If war lends no advantage to those who show compassion, sympathy therefore becomes a disadvantage, for one must go out of their way and make concessions to show sympathy towards their enemy. While compassion could exist in wars if opposing forces used compassion equally and fairly, this concept never occurs. This is because one side, whether out of belief, lack of values, or pure desperation, will always exploit the compassion and generosity of another.

However, compassion does not become a disadvantage to one side as it becomes an advantage to the other. Compassion in itself is a disadvantage, regardless to the actions of the enemy. In such situations as war, a nation must go to battle with the utmost contempt for an enemy. Soldiers, leaders, and civilians must all unite against the enemy. When sympathy and compassion is shown towards the enemy, it leaves confusion and doubt upon the mindsets of soldiers and civilians.

If nations enter war as a last resort, it is in every respect to believe that those nations will do whatever it takes to win. Therefore, with compassion being both a weakness to themselves, and an advantage to their enemies, it is in their best interest to avoid it. This lesson becomes increasingly important in the modern day, as we live in a world where people, who we often find ourselves in conflict with, do not follow our set of “civilized rules” (see blog post 11/07). We also live in a “dog eat dog” world (see blog post 11/12). In such a dangerous world, we expose ourselves to danger if we grant our enemies compassion, for they will surely exploit it, and grant us none.

In such a world, the question arises whether we see war for what it is, barbaric, and lower ourselves to the war which they will fight. Or whether we justify war by granting compassion so that we as a nation can sleep at night believing we are different from those “desert rats”, all while leaving ourselves weak because we refuse to fight a “barbaric” war. If we are to see these variables, and judge them by reason, we will find that war is an open game. All measures must be used to fight a war in order to obtain victory, in such a case the use of torture and nuclear warfare is permitted, because it is not the right who prevail, it is the strong.

A man walks down a dark corridor, opens a rusty door to a man shackled in a chair, and proceeds to pull out a handful of sharp tools already soaked in blood. This may be the imagery that many people have come to associate with torture, as it is the imagery presented in such popular films such as Hostel and Saw. Consequently it might also be the scenery pictured in the minds of people who watch the 9-o’clock news and gasp in shock over the controversies at Guantanamo Bay. But how violent have the dealings at Guantanamo Bay? And, what if any, are the benefits to such a “heinous” action?

To understand the concept of torture or at least one whose existence can be argued as reasonable and just, we must first understand that there is a difference between what is necessary and what is excessive. The idea of this ideal torture for which some may argue, is based upon limits. These limits are defined on the basis that what is necessary is just, and excess is unwarranted. Because society as a whole is inevitably affected by the truth that any and all forms of torture are proven immoral by tradition or higher law, torture is automatically accepted and decreed as excessive. A very important question arises, if torture was used in necessity for a good that outweighed the suffering of an individual, is it evil and barbaric?

Modern warfare relies on many factors such as, communication, technology, morale, and leadership. But also among these is information and knowledge. This information comes from a variety of sources from within our own military. But a wealth of knowledge, the same knowledge that wins wars and saves the lives of our military and those that it protects, is gained from the opposing force. Captured and detained soldiers are perhaps one of the most helpful sources of direct information. But there is no simple way of extracting their information. Persuasion is costly and timely, but force is effective and most importantly efficient.

Now here is the line where most people turn away in disgust citing the reasons that all torture is barbaric and uncompassionate. But from this disgust comes a previously discussed topic; war is barbaric, but war is inevitable. War is not civilized, nor is it “somewhat barbaric”. Whether there are lines of med bathed men fighting with wooden clubs, or a man behind a desk dressed in a suit pressing a tiny button. War has the same purpose, to impose will with force.

The barbaric nature of war leaves no advantage to compassion. This does not mean that there is no room for compassion; it means that compassion has little effect over defeat of an enemy, especially when one faces an enemy who offers no compassion……

Can one make the decision to take life in the hopes of saving life? This is the question which ultimately plagues many when discussing the morality of the nuclear bomb. While some will arrogantly and automatically dismiss nuclear warfare in hopes of an unreachable world peace, most reasonable men will ask themselves whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs.

However, making this decision is not easy. To complicate matters, it is never simply a judgment between the lives of many and the lives of few, as any decision made to use the atomic bomb will bare unforeseeable consequences. As seen with the Japanese bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the long term consequences are very harsh, as both of these cities suffered from radiation poisoning, huge casualties, and a sense of insecurity that penetrates their societies today. However, it cannot go without saying that these bombings did end the Second World War. The question that has yet to be unanimously answered by society is whether or not the lives saved by ending the war early, were worth the amount of damage caused to these two cities.

It goes without saying that this question will most likely never be answered, and that the countries affected by nuclear warfare will never fully heal from such a traumatic event. For such reasons, the use of nuclear warfare should only be used in desperate situations. But has today’s society totally eliminated any possible use of the atomic bomb.

