Theos-Talk Archives (February 1998 Message tt00038)

Eldon B Tucker wrote:

> Are some weapons so bad that to use them is unethical or wrong --
> like biological or nuclear weapons? Is it justified to use them in
> self-defense, although wrong to use them in offense? Could it be
> possible that both parties in a conflict consider themselves as
> battling in a defensive mode, even though the "aggressor" is
> making a preemptive strike against the other party? And ... is the
> use of magic or occult forces for military purposes, even in
> what is seen as national self-defense, something ok? Are occult
> powers "ethical" weapons like guns and bullets or "unethical"
> weapons like chemical or biological weapons? Do they provide an
> unfair advantage, and brutalize the opponent in monstrous ways?
> Or perhaps they are like land mines, only blowing off soldiers'
> legs and maiming them if they cross forbidden territory and attempt
> to invade -- in this case only inflicting harm on people actually
> involved in attacking one?

    Well, as has been said, intent is always key. Let's look at the intent
behind the banning of weapons.

    The purpose of banning weapons has always been pure selfishness. By
limiting war, it prevents a situation where both sides are so badly harmed
that a third party can come in and destroy the victor. Therefore,
limitations on war actually increase the motivation to stop negotiations for
peace, since the damage from war becomes limited. However, there is a point
where the average person has no control over whether or not there is a war.
The only recourse is to limit the damage that the war does. Israel , from
the point of view of the Jews living there, has a policy, sometimes to the
point of self-destructiveness, of not attacking until it is first attacked.
Therefore, in their mind, protecting Israel from Iraqi attack would also
protect Iraq from Israeli attack.

    Bart Lidofsky