Do Civilians Even Exist?

[Sanguivorant]

Hello, back again with a spicy topic.

I have declared this one as [RD], because I have discussed this topic with several people, and they did not feel comfortable with it. So a heads up for everyone, in this discussion we are throwing morality out of the window. I encourage you not to be offended, we are just sharing ideas.

Before I start, I want to point out an important thing:

-Anything I say in this thread will not be something that I believe in. I am only trying to look at this specific topic within a certain angle.

Okay, let us begin.

To start, I hope we are all aware that a civilian is a non-combatant. They are unarmed, and are considered neutral in a war. International codes of war make the attacking of civilians a crime.

But how neutral can we consider civilians to be?

My argument is that the civilian is the most important unit responsible for the maintenance of a war machine, and without civilians, a war machine would not exist. Why would I say that? Let me start off with an example using Civilization, a game I'm sure all of us are familiar with:

In this example, I will categorize two groups, economic and military units. One population point of a city is one economic unit, and one military unit is any attacking unit. We will leave workers out of the example.

Let us say that you are in an isolated landmass with one other neighbor. After a while, both of you have gotten 20 economic units (20 total city population) and give military units. You both also have equal technology, so it is considered a stalemate.

The other civilization is your enemy, and you want to get rid of them. There are two options you can take:
-Attack the military units
-Attack the economic units

If you choose to attack only military units, then your opponent will just continue to replenish what they have lost.

However, if you choose to attack your opponent's economic units, they will lose this power to reinforce their troops, which will allow you to organize some of your economy to gain a technological advantage and still maintain an army as large as your opponent's. The dominant strategy here is to attack your opponent's economy.

Even if your opponent has a military advantage, as long as you have the economical advantage, you will inevitably win. What is even more devastating is if you take your opponent's economic units and make them work for you.

Okay, that is a very rudimentary model of how a civilization game works, but the same idea here can easily be applied to real life as well.

What is the most basic economic unit that a real life modern state has? The citizen.

Citizens are important resources, because from them you can:
-Recruit military units.
-Create markets which help stimulate the economy of the state.
-Hire workers, which will allow you to improve infrastructure.
-Find scientists, which will allow you to increase your technological advantage.

A modern war machine, in its basic essence, requires resources and infrastructure that can convert those resources into weapons that can be used.

In all of these steps you must have a citizen involved. You need a citizen to extract resources, work in factories that convert these resources into weapons, and you need citizens to use these weapons for the war effort. I think we can understand this.

But in addition to all of these, you need a fully functioning state in order to have a war machine. This state needs everyday citizens who participate in the society, uphold the norms of the state, work to earn wealth, and use that wealth to stimulate the state's economy, and also to provide the state with funds from taxation. Basically, any living, breathing citizen is another resource this state has that it can use to contribute to a war effort. If the state has no citizens to carry out the normal life process, consume and reproduce, then there is no way a state can maintain a war effort.

Citizens can be armed forces, but mostly they are civilians. The problem is that even though they are civilians, they are the most important segment of your opponent's war machine.

So now to a simplified example. We have two states at war with each other, both equal. State A's options are:
-Attack the enemy's armed forces
-Attack the enemy's civilian population.

The dominant strategy is to attack the enemy's civilian population, because they are the largest part of the enemy state's economy and if you can maintain an economical advantage, you will eventually overcome any armed force you encounter.

Without the average civilian, the enemy state cannot continue fighting a war. So if you wipe out the enemy's civilians, you earn yourself a pyrrhic victory. Better yet, if you manage to perfectly subjugate your enemy's civilians to you will, then you decrease the enemy's fighting capacity and improve yours. So stealing your enemy's women and children, and indoctrinating the children to become your citizens? That is a dominant strategy. It increases your state's power and decreases the power of the enemy state. This is where uneasiness can come, because in reality, it is morally bankrupt to do this, even if it is the option which can guarantee the most success in warfare.

Thoughts? Arguments against this argument?

 

[warpus]

This is why we need rules during times of war - because the most efficient strategies for victory can often lead to a lot of suffering.

 

[Joecoolyo]

It seems to me that the connector of civilians to the war machine, the state, is a far more effective target than the civilian base themselves. Each of these independent civilian activities are only connected to one another, and to warfare, because of the intervention of the state.

Should you target the state, rather than its base, those civilian activities will also cease to feed the war machine. Except you do so without seriously harming the exploited.

 

[Sanguivorant]

The problem is that the state is not one living entity. It is a function resulting from interactions within the society.

I think you mean try to attack the leaders of the state? That could work, as long as the leaders are considered infallible, and all-powerful, and attacking the leaders would greatly decrease citizen morale. If that is not the case, I believe the state can always find a replacement leader. Remember, it is from the citizen population that a leader is born.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Hello, back again with a spicy topic.

I have declared this one as [RD], because I have discussed this topic with several people, and they did not feel comfortable with it. So a heads up for everyone, in this discussion we are throwing morality out of the window. I encourage you not to be offended, we are just sharing ideas.

Before I start, I want to point out an important thing:

-Anything I say in this thread will not be something that I believe in. I am only trying to look at this specific topic within a certain angle.

