Justice or Injustice of War

What guidelines do we follow to justify the wagering of war upon others and what should the rules of conduct be while fighting a war? The questions are hard to answer being so many. Our ethics and standards of moral judgment come into question when we decide just how far we will go in war. There are those who are skeptical and do not believe that morality can or should exist in war, that given the different circumstances our ethical behavior is of no concern. In the (jus ad bellem convention) the principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used. Theorists try to give a moral frame work in the just war theory (jus in bello) of rules that govern just and fair conduct in war. These two theories offer a set of moral guidelines that are not as rigid as those in the military who would go to any form or tactic of warfare to accomplish their goals whether it calls for breaking the rules or not, or those that are inflexible in war that restricts the soldiers to targets of only those of a military nature, with to many ethics involved.

In the last century 50 million lives have been lost not to mention the countless billions of dollars (sociology James M. Henslin(p.302) due to war. Are we being dictated to believe that the only way to keep our freedoms is through the act of war and that our actions and conduct consisted of fair play no matter what the out come is? War seems to take on a life unto itself dictating to us which actions are necessary to assure our freedoms, and economical well being. Were we immoral for the fire bombings in Germany, Japan and Vietnam killing hundreds of thousands of civilians under the pretext of necessity? These bombings seem barbaric, as if we crossed some kind of moral threshold. It is true that the Japanese were on the verge of defeat but on the other hand they...