Collateral Damage
- Thread starter The_Zergling
- Start date
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
Here's a question for you.
Let's say the "enemy" is attacking both your military and civilian centres, resulting in deaths. His means of attack are located in civilian population centres.
What do you do?
This sounds harsh, but I think that one's own people often come first. Not that people should have that attitude - but they normally do. So commanders and politicians will be willing to accept more civilian casualties on the other side if they think it will get their objectives.
Let's say the "enemy" is attacking both your military and civilian centres, resulting in deaths. His means of attack are located in civilian population centres.
What do you do?
This sounds harsh, but I think that one's own people often come first. Not that people should have that attitude - but they normally do. So commanders and politicians will be willing to accept more civilian casualties on the other side if they think it will get their objectives.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gollevainen
Hes really got it for me today i see.
well we just make em buddy nobody says you gotta fire em!!
Hes really got it for me today i see.
well we just make em buddy nobody says you gotta fire em!!
But I wrote that one in yesterday
...But they do....YHTEISLAUKAUS!!(all firing at one), HUOMIO!!(attention), TULTAAA!!! (fireeee)
D
Deleted member 675
Guest
SampanViking said:
Well conventional weapons are there to be used. One can't express surprise if they're deployed.
If a person sells weapons, they have to accept the consequences of their use by that party. At the very least, if they object to that use, they have to refuse to deal with that party in the future. If they continue to deal then they don't care.
The_Zergling said:
Both are unethnical, but so is war. Enemy civilians are legit targets if they stay in the combat zone and provide aid and comfort to their combatants.
To put it another way, a small, poor village populated by civilians located in the middle of nowhere is prolly not a valid target. But an enemy city with manufacturing facilities that produce goods and services in large quantities, including both guns and bread, would be a valid target.
You can be "more ethnical" (lesser of 2 evils) by using precision weapons to strike rail depos, telecom sites, factories, bridges, etc., instead of WMDs like nuclear strike. Or, air-drop flyers informing the residents that the city would be anniliated within 48 hours, and demand them to evacuate immediately or face certain death.
I think that during war, moral rules change. Think about it. Killing is ENCOURAGED. War is a paradox, at least if you care about civillian lives. You want to kill as many of the enemy as you can, how ever you can. But you also want to save lives. Thus, with the rules so convoluted and confusing, something that everyone could agree on as evil or bad during peace, for example blowing up a city block, becomes subject to many different interpretaitons. But I think there are a few things that you can analyze an action by in order to determine if it is a moral or immoral act during a war.
-Who died/suffered:If they are armed combatants, than almost anything goes. However, if they are civillians or prisoners, there are quite a few more restricitions on one's actions.
-The extent of the war and prior actions: While the use of nuclear weapons in WWII, a massive conflict encompassing almost every nation and the vast majority of the world's population and almost every aspect of their lives, was justified due to the scale of that conflict and its utter brutality, the use of nuclear weapons would not be justified in the Israel-Lebanon conflict because it was far more limited in scale. Also, there is a certain morality to escalation. If a war is so large that it invloves the civillian population, ie the civillian population is an active part of the enemy's war-making capacity, it would be allowable to respond to enemy attacks on the enemy's civillians in kind. The opposite example would be a terrorist attack, like a Palestinian suicide bombing. The Israeli civillians were not actively involved in supporting the occupation, as Japanese civillians were in WWII. Summed up, total war has loser rules.
-The military advantage to be gained from an action: The greater tje advantage, the greater the "moral transgressions" allowed. However, this rule has limits, major ones. **************************************************************************************************************
Possible imflamatory deleted
This is a good thread, let's keep it civil. bd popeye moderator
-Who died/suffered:If they are armed combatants, than almost anything goes. However, if they are civillians or prisoners, there are quite a few more restricitions on one's actions.
-The extent of the war and prior actions: While the use of nuclear weapons in WWII, a massive conflict encompassing almost every nation and the vast majority of the world's population and almost every aspect of their lives, was justified due to the scale of that conflict and its utter brutality, the use of nuclear weapons would not be justified in the Israel-Lebanon conflict because it was far more limited in scale. Also, there is a certain morality to escalation. If a war is so large that it invloves the civillian population, ie the civillian population is an active part of the enemy's war-making capacity, it would be allowable to respond to enemy attacks on the enemy's civillians in kind. The opposite example would be a terrorist attack, like a Palestinian suicide bombing. The Israeli civillians were not actively involved in supporting the occupation, as Japanese civillians were in WWII. Summed up, total war has loser rules.
-The military advantage to be gained from an action: The greater tje advantage, the greater the "moral transgressions" allowed. However, this rule has limits, major ones. **************************************************************************************************************
Possible imflamatory deleted
This is a good thread, let's keep it civil. bd popeye moderator