The Ethics of War Unrestricted submarine warfare is often considered a shady practice in a time of war. Unrestricted submarine warfare is when one country sets up an area that is declared a war-zone, any ships that enter this zone, military or civilian, will be fired upon without warning. Is this right? In my essay, I will weigh the pros and cons of this tactic used by the German’s in WWI. The practice of unrestricted warfare cost the lives of many innocent people. No warning is given so there is no chance to surrender or abandon ship! And foremost, unrestricted submarine warfare violates the so-called rules of war. In the case of the Lusitania, it was believed to be carrying supplies (this was true) and the ship could have later become a threat to Germany if converted into a war or transport ship.
But, at the time, the ship or its 2000 passengers were not a threat to U-20, yet the Luci tiana was sunk without warning and with massive losses. Unrestricted submarine warfare is a very shady, but effective tactic, nonetheless. When implemented, little to no supplies reach your enemies, this gives a tactical strangle hold on a war. Why is no warring given on civilian ships? To a U-boat stealth and surprise are its only defenses. Once a U-boat reveals itself, it is open to ramming and attack thus endangering the crew. In most cases, keeping your troops safe comes above keeping the enemies safe.
The Essay on World War One – Trench Warfare – Describing The Horrific Conditions
Introduction World War 1 was like nothing that had ever happened in the world before. Although it was inevitable, the horrific loss of life was pointless. Almost no-one except the politicians ruling agreed with it, which has been proven by soldier’s diaries, and most famously the football match between the British and the Germans on Christmas Day 1914. All-in-all, World War 1 resulted in a ...
Why would someone need to attack a civilian ship anyway? Because they may be carrying supplies. To say unrestricted submarine warfare violates the “rules” of war then why is the opposition violating the “rules” by putting troops and supplies on a civilian ship making it a target of submarines? Using the lives of innocent people as a shield to protect supplies is just as bad as firing on an unarmed ship without warning. Is unrestricted submarine warfare right? In my opinion a submarine must give civilian ships a chance to abandon ship. A submarine does not need to expose itself to send a warning, send a radio ultimatum, and then a warning shot. How much of a treat could a passenger ship pose anyway? On the other hand there should be no reason to attack a civilian ship, supplies should be transported on military vessels. Submarine warfare is an effective way to keep supplies out of the hands of your enemies, but it should only be used against military vessels.
If there is evidence that supplies are on a civilian ship then by all means sink it after the civilians are safe. In conclusion, let me say this, don’t take a cruise in the middle of a war anyway, its not a wise decision.
