chemical weapons – Page 2

By guest author Dr. Mike Corgan

Since the first attempts to develop moral or legal standards for warfare and the consequent killing and destroying of war, technological developments have invariably come along.

Drone missile launched from aircraft carrier. Image in public domain.

These technologies confound painstakingly agreed-upon attempts to limit and contain the lethality of an essentially lethal activity.

Anomalies abound. Why is tear gas a chemical weapon in the laws of war but napalm is not? Who, exactly, is a lawful target of warfare?

These questions have arisen most recently and most strikingly in regard to missile-carrying drone aircraft.

A debate of sorts is now underway about the morality of drone attacks, especially as used by the Obama administration. A New York Times July 15 op-ed piece cites the judgment of Bradley J. Strawser of the Naval Postgraduate School that there is a moral case for these kinds of attacks.

Essentially it is that the amount of collateral damage (to civilians) is far less than it has been for any other kind of attack. This principle conforms to both legal and moral norms of proportionality.

In a very long and detailed article in the August Esquire, “The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama,” Tom Junod argues that these attacks are definitely not moral, certainly not legal and have opened a Pandora’s box that invites havoc.

Junod accuses Obama and his aides of inventing moral distinctions rather than observing them in order to justify the attacks. These attacks:

Take place in many countries with which we are not at war
Kill American citizens without anything remotely resembling due process, and
Do indeed kill the innocent.

Case in point: American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was targeted and killed while in Yemen on the sole authority of the President. In a later follow-on attack, his 16 year-old son was also among those killed.

This from a president Junod claims to have admired. What happens, he concludes, if a “cruel or bloodthirsty” president gets this capability? One might further ask, what happens when others bent on destruction acquire this capability, as they surely will?

Michael T. Corgan, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Director of Undergraduate Studies
Department of International Relations, Boston University

Sunday, April 22, is Earth Day. Today we honor the Earth by calling attention to the common goals of the peace and environmental sustainability movements.

But first, some context: Assessing the impact of war on the environment can be fraught with complexity, but here is a sampling of those effects:

Destruction or contamination of farmland, forests, wildlife and biodiversity
Unexploded ordnance (UXO) left to cause death and maiming of people and animals. In Laos alone, about 80 million undetonated cluster munitions are still present in the environment
Polluted water supplies for people, plants and animals
Exacerbation of climate change (the U.S. military is the world’s largest consumer of oil)
Oil spills, both deliberate and as collateral damage
Disruption of ecosystems from refugees and displaced people
Radioactive wastes from depleted uranium weapons and nuclear testing
Pollution from chemical weapons, herbicides, and routine operations of the military-industrial complex
Failure to clean up after warfare, causing long-term public health, agricultural, and ecological devastation

It works the other way, too–that misuse, destruction, and scarcity of natural resources can be the cause of war. Examples include conflicts over oil in the Middle East, rare metals in the Congo, food shortages and water scarcity in South Asia and throughout the world. More and more, climate disruption is becoming or is predicted (pdf) to be a source of conflict.

In other words, environmental degradation is a threat to global security.

As you celebrate Earth Day on Sunday, please consider what it will take to stop the intertwined scourges of warfare and environmental destruction. Even more important, make a commitment to do something about them.

Pat Daniel, Ph.D., Managing Editor of Engaging Peace

New technologies, new moral questions (Drone warfare, Part 1)

Earth Day during wartime (Part 1)