Just and Unjust wars Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Just and Unjust wars - Essay Example Assassination involves treachery, betrayal and infidelity. Gross has argued that assassination is not allowed in the regulations of armed clashes and that it can be considered as murder by deceitful means (245). This indicates that if there is no kind of treachery involved, there would be nothing wrong with assassination. The author makes it clear in his argument that assassination is not always a result of betrayal but is also evidence of morality of premeditated killing of the individuals. Some researchers use the terms â€Å"assassination† and â€Å"targeted killing† interchangeably in order to avoid linking treachery with assassination. The ethical legitimacy of targeted killing can be described when it is compared to other methods of fighting against terrorism, which can be massive invasion and destroying the complete infrastructure of terrorists. Many experts claim that the real war method would be the invasion rather than targeted killings, because it bears the a ctual concept of war. Invading a civilian area leads to a more number of deaths and casualties of common innocent people. With targeted killing the damage is reduced; hence, it is the preferable method as it saves innocent lives and keeps the damage low (Gross 115). There have been various arguments to justify tyrannicide. Unless tyrannicide is linked with an effort to change the regime entirely, it is expected to result in repressions of the general public greatly. Assassination is considered to be a careful choice when aiming at preventing and ending the war against terrorism. This might be applicable in some cases, but assassination has not been preferred because there are other less harmful and less objectionable methods like tyrannicide (Lenin 60-62). Discuss Collateral Damage, Providing a Conceptual Definition First, and Then an Illustration of It, by Using Examples Drawn from Different Fields and Different Historical Periods The term â€Å"collateral damage† was first used by the US army during the Second Gulf War. Collateral damage can be described as civilian casualties due to bombings of allied military forces. By describing losses of civilian lives and properties, the officials redirect the criticism against the military for a high death count of common people (Hashmi 125-127). Though the phrase has its roots in the military background, it has also been interchangeably used in common language. The business world is fond of the usage of this term for unintentional damage caused by an action. For example, if an organization shifts its offices to a new city, the losses suffered by the local businesses can be termed as collateral damage. The abrupt or unexpected closing of a section or division of a company due to financial crisis can also be termed as collateral damage, as the employees would lose their means of income. This damage will be considered as significant, but the losses will be still acceptable if compared to the advantages and profit s of taking action. Many experts believe that focussing only on the deaths of common people as a way of accessing a military operation is not a flawless approach. The US military’s protests against body count have its roots in Vietnam, where there were no links of enemy death count to the overall success of a mission. Many researchers and analysts argue that failure of a mission cannot be determined by the total death count of civilians.