Most modern states are in a bind when it comes to the morality of war, because at some point in their existence they have legitimised the mass killing of civilians as a means of achieving their objectives.
Ever since the introduction of the aeroplane as a weapon of war, so-called civilised nations have found ways to justify attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, even as death tolls ran into hundreds of thousands.
Variously described as strategic, terror, area and carpet bombing, the aim has been to terrorise civilian populations, causing a collapse of morale, in the hope of achieving rapid victory.
At the height of the British bombing campaign against German cities during World War II, Prime Minister Winston Churchill was heard to wonder aloud: “Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?”
That was upon viewing footage of German cities laid to waste. By the end of the war, over a hundred of them had been utterly destroyed, along with hundreds of thousands of their inhabitants.
Has humanity ever known a period as unrelentingly bloody and merciless as the twentieth century, during which over 200 million civilians were killed as a direct result of military action?
Thus is it futile demanding that states take an ethical stance with regards to the conflicts of the moment. All they can do is take a side, according to their particular strategic interests. For it is true: we are far worse than beasts.
Last modified: 21 September 2024
