Is there a moral justification for killing in war?

I have absolutely no problem with this one. Almost every religion and philosophy includes an injunction against murder, not killing, murder. The logical corollary of this injunction is that every one of us has a moral imperative to prevent murder, not punish it, prevent it. If one is threatened and fails to defend themselves, they are as guilty of murder as the aggressor, especially if they have the means and opportunity of preventing it.

This is why it is important that those who send us to war do not do so as aggressors but rather for defense. Now, there are those who argue that every war subsequent to WWII has been a war of aggression by the United States. That is not germane to this discussion. I am responding here only to the original question.

I think this is part of the reason for PTSD, depression and anxiety that a lot of SMs have when they 'come home'. As SGT Ben Keen stated, war is raw and unapologetic. Sometimes, folks don't have the time to process all that they experienced at the moment. Sometimes, bad things happen more quickly than can be processed, so they are forced to bury it until it can be dealt with and occasionally, some find it easier to keep it buried.

CPT (Join to see), when I was in the Navy, I was a Sonar Operator. My job was to prosecute submarines. I had an understanding that if we were called upon to complete that task, we would be sending three to five hundred men to their death. It is not something that should never be taken lightly. We were lucky compared to ground soldiers. We never had to see the face of our enemy. It was just a reading on a sensor, followed by release of weapons. I do hope that there will be a time when a strong military is a deterrent force rather than a practical force. Unfortunately, that day is not going to come. The only difference between us and the ancient Vikings, Huns, Romans, Mongols, Greeks, etc... is that we have more efficient means of killing each other now than we did in ancient times. Our nation has never existed in an extended state of peace. Until we as a species evolve to put humanity above politics, religion, wealth, power, and territory we will continue to have wars.

In a war time situation: it kill or be killed.
I have never intentionally tried to hit a deer with my car, it pisses me off when I see people try to kill animals with their vehicles.
I am the one who usually stops to put the animal out of its misery when they are hit by cars. Don't get me wrong, I am an avid hunter, my wife and I try to get 8 deer to help us make it through the rest of the year with the cost of meat being so high. Basically, if it flies it dies; and if it runs its done.
But I have never left an animal suffer: 1 shot 1 kill is one of my credos.

Concerning the morality of killing in combat, I was in Vietnam for 915 days and would like to comment on this subject. In Vietnam Soldiers and Marines could jump into a hole or throw themselves on the ground to avoid being shot. I was in the Navy River Patrol. We were on 35 foot green fiberglass riverboats on a brown muddy river. We had no hole to hide in, or ground to throw ourselves on. Our only chance was to stick to our guns and hope we had more ammunition than the the North Vietnamese we were fighting. I fought to protect my friends. There wasn't any thought to country, the flag or any such thing---to tell you the truth back then my mental health wasn't very good, and I doubt if I caned about anything. I guess you have to ask yourself, can you justify standing by and watching your friends shot to pieces, just so you can say you didn't kill and did the moral thing. If you can't being yourself to defend your friends--- you may want to think of a career change.

CPT (Join to see) , I am not sure if you have read the book "On Killing" or not. If you have not, you should. There are not as many as you would think that actually have killed someone in combat. And some never truly know if they did if there is mass confusion in a battle. Either way, politics and morals go out the window after that first explosion or shot fired happens. You are in that moment totally ensuring one thing....that you and the people around you survive. If killing someone happens while you are trying to survive, then so be it. That is all that matters.

My justifications for killing in war, 1. the enemy has to be armed, 2. I prefer that he or she has shot at me or any one else. I will shoot to kill and only the enemy and if there are not combatants near, I will aim and shoot only the enemy. It is Karma.

