The following sample essay on discusses it in detail, offering basic facts and pros and cons associated with it. To read the essay’s introduction, body and conclusion, scroll down. I am going to choose to do the Falklands War, which started in April1982. The Falkland Islands are situated just off the east coast of Argentina in South America. The cause of the war was when the Argentine Junta invaded the island encountering little or no resistance from people living on the islands.
They did this while the British and Argentineans where still in peace negotiations about who owned the islands. After this Britain sent over a task force consisting on planes, ships and men to take back the islands and did successfully and were victorious by 15th June the same year when the Argentine forces surrendered to the British command.
The Jus In Bello issues One of the conditions of a just war is proportionality, which in this conflict has not been kept to because during the bombing of Port Stanley the British Harrier Jets used cluster bombs.
These bombs annihilate anything over a greater distance than a normal bomb because lots of little bombs break off and all go in different directions increasing the surface area of which the bomb affects. Some people would say is disproportionate because it may spread and get a civilian building as well as a military target. Also these bombs were far more powerful than any thing the opposing Argentines had to offer and because a less powerful bomb would have been more proportionate and would have still done the job.
Also the British used phosphorous munitions, which are poisonous. This is disproportionate because it may cause a painful death, which is not usually caused by a normal bullet. The Argentines had lots of Napalm bombs; these are bombs that create fires causes a large area to be totally burned and destroyed which is disproportionate because it inflames a massive area when it may be disproportionate compared to the size of the military target which could be a lot smaller. Also in war the countries have to keep to targeting military targets and not civilian buildings and that only military people be involved and not civilians in the fighting. In the Falklands War this was kept very well with only three civilian deaths during the whole conflict.
This is good because it means that the accuracy of any bombs dropped on the Falkland Islands was on target or very close to the target because there would have been a considerable amount of more deaths if the accuracy were bad. Another reason that this war was fought under the right conditions was because the prisoners taken on each side were kept and treated very well. One incident however that happened at Goose Green went against the conditions of war. Some Argentine forces were fighting and raised a white flag to surrender. Subaltern Jim Barry moved towards the Argentine troops in order to take them as prisoners.
As he moved though he was shot and was instantly killed by an Argentine soldier. Although this thought to have been a mistake rather than a meaningful act it angered the British troops who immediately launched 66mm rockets and aimed concentrated machine gun fire at the building. The building was set ablaze and no survivors emerged. This action is very disproportionate as it is killing many Argentines’s to retaliate for the death of one British soldier. The Falklands war did nonetheless prove that in this modern era there could be such a thing as a just war because the modern weaponry can be proportionate. Jus ad Bellum issues
There was a just cause for war because when Argentina took over the islands it was because Britain gave up any land in South America or the islands near it to some Spanish Colonists and the Argentines claimed they were the successors to the Spanish colonists. However Britain’s claims was that they had never fully given up interest in the Falklands Islands and after Spain quit the islands in 1811, and Argentina took control until 1933 when they were evicted from the islands by an American warship after a dispute between them. After this Britain became the owners of the Islands again until Argentina invaded.
It was a just cause to go to war because Britain’s islands were attacked without reason and they are doing so in self-defence of their islands. It could said however, that Britain did not feel under any immediate pressure by the invasion of the islands because they are so far away from Britain. Another condition is that there must be a reasonable chance of success which, from Argentina’s sided was kept because they were right next to the Falklands Islands and as Britain is such a long way away they did not think that Britain would bother to reclaim the islands.
Whereas on the British side that sent a task force against an unknown opposition because they did not know how many troops, planes or ships the Argentines had and so they did not know there probability of success. Also was war the last resort? -In this case it wasn’t as Argentina invaded while the talks were still ongoing between the two governments. However Argentina had between debating for 150 years for the return for the islands and had been in negotiations with Britain for the last few years.
Another condition in war is proportionality. Was it kept in a war in which 1000 men were sent to enable 1800 half citizens to give them a choice of government? Many people do not think so. However is it not right to protect your citizens if they belong to you despite them being thousands of miles away from the British homeland? Argentina did have a right to own the Falklands Islands but not the right to go to war with Britain because the British had not committed a fault to Argentina to have a just cause for going to war.
Britain did have a right to go to war in self-defence but did the war bring less suffering to the islands than the war itself would cause. From a pacifists of principle point of view it would not be a just reason to go to war as the British government did not try and make war a last resort even thought they were attacked. From a selective objectors point of view they would agree with the war, as it is an act of self-defence but could not justify the moral issues of the war.