason is a general one, because, to wit, warlike pursuits are full of unrest, so that they hinder the mind very much from the contemplation of Divine things, the praise of God, and St. Thomas Aquinas, On War file:///Users/dsb/Desktop/Aquinas_JustWar.html 3 of 6 6/26/09 11:02 PM prayers for the people, which belong to the duties of a cleric. Wherefore just as commercial enterprises are forbidden to clerics, because they unsettle the mind too much, so too are warlike pursuits, according to 2 Tim. 2:4: "No man being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular business." The second reason is a special one, because, to wit, all the clerical Orders are directed to the ministry of the altar, on which the Passion of Christ is represented sacramentally, according to 1 Cor. 11:26: "As often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come." Wherefore it is unbecoming for them to slay or shed blood, and it is more fitting that they should be ready to shed their own blood for Christ, so as to imitate in deed what they portray in their ministry. For this reason it has been decreed that those who shed blood, even without sin, become irregular. Now no man who has a certain duty to perform, can lawfully do that which renders him unfit for that duty. Wherefore it is altogether unlawful for clerics to fight, because war is directed to the shedding of blood. Reply to Objection 1: Prelates ought to withstand not only the wolf who brings spiritual death upon the flock, but also the pillager and the oppressor who work bodily harm; not, however, by having recourse themselves to material arms, but by means of spiritual weapons, according to the saying of the Apostle (2 Cor. 10:4): "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God." Such are salutary warnings, devout prayers, and, for those who are obstinate, the sentence of excommunication. Reply to Objection 2: Prelates and clerics may, by the authority of their superiors, take part in wars, not indeed by taking up arms themselves, but by affording spiritual help to those who fight justly, by exhorting and absolving them, and by other like spiritual helps. Thus in the Old Testament (Joshua 6:4) the priests were commanded to sound the sacred trumpets in the battle. It was for this purpose that bishops or clerics were first allowed to go to the front: and it is an abuse of this permission, if any of them take up arms themselves. Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Question [23], Article [4], ad 2) every power, art or virtue that regards the end, has to dispose that which is directed to the end. Now, among the faithful, carnal wars should be considered as having for their end the Divine spiritual good to which clerics are deputed. Wherefore it is the duty of clerics to dispose and counsel other men to engage in just wars. For they are forbidden to take up arms, not as though it were a sin, but because such an occupation is unbecoming their personality. Reply to Objection 4: Although it is meritorious to wage a just war, nevertheless it is rendered unlawful for clerics, by reason of their being deputed to works more meritorious still. Thus the marriage act may be meritorious; and yet it becomes reprehensible in those who have vowed virginity, because they are bound to a yet greater good. Whether it is lawful to lay ambushes in war? Objection 1: It would seem that it is unlawful to lay ambushes in war. For it is written (Dt. 16:20): "Thou shalt follow justly after that which is just." But ambushes, since they are a kind of deception, seem to pertain to injustice. Therefore it is unlawful to lay ambushes even in a just war. Objection 2: Further, ambushes and deception seem to be opposed to faithfulness even as lies are. But since we are bound to keep faith with all men, it is wrong to lie to anyone, as Augustine states St. Thomas Aquinas, On War file:///Users/dsb/Desktop/Aquinas_JustWar.html 4 of 6 6/26/09 11:02 PM (Contra Mend. xv). Therefore, as one is bound to keep faith with one's enemy, as Augustine states (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix), it seems that it is unlawful to lay ambushes for one's enemies. Objection 3: Further, it is written (Mt. 7:12): "Whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them": and we ought to observe this in all our dealings with our neighbor. Now our enemy is our neighbor. Therefore, since no man wishes ambushes or deceptions to be prepared for himself, it seems that no one ought to carry on war by laying ambushes. On the contrary, Augustine says (Questions. in Hept. qu. x super Jos): "Provided the war be just, it is no concern of justice whether it be carried on openly or by ambushes": and he proves this by the authority of the Lord, Who commanded Joshua to lay ambushes for the city of Hai (Joshua 8:2). I answer that, The object of laying ambushes is in order to deceive the enemy. Now a man may be deceived by another's word or deed in two ways. First, through being told something false, or through the breaking of a promise, and this is always unlawful. No one ought to deceive the enemy in this way, for there are certain "rights of war and covenants, which ought to be observed even among enemies," as Ambrose states (De Officiis i). Secondly, a man may be deceived by what we say or do, because we do not declare our purpose or meaning to him. Now we are not always bound to do this, since even in the Sacred Doctrine many things have to be concealed, especially from unbelievers, lest they deride it, according to Mt. 7:6: "Give not that which is holy, to dogs." Wherefore much more ought the plan of campaign to be hidden from the enemy. For this reason among other things that a soldier has to learn is the art of concealing his purpose lest it come to the enemy's knowledge, as stated in the Book on Strategy [*Stratagematum i, 1] by Frontinus. Such like concealment is what is meant by an ambush which may be lawfully employed in a just war. Nor can these ambushes be properly called deceptions, nor are they contrary to justice or to a well-ordered will. For a man would have an inordinate will if he were unwilling that others should hide anything from him. This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. Whether it is lawful to fight on holy days? Objection 1: It would seem unlawful to fight on holy days. For holy days are instituted that we may give our time to the things of God. Hence they are included in the keeping of the Sabbath prescribed Ex. 20:8: for "sabbath" is interpreted "rest." But wars are full of unrest. Therefore by no means is it lawful to fight on holy days. Objection 2: Further, certain persons are reproached (Is. 58:3) because on fast-days they exacted what was owing to them, were guilty of strife, and of smiting with the fist. Much more, therefore, is it unlawful to fight on holy days. Objection 3: Further, no ill deed should be done to avoid temporal harm. But fighting on a holy day seems in itself to be an ill deed. Therefore no one should fight on a holy day even through the need of avoiding temporal harm. St. Thomas Aquinas, On War file:///Users/dsb/Desktop/Aquinas_JustWar.html 5 of 6 6/26/09 11:02 PM On the contrary, It is written (1 Machab 2:41): The Jews rightly determined . . . saying: "Whosoever shall come up against us to fight on the Sabbath-day, we will fight against him." I answer that, The observance of holy days is no hindrance to those things which are ordained to man's safety, even that of his body. Hence Our Lord argued with the Jews, saying (Jn. 7:23): "Are you angry at Me because I have healed the whole man on the Sabbath-day?" Hence physicians may lawfully attend to their patients on holy days. Now there is much more reason for safeguarding the common weal (whereby many are saved from being slain, and innumerable evils both temporal and spiritual prevented), than the bodily safety of an individual. Therefore, for the purpose of safeguarding the common weal of the faithful, it is lawful to carry on a war on holy days, provided there be need for doing so: because it would be to tempt God, if notwithstanding such a need, one were to choose to refrain from fighting. However, as soon as the need ceases, it is no longer lawful to fight on a holy day, for the reasons given; wherefore this suffices for the Replies to the Objections. St. Thomas Aquinas, On War file:///Users/dsb/Desktop/Aquinas_JustWar.html 6 of 6 6/26/09 11:02 PM 5 Matthew 5 When Jesus* saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. 2Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying: 3 ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 ‘Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5 ‘Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6 ‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 7 ‘Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy. 8 ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. 10 ‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 ‘Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely* on my account. 12Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. 13 ‘You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot. 14 ‘You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven. 17 ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,* not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19Therefore, whoever breaks* one oremus Bible Browser : Matthew 5 1 of 3 8/30/11 1:19 PM of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 21 ‘You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not murder”; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgement.” 22But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,* you will be liable to judgement; and if you insult* a brother or sister,* you will be liable to the council; and if you say, “You fool”, you will be liable to the hell* of fire. 23So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister* has something against you, 24leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister,* and then come and offer your gift. 25Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court* with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. 26Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny. 27 ‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” 28But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.* 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.* 31 ‘It was also said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” 32But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. 33 ‘Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.” 34But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37Let your word be oremus Bible Browser : Matthew 5 2 of 3 8/30/11 1:19 PM “Yes, Yes” or “No, No”; anything more than this comes from the evil one.* 38 ‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. 43 ‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? 47And if you greet only your brothers and sisters,* what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. The New Revised Standard Version (Anglicized Edition), copyright 1989, 1995 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved. From the oremus Bible Browser v2.2.7 10 February 2011. oremus Bible Browser : Matthew 5 3 of 3 8/30/11 1:19 PM

