Winged Defense: Airwar, The Law, and Morality

Abstract

For centuries man has attempted to soften war's effects through moral and legal strictures. Nonetheless, when a nation's survival is at stake, laws and morals are often forgotten. That happened in World War II, and strategic bombing was singled out as being particularly horrible. Unfortunately and for various reasons, attempts to legislate war since then have met with little success. This article argues that the West has not employed airpower either illegally or immorally, and that airwar is not more inhumane or indiscriminate than other forms of war. In fact, as aerial weapons have become increasingly precise, they have acted to dramatically decrease civilian casualties and collateral damage. Rather than attempting to restrict air weapons, which has been the thrust of a number of legal efforts, jurists should instead concentrate on limiting those weapons and means of warfare that are considerably more deadly and destructive.