War Without Killing

During the Persian Gulf War, officers in the military sometimes asked conscientious objectors whether they would object to weapons which overcame the enemy without killing anyone. They suggested that the US was developing such weapons and that they might make war acceptable.

This sounds farfetched, particularly since most modern weapons are more likely to kill than the weapons of years ago. But it raises an important issue for you to think about: What exactly is war all about, and what makes it wrong? The Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu argued that the highest form of the "art of war" consisted of defeating one's opponent without battle--by better tactics which brought about surrender before the fighting started. Would you find war acceptable if armies decided battles without fighting?

This book can't answer that question for you. As you think about war, however, keep in mind that war is not necessarily about killing as such. You can view killing and wounding the soldiers in an opposing army as a means to an end. The goal of a military force is to impose its will on its opponents. Sun Tzu suggests that an army can do this without killing, by using the threat of force.

Do you think it is okay for one country or army to impose its will on another? Does it matter what tactics it uses to do so? Does war always involve the threat of force, even if no one is actually killed or wounded? Your answers to these questions will help you to answer the question of whether you should be part of war.

Go to next page