Dyer Total War

Evolution of War From "Mass War" to "Total War":

The evolution of war from mass war to total war took little more than a century. Since the transition from mass war there have been no barriers of behavior left to breach, only more and more destructive weapons to be used according to principles now universally accepted. In their first involvement in total war Europe found that if the means used to fight a war are total, then so must be the ends. Total war meant it was almost impossible to stop short of total victory for one side and unconditional surrender for the other. Mass war meant war on a large scale, more advanced weapons, but total war meant no rules and no boundaries. This evolution lead to merciless fighting in regards to protecting citizens and the idea of a complete victory without compromise. The best example of total war would be the creation and use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, which killed seventy thousand citizens in five minutes. Total war has meant ruthless use of weaponry, mass destruction, and conscienceless fighting. 

Key Qualities of Total War:

• Total victory on one side and unconditional surrender for the other
• Goal of total victory
• Future of the nation depends on victory
• Original origins of war no longer matter (they are easily lost/forgotten)
• Complete victory without compromise
• Only hope of survival is total military victory
• No mercy tactic
• Attrition 
• Civilian causalities
• No boundaries
• No emotional attachment; only hatred toward enemy
• Destroying industries
• Mass bombing
• Damaging morale
• Utter ruthlessness
• Mass destruction
• No conscience
• "The only way that you can meet force is by force"

What is Total War?

Total war is boundary-less war, a war without rules. Total war is a war where no one is safe and every resource is used to its fullest in order to destroy the enemy and attain complete and utter victory without compromise  Total war spares no one; it is merciless. Civilians are not safe, but rather the main targets. In total war civilians are attacked in order to defeat the nation's morale and civilian support. Weapons are used ruthlessly, the goal is mass destruction, and force can only be met with force. 

The obvious answer is that total war is not ethical because it uses ruthless tactics and kills thousands of civilians in in the process. However, because total war has no rules killing civilian in these cruel ways would be acceptable. Total war seems unethical when we relate it back to our own nation and our own families  We would surely think total war was unacceptable if our loved ones (mothers, children, grandparents) were being killed by aerial bombing, but if it were our enemy, like the Japanese in WWII, we would, and did, gladly accept such a tactic. The civilians may not be the ones fighting but they are still representing and supporting their nation, and in this way attacking the civilians is going straight for the heart and morale of the nation.  In this way killing the civilians is justified, but is it therefore ethical in terms of attaining total victory. So, do the ends justify the means?