There is no simple "yes" or "no" answer to this question, but rather it involves complex ethical, strategic, and practical trade-offs. Here are some common considerations: 1. The tradition and reality of deception in war: Historically, the use of false intelligence or deception has always been a strategy in war. For example, both ancient and modern military operations have strategies to distract or mislead the enemy. This practice is to some extent seen as a "tool" to achieve strategic goals, and its rationality is often measured by whether it can reduce casualties and the degree of conflict overall. 2. Utilitarian perspective: From a utilitarian perspective, if false intelligence can reduce harm and save more lives in the long term or on a large scale, then this measure may be considered morally justified to some extent. For example, if false intelligence causes the enemy to make a wrong decision, thereby avoiding a direct conflict that may cause a large number of civilian casualties, then this deception measure may be considered to have a "greater good." Of course, the key question is to measure this effect - whether the actual results can truly achieve the purpose of reducing harm, and whether there are possible long-term negative consequences, such as loss of trust and retaliation. 3. From the perspective of deontology and moral integrity: From the perspective of deontology (virtue ethics or Kantian ethics), honesty is usually a basic moral obligation, and lying or creating false information may be considered unacceptable in itself. According to this view, the use of false intelligence, even for the purpose of war, may be regarded as a violation of basic moral principles (such as honesty and integrity). Therefore, in the view of some ethicists, it is difficult to justify intentional deception morally regardless of the outcome. 4. Law and war ethics: Modern international law and war ethics (such as the Geneva Conventions and related documents) are mainly concerned with protecting civilians, prisoners of war, and restricting the use of certain weapons, while international law generally does not explicitly prohibit the strategy of military deception. In other words, the use of false intelligence may be regarded as a legitimate combat strategy in many cases, but legitimacy is not the same as morality. Therefore, military ethics often need to balance legitimacy and moral principles. 5. Long-term trust and subsequent impact: Once false intelligence is confirmed or widely circulated, it may have a negative impact on trust within the military and the attitude of the international community towards a country. Such consequences may weaken future cooperation and strategic communication, thereby posing challenges to long-term peace and security. Therefore, even if it seems reasonable in the short term, the long-term consequences need to be incorporated into ethical and strategic assessments. In summary, whether the use of false intelligence in military operations is ethical often depends on the following: • Whether it can ensure less overall harm and higher protection (such as protecting civilian lives); • Whether combat decisions are based on a full understanding of the complex situation; • The long-term negative trust consequences it may produce; • Whether it violates fundamental ethical commitments such as honesty and integrity. In other words, the answer is often situation-dependent: in some cases, false intelligence may be considered necessary and relatively justified in order to maintain a higher good or save more lives; while in other cases, deliberate deception may undermine core moral values and the basis for future cooperation and is therefore considered unethical. Each specific case requires a comprehensive examination of its strategic effects, ethical principles, and potential consequences to make a judgment.