Moral Dilemmas of Modern War: Torture, Assassination, and Blackmail in an Age of Asymmetric Conflict

Moral Dilemmas of Modern War: Torture, Assassination, and Blackmail in an Age of Asymmetric Conflict

Michael L. Gross

Language: English

Pages: 336

ISBN: 0521685109

Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub

Moral Dilemmas of Modern War: Torture, Assassination, and Blackmail in an Age of Asymmetric Conflict

Michael L. Gross

Language: English

Pages: 336

ISBN: 0521685109

Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub


Asymmetric conflict is changing the way that we practise and think about war. Torture, rendition, assassination, blackmail, extortion, direct attacks on civilians, and chemical weapons are all finding their way to the battlefield despite longstanding international prohibitions. This book offers a practical guide for policy makers, military officers, students, and others who ask such questions as: Do guerillas deserve respect or long jail sentences? Are there grounds to torture guerillas for information or assassinate them on the battlefield? Is there room for nonlethal weapons to subdue militants and safeguard the lives of noncombatants? Who are noncombatants in asymmetric war? What is the status of civilians who shelter and aid guerillas? And, do guerillas have any right to attack civilians, particularly those who aid and shelter members of the stronger army? If one side can expand the scope of civilian vulnerability, then why can't the other? To read and comment on Michael Gross's blog article on the UN Human Rights Council Report on Gaza, click here

Other Roads: Alternate Outcomes of the Second World War

Madrid 1937: Letters of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade From the Spanish Civil War

VCs of the First World War: The Western Front 1915

Leadership in the Crucible: The Korean War Battles of Twin Tunnels and Chipyong-ni (Williams-Ford Texas A&M University Military History Series)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

controversy over blinding lasers had little to do with superfluous injury and everything to do with military necessity and fear of uncontrolled deployment. For Parks, therefore, the Protocol against blinding lasers was “an arms control agreement rather than a law of war treaty.26” An arms control treaty is born of necessity while the laws of war make room for humanitarianism. In the case of blinding lasers, necessity and self-interest motivated nations to ban a weapon before any nation could

in turn, may serve to immobilize or otherwise incapacitate those affected.19 The results are far from implementation, but the idea is to produce an incapacitating weapon similar to chemical weapons without the attendant legal difficulties of using a chemical agent that flirts with the CWC restrictions. At the same time, RF radiation would not be subject to fluctuating atmospheric conditions or difficulties of delivery that plague airborne chemical weapons. Finally, consider the possibilities of

conflict, therefore, results remain mixed. For Israelis, targeted killings provide a visceral sense of potency when The Dilemma of Assassination 117 there often is no effective response to terror attacks. They believe that targeted killings, particularly the killing of important enemy military leaders, will bear fruit. Targeted killing satisfies a sense of justice or even vengeance as terrorists get their due. Israelis find proof of their effectiveness in the recurring demand that

many hitherto protected civilians. This change reaches far into the territory of noncombatant immunity as traditionally understood. Attacking Associated Targets Attacking associated targets demands two things. First, the attack must be effective, and second, the attacker must use no more than the force necessary to disable the facility. These are the standard ethical demands of any military operation. During the Second Lebanon War, Israel assumed, for example, that the destruction of media

Israeli government claims Hezbollah deliberately fired from populated areas to prevent attacks on missile launchers; HRW claims these same acts merely constitute the failure to take sufficient measures to protect civilians, a lesser crime of war.23 Evaluating these conflicting claims is difficult. Human shielding in Lebanon did not take the form of placing civilians in front of missile launchers at gunpoint. But what does it mean when human rights activists agree that Hezbollah did not take

Download sample

Download