The Notion Of War: The Just War Theory

Introduction
The notion of war has always been the subject of moral debate throughout history. World War II is no different in this particular regard. In order for wars to be morally justified, the Just War Theory was developed. The Just War Theory has two specific criteria which must be followed in order for the act of war to be considered morally justified – the jus ad bellum (right to go to war) and jus in bello (rightful conduct within war) criterions. Jus ad bellum dictates that war must be justified as an act to preserve human life and as a last resort. In this aspect, the United States was well-justified in entering World War II. The United States had an obligation to protect its own citizens as well as stopping the spread of evils
This theory is divided into two parts: jus ad bellum and jus in bello. In order for a country to declare war in a justifiable manner, it must adhere to the jus ad bellum criteria. This main requisites of ad bellum is just cause, intention, proper authority, probability, of success, and proportionality. “(The) Just War Theory attempts to provide a common sensical combination of both deontology and consequentialism as applied to the issue of war.” The second component of the Just War Theory is the jus in bello criteria. This particular criteria dictates how a country should conduct itself during the war. The in bello also has its own set of requisites: obey all international laws regarding weapons, non-combatant immunity, proportionality of force, benevolent treatment for prisoners of war, actions deemed mala in se (inherently evil) are prohibited, and no acts of revenge. According to Brian Orend, Professor of Philosophy, “Jus in bello essentially boils down to the need for a state, even though it’s involved in a war, nevertheless to still respect the human rights of … citizens as best it can during a
Instead of adhering to these moral guidelines, the jus in bello protocol was blatantly ignored by the United States. The primary means of attacking Japan was via aerial attacks. Originally, these aerial raids were meant to be strategic in nature – targeting only the military factories. Unfortunately, this proved to be ineffective due to the unstable weather surrounding Japan. This forced the military to move onto another tactic – fire bombing. According to Thomas R. Searle, “The United States Army Air Forces devoted the bulk of its effort to ‘area raids’ that used incendiary bombs to burn down Japanese cities and to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.” These acts are not in compliance with the jus in bello criteria. The United States purposefully targeted civilians. There was no military advantage in doing so other than to terrorize the country as a whole. The Air Force employed a quick strike tactic which emphasized the maximum amount of destruction with the minimal amount of damage done to the B-29 aircrafts. Searle writes, “From 9 March on, the bulk of the B-29 effort went into low-altitude incendiary raids that burned down Japan’s cities and killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians… The primary goal of USAAF incendiary bombing of Japan was to ‘demoralize the urban population.’” Aerial warfare,