Killing in War is Justified Is killing during war justified or not In most societies killing is considered wrong, however different characteristics such as defending, obeying orders, the storyline, reasons of an act and survival justifies the killing during war. This essay will argue upon the justification of the numerous murders at the time of warfare. Why should men be blamed upon fighting for their survival, or being forced to kill With specific facts and backup the following essay will prove how warfare isn't moral or immoral but justifies itself for its acts. During war one country must defend its ideologies from another country. This may become a conflict forcing the countries into a war. Yet these countries must preserve their beliefs even if it means to kill.

Sometimes the only way to solve such a problem is by fighting for what you believe in. Why should you let something take your strong beliefs away from you Killing people at this point doesn't make anything immoral for these people killed because they were forced to do so. If they didn't kill their beliefs would be taken away from them and their lives would be wrecked. As an example demonstrating that the countries are forced to kill is Tibet. Tibet was an independent country, which China wanted to take over. However Tibet believed in their freedom and decided to go against China's will.

Tibetans being a very peaceful race was forced to fight because they believed that freedom was their right. Many deaths occurred during the war, which saddened the entire world. However it was justified for Tibet was forced to kill to defend their beliefs. China attacking Tibet was also a justified reason for Tibet used to belong to China, which was politically appropriate.

Another example is the Vietnam War. The Americans believed in democracy and the Vietnamese believed in Communism. The Americans fought so that the Vietnamese could have a better country. The killin in this case is justified because the Americans tried to help the south of Vietnam from being overruled by communism.

How is it wrong to help another country Isn't help a right act to do Even with all the killing it is justified because it may be the only way to get your way. Vietnam was justified because they believed that communism was the best way to run a country. They had a strong belief forcing them to fight to get their own way. After all that brutal murdering in the war these mens lives are destroyed physically and psychologically which is demonstrated in the movie "Coming Home." After being through the Vietnam war the veteran had lost a leg and breaks down psychologically for he still gets mental pictures. How can we say he is immoral for killing men during war when he destroyed his own life trying to help another country for their advantages Other countries must defend territory forcing them to contest against another countries will.

These countries are forced to do so for they do not want to be overtaken by another country. For a country to gain more territory they must overpower another country with weapons such as bombs, guns and tanks. What makes it immoral if a country must retaliate by killing others to survive An example of this type of war is when Germany wanted to take over all of Europe. Europe being a huge continent couldn't just give up all its territories and had to retaliate against the German attacks.

This would have been immoral if they wanted to do harm without reasons, however Europe was forced to retaliate against Germany for fear of being taken over. Besides Europe didn't want to harm any Germans but they were forced to do so to keep their territory, which justifies the deaths of the Germans. They may have had to kill many Germans however it may have been the only way to allow the Germans to leave Europe alone. The soldiers during battle are forced to kill during war for they must obey specific orders from their superior officers. How can it be unjustified to kill someone if they had no intention to do so but was forced to do such an act Not obeying orders can bring severe consequences to the soldiers. In the movie "All Quiet On the Western Front" it clearly makes evidence that Superior officers can make a soldier suffer.

As an example Corporal Himmlestoss would make T jaden do extra work by making him run alone in the mud demonstrating the power of superior officers over soldiers. Furthermore during war the main objective is to kill. These soldiers do not want to kill but they must for that is the objective. Killing in this example is justified because these men do not want to do any harm but are forced to do so.

It may not be justified only if the men wanted to harm and destroy without being forced to do such an act. However these soldiers are innocent civilians trying to be loyal for their country. Other deaths during wars are justified because it depends on the reason. In the book A Time To Kill written by John Grisham, a man kills two men.

However he had a good reason to do so. Those men were the suspects of the rape and almost death of his young daughter. However even though he killed those men he was let free for he had a good reason. He was just a loving father getting revenge for his pain and agony. In war all soldiers have a good reason for others deaths. It is usually because they are forced to do such acts and for their survival.

We cannot say it is immoral for these soldiers acts but we can say it is justified. It would be immoral and sinful if these men killed innocent beings without a proper reason. But surely we can agree that these soldiers all had reasons for the deaths of other mens lives. The deaths during war are also justified for soldiers kill only for their survival. These soldiers must kill to survive. If they do not do so someone else will kill them.

Assume flame-throwers come and burn anything in their path. The last thing you would want is to be burned. Presumably the only choice you would have to make would be to shoot them for they posed too much of a threat to you. It is a human instinct for survival. A human would do anything to come through even if it means to kill. They are justified for their murders because it was the only way they could live.

Anyone in a soldiers position would have done the same thing. In the book All Quiet On the Western Front written by Erich Maria Remarque it clearly shows how Paul kills as an instinct to survive. In the book a Frenchman jumps into the trench Paul was hiding into. Before even thinking Paul took out his knife stabbing the Frenchman to death. After a while he notices that he didn't even want to kill him. This demonstrates that survival is a human instinct.

The death of the Frenchman justifies itself for Paul was being "human." He didn't mean to kill the Frenchman but it was just an instinct to survive. We cannot blame him for his acts for he killed only for his life. It was either him or the Frenchman. The war between Kuwait, America and Iraq may be seen morally wrong however it is politically and economically justified.

When Iraq attacked Kuwait for its oil the Americans got involved and chased Iraq out of Kuwait. It is Politically justified because the United Nations backed up the Americans making it justified in their eyes. It's also economically justified because the Americans can buy the oil at a much cheaper price. War is the ultimate solution when there cannot be a diplomatic agreement. With my arguments I should have proven the justification of killing during war using specific proof.

Killing is immoral however during war it should be looked upon differently. I hope that the arguments can allow you to look at war as a different aspect. War is unjustifiable when looked upon in brief however observing it with reasons and facts war should justify itself.