To Attack or Not to Attack It is December of the year 2004. A sudden, ground-trembling blast rocks the city of Mosul in northern Iraq. There is confusion and people bustling about the streets. The wounded cry out in pain as they search for help in the thick, dusty smoke. The bodies of men litter the area surrounding what was left of the car that had exploded. Fourteen United States soldiers and four American contractors were killed (Sanders). Tie together Throughout history, warfare has advanced significantly regarding aspects such as weaponry and strategy making it more brutal now than it has ever been. However, should there even be wars? Is war righteous and ethical? War can be either moral or immoral as long as the intentions of
…show more content…
Soldiers are risking their lives everyday to help themselves or others but to do that involves killing people. It is not moral for one human to value their life or beliefs more than another human’s. Additionally, not only are those in combat killing the opponent’s troops, but innocent bystanders are also harmed and often killed (Watson). It is immoral for someone not wanting to be entangled in the war to loose their life just for happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Today, there are many more lives being lost than in past wars due to breakthroughs in technology that are leading to more powerful and destructive weapons. For example, in the American Civil War of 1861 to 1865, weapons included heavy swords and rifles. On the contrary, modern wars include guns such as the AK-47, a much lighter rifle with more control during automatic and the ability to carry more loads of ammo. Another modern weapon is M16 rifles with the capability to self load, hold a 30-round magazine, and have accurate shots from over 550 meters away and fire 12 to 15 rounds per minute (Mizokami). There is also speculation of developing better nuclear weapons and submarines. Regardless, having weapons and the ability to kill people does not always make it morally right to do
Soldiers are risking their lives everyday to help themselves or others but to do that involves killing people. It is not moral for one human to value their life or beliefs more than another human’s. Additionally, not only are those in combat killing the opponent’s troops, but innocent bystanders are also harmed and often killed (Watson). It is immoral for someone not wanting to be entangled in the war to loose their life just for happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Today, there are many more lives being lost than in past wars due to breakthroughs in technology that are leading to more powerful and destructive weapons. For example, in the American Civil War of 1861 to 1865, weapons included heavy swords and rifles. On the contrary, modern wars include guns such as the AK-47, a much lighter rifle with more control during automatic and the ability to carry more loads of ammo. Another modern weapon is M16 rifles with the capability to self load, hold a 30-round magazine, and have accurate shots from over 550 meters away and fire 12 to 15 rounds per minute (Mizokami). There is also speculation of developing better nuclear weapons and submarines. Regardless, having weapons and the ability to kill people does not always make it morally right to do