It reasonable for people to be cautious when using such a powerful weapon as it requires great responsibility. But if the US was involved in a situation like that of the Second World War, would the US be able to set aside fear and make a conscience decision? Is the US willing to hold the threat of nuclear warfare over its enemies?

With the recent split among US politics, and the waging war in the Middle East, it appears that there has been an uprising of anti-war views. Such views are necessary in any society, as a balance to counter opposing aggressive views. But such views become dangerous with wide growth. A society bent on anti-war feelings is weak, hesitant, and unable to compete against rogue countries that don’t follow social standards. What’s even more dangerous is when these rogue countries possess nuclear arms, as they are no where near as hesitant as ourselves. These are real threats, and society’s conceptions of nuclear warfare must change from a world run by caretakers, to a dog-eat-dog world.

"Just give peace a chance", that’s just one of the outcries that echo from a good chunk of the US population in regards to its modern state. It also happens to be the crappiest song John Lennon ever wrote. While I like the idea of peace just as much as the next person, and personally am a big fan of Lennon, I live in reality. A reality where I know that the conflicts that have plagued the nations and civilizations of the past will always continue as it is the nature of man. I understand that God gave man a hand to hold and grasp his child, just as he gave his hand the ability to make a fist. It is in the nature of man to fight and conquer, as it is with any creature our race has descended from. While I am not simplifying man as some form of beast, I will not be as arrogant to deny evolution.

Many will argue against this view, asserting that the human race is civilized, that such recent gains as civil rights indicate a strong advancement in human ideology that far surpasses that of our prejudice ancestors. And with this opinion, I am in total agreement. We as a human civilization are advancing exponentially towards social perfection, rid of injustice. It is not hard to look back centuries or even decades ago to see how we, as a race, are bettering ourselves.

However, “we” does not mean “all”. Today the world is made up of many people, all very different. There are those who live in the modern world, which are those of us who have the ability to read this very blog on a computer. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are those who can’t even read. And of course there are many who lie between these two extremes. The point is that there are many people, who do not live in our modern world; they in fact live in a distant world, one we don’t understand. This people do not live in our society, they do not follow our rules, they are in fact anomalies, ones we cannot control with diplomacy or words.

They live in many forms; we see them everyday on television. They are those in Ethiopia whose stomachs balloon to outrageous size, they are those in South America who live in shacks, and they are those in the Middle East who tout guns and the Quran. These are factors that lie outside of societies’ bounds. They cannot be controlled, especially those who possess power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

- This link provides an unbiased and very broad overview of all things torture. This includes the history, development, and the views supporting and opposing the modern use of torture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

- This link provides an unbiased and very broad overview of nuclear weapons. This includes the history, development, and the views supporting and opposing the use of nuclear weapons.

http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2005-08/2005-08-23-voa2.cfm

- This link provides many views about the use of the atomic bomb on Japan during World War II. It voices many opinions from scholars and historians who point out the pros and cons of its use. It is important as it gives feedback from the only event where the atomic bomb was ever used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation

- This link provides an overview of nuclear proliferation, or the movement supporting the US armament. It outlines the various points which support the theory.

http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

- This link outlines the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was created to stop countries from acquiring nuclear weapons, and to convince those with them to decrease their inventories. The treaty is one of the foremost factors in the elimination of nuclear weapons armament.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/nuclear-weapons/start/10-reasons-abolish-nw.htm

- This link illustrates the views of a non-proliferation group. These views are the top ten reasons for the abolishment of nuclear weapons.

http://www.nuclearproliferation.org/

- This link a large website run by the “Nuclear Proliferation Organization” dedicated to the cause of nuclear-proliferation. The website is a blog, and addresses current topics regularity.

http://www.nci.org/index.htm

- This site is an independent research center, Nuclear Control Institute, which specializes in studying the problems associated with nuclear proliferation. This site is important because it illustrates the flaws in both sides of the nuclear armament debate.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/dangers.html

- This site outlines the dangers between nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

http://www.sandia.gov/media/nuclear.htm

- This site holds a survey conducted in the US. It explains the views of Americans in regards to their views of nuclear threats and proliferation.

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/internat/intdex10.html

- This link is to an independent group who addresses both recent and past news in the context of nuclear armament and the growing threat of terrorism. It also brings the two topics together in many cases.

http://tassc.org/

- This is a link founded by the victims of torture from all around the world. It is their goal to stop torture, and prevent the current cases with the US’s involvement in Iraq.

http://www.omct.org/

-This is a link to the World Organization against Torture.

http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cat/

- This is a link to the UN Committee against torture.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

- This is a link to the UN Convention against torture.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html

- This link outlines the various scandals of torture cases that have been seen throughout the US’s involvement in Iraq.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst061404.htm

- This is a very well-written article condemning societies who use torture. It recognizes the use of torture elsewhere, but is resilient in allowing the US to participate in such acts.