Ma'am, First off people who claim to be "Objectors" Because the Bible says thou shalt not kill is taking a verse out of context. When we took an oath to defend our nation, we are obligated to fulfill that oath. The Bible says:
Tit 3:1 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
1Pe 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
Now when God said thou shalt not kill, he was talking about an individual out of anger or revenge or while committing a crime killing someone intentionally out of malice. The punishment for murder was death. Now if you accidently killed a man, God set up refuge cities for you to flee to stay in and be safe:
Num 35:6 And among the cities which ye shall give unto the Levites there shall be six cities for refuge, which ye shall appoint for the manslayer, that he may flee thither: and to them ye shall add forty and two cities.
Num 35:7 So all the cities which ye shall give to the Levites shall be forty and eight cities: them shall ye give with their suburbs.
Num 35:8 And the cities which ye shall give shall be of the possession of the children of Israel: from them that have many ye shall give many; but from them that have few ye shall give few: every one shall give of his cities unto the Levites according to his inheritance which he inheriteth.
Num 35:9 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Num 35:10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come over Jordan into the land of Canaan;
Num 35:11 Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares.
Num 35:12 And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment.
Num 35:13 And of these cities which ye shall give six cities shall ye have for refuge.
Num 35:14 Ye shall give three cities on this side Jordan, and three cities shall ye give in the land of Canaan, which shall be cities of refuge.
Num 35:15 These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them: that every one that killeth any person unawares may flee thither.
Num 35:16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
Num 35:17 And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
Num 35:18 Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
Num 35:19 The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him.
Num 35:20 But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die;
Num 35:21 Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him.
Num 35:22 But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,
Num 35:23 Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm:
Num 35:24 Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments:
Num 35:25 And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil.
Num 35:26 But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled;
Num 35:27 And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood:
Num 35:28 Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession.
Num 35:29 So these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
Num 35:30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
Num 35:31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.
Num 35:32 And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest.
Num 35:33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
Num 35:34 Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.
So since we are to obey our leaders and since we take an oath to defend, we are allowed to kill during war or duty. If the war itself is wrong, the leaders will give an account for that. We can't kill out of anger for our own satisfaction. This is how I see it, Ma'am

"Just War Theory" (jus bellum iustum) is an area of military ethics studied by theologians, ethicists, policy makers, and military leaders. It is easy to comprehend the moral justification for killing was necessary to stop Hitler, for example. WWII is a great example of a "Just War" because earlier appeasement had led to genocide, and we know the genocide would have continued to its end, but for allied success. We on RP have studied war and experienced war...and we are generally more inclined to avoid getting the US involved in a war as a result. That's one reason we need congressmen and senators and presidents who have served.

CPT (Join to see), difficult question, and one I struggled with a long time ago. Killing is a taboo that is deeply ingrained in us from early childhood, but in war it is the job we do.

In the beginning, breaking that taboo was a major mental hurtle to get over, and once killing became necessary it seemed silly to worry about just how one went about the job. The question of just how they were killed paled in significance to the fact that they WERE killed. Dead is dead. However, morality itself is determined by the "how".

Lt. Calley was a young officer thrust into a battle in a region that had been declared a "Free Fire Zone", meaning that there were only enemy there (Viet Cong irregulars and their families) and all could be killed on sight. He had taken a large group of prisoners and was being pressed by Capt. Medina to keep up with his place in the sweep of the area; he told Capt. Medina that he had these prisoners and was told to "take care of them". He said that he would set out guards over them, and was told that this was not the order - he was to "take care of them" - so he and his men mowed them down and rejoined the sweep of the area. Many more were killed during the sweep.

When Lt. Calley was later called to Washington he thought he was up for a medal, and instead was prosecuted and convicted of war crimes.

When we bombed targets many were also killed, but we were not charged with war crimes. This was difficult for me to understand at the time.

Then a fire base was overrun and a NVA charged into a GI with an M-79 grenade launcher and was shot in the gut. The NVA went down with the grenade buried in his spine, but the range was too close for the grenade to have spin armed, so he wasn't cut in half by the blast - although that would have been the intended and completely satisfactory result. After the firebase was retaken and the choppers were carrying away the wounded, this NVA was flown out, risking the chopper and crew because of the live round in his spine. Then at the MASH unit, doctors surrounded him with sandbags as they operated to remove the live grenade.

That was a puzzle to me; one moment we would be happy to see this man blown in half and the next moment we risked American lives and equipment saving his life. It did not make any sense to me.

But upon reflection, the morality becomes clear; the immorality is not in the killing of the individual enemy, but in killing unresisting prisoners that are no longer a danger to us. How and when and why they are killed is far more important than THAT they were killed.

Other questions still puzzle me. In the battle of the Najaf Cemetery a Mahdi Army soldier was badly wounded with his chest cavity and abdomen opened up and was in great pain. An Army officer (a Captain if memory serves) had come upon him; there was no medical aid possible and the man could not survive and was in great pain and begging to be put out of his misery. The Captain obliged, and dispatched him with his sidearm. Unfortunately, a drone flying over the area filmed the event, and the Captain was charged with murder. A very difficult moral question for me even today, over a decade later. I see it as a mercy killing, and can see myself in that Captain's place making the same decision he made.

Even in war it is important that we pay close attention to the morality of our actions - otherwise we would be no different than ISIS. But I believe that these difficult questions need to be addressed extensively in training before relatively inexperienced and unprepared soldiers are confronted with these situations on the battlefield and have to make snap decisions.

These things need to be thought out beforehand so that in the heat of the moment our training will take over and we will make the right decisions.