View Less >>

Solution Preview

There is a massive threat due to weapons of mass destruction and it has occupied a specific place in global politics. Weapons of mass destruction is normally used to categorize the different weapons which shares various features like ability to destruct on large scale basis and the nature of effect is found to be indiscriminate.

question Get solution


Orginal Price : $26.0

Pay Now

Upload Assignments

250 words


Get Your Assignment

Don’t delay more, place your order now. Quick assignment help will be offered to you.

Order Now




Based on 702 reviews See all reviews here

One of the Best Service

I trust LiveWebTutors for my assignments because of their ability to deliver the perfect assignments time and again. Only a few of my assignments required minor revisions. The rest assured it is the best assignment writing service in the market.


Great Service and on time

I felt so exhausted and burdened with the large number of assignments I had to write and desperately needed someone to help me with all the writing and there was LiveWebTutors company on the internet. They finished my assignments before the due date and also offered me a first-timer discount.


One of the Best Assignment Provider

I ordered my Mathematics and Marketing assignments from them last month. I received the content on the set date. Most importantly, the assignments were well-written and plagiarism free. I scored a top grade for the assignment written by them. They are a reliable company.


Very Helpful Customer Service

I was quite unsure about getting my assignment written online but after coming across, all my worries have vanished. The quality of the assignments written by their writers is just invincible. Their customer support is very polite and helpful. You should try their service at least once