Okay, let us begin.

To start, I hope we are all aware that a civilian is a non-combatant. They are unarmed, and are considered neutral in a war. International codes of war make the attacking of civilians a crime.

But how neutral can we consider civilians to be?

My argument is that the civilian is the most important unit responsible for the maintenance of a war machine, and without civilians, a war machine would not exist. Why would I say that? Let me start off with an example using Civilization, a game I'm sure all of us are familiar with:

In this example, I will categorize two groups, economic and military units. One population point of a city is one economic unit, and one military unit is any attacking unit. We will leave workers out of the example.

Let us say that you are in an isolated landmass with one other neighbor. After a while, both of you have gotten 20 economic units (20 total city population) and give military units. You both also have equal technology, so it is considered a stalemate.

The other civilization is your enemy, and you want to get rid of them. There are two options you can take:
-Attack the military units
-Attack the economic units

If you choose to attack only military units, then your opponent will just continue to replenish what they have lost.

However, if you choose to attack your opponent's economic units, they will lose this power to reinforce their troops, which will allow you to organize some of your economy to gain a technological advantage and still maintain an army as large as your opponent's. The dominant strategy here is to attack your opponent's economy.

Even if your opponent has a military advantage, as long as you have the economical advantage, you will inevitably win. What is even more devastating is if you take your opponent's economic units and make them work for you.

Okay, that is a very rudimentary model of how a civilization game works, but the same idea here can easily be applied to real life as well.

What is the most basic economic unit that a real life modern state has? The citizen.

Citizens are important resources, because from them you can:
-Recruit military units.
-Create markets which help stimulate the economy of the state.
-Hire workers, which will allow you to improve infrastructure.
-Find scientists, which will allow you to increase your technological advantage.

A modern war machine, in its basic essence, requires resources and infrastructure that can convert those resources into weapons that can be used.

In all of these steps you must have a citizen involved. You need a citizen to extract resources, work in factories that convert these resources into weapons, and you need citizens to use these weapons for the war effort. I think we can understand this.

But in addition to all of these, you need a fully functioning state in order to have a war machine. This state needs everyday citizens who participate in the society, uphold the norms of the state, work to earn wealth, and use that wealth to stimulate the state's economy, and also to provide the state with funds from taxation. Basically, any living, breathing citizen is another resource this state has that it can use to contribute to a war effort. If the state has no citizens to carry out the normal life process, consume and reproduce, then there is no way a state can maintain a war effort.

Citizens can be armed forces, but mostly they are civilians. The problem is that even though they are civilians, they are the most important segment of your opponent's war machine.

So now to a simplified example. We have two states at war with each other, both equal. State A's options are:
-Attack the enemy's armed forces
-Attack the enemy's civilian population.

The dominant strategy is to attack the enemy's civilian population, because they are the largest part of the enemy state's economy and if you can maintain an economical advantage, you will eventually overcome any armed force you encounter.

Without the average civilian, the enemy state cannot continue fighting a war. So if you wipe out the enemy's civilians, you earn yourself a pyrrhic victory. Better yet, if you manage to perfectly subjugate your enemy's civilians to you will, then you decrease the enemy's fighting capacity and improve yours. So stealing your enemy's women and children, and indoctrinating the children to become your citizens? That is a dominant strategy. It increases your state's power and decreases the power of the enemy state. This is where uneasiness can come, because in reality, it is morally bankrupt to do this, even if it is the option which can guarantee the most success in warfare.

Thoughts? Arguments against this argument?

Is there any particular version of Civ you're referencing here? Not all of us have played all versions. I'm only familiar with Civ I and II.

Personally, whenever I can afford to do so, I prefer to send in a Diplomat/Spy to subvert the city, or at least steal tech. Where does the Spy fit into your view?

 

[jackelgull]

Is there any particular version of Civ you're referencing here? Not all of us have played all versions. I'm only familiar with Civ I and II.

Personally, whenever I can afford to do so, I prefer to send in a Diplomat/Spy to subvert the city, or at least steal tech. Where does the Spy fit into your view?

In my opinion, the spy does the same thing as the army, except in a more efficient way- it neutralizes the civilian capacity to contribute to the state's war effort. To put it basically, the state leads, soldiers fight and civilians produce. So there is really little difference between provoking a rebellion or destroying the citizen's as long as economic resources aren't being contributed to the state to fight its war.

 

[Sanguivorant]

Is there any particular version of Civ you're referencing here? Not all of us have played all versions. I'm only familiar with Civ I and II.

Personally, whenever I can afford to do so, I prefer to send in a Diplomat/Spy to subvert the city, or at least steal tech. Where does the Spy fit into your view?

This to me sounds like causing rebellion/revolt. In strategic terms, what you are doing is temporarily shutting down a segment of your enemy's economy, and forcing a segment of your enemy's military to be used in putting that segment back in order.

This tactic helps reduce the overall effectiveness of your enemy's war effort. Used correctly, this distraction can allow you to assimilate parts of your enemy's economy. It is in fact, the dominant strategy, because not only do you gain more economic units, but your opponent loses some as well.

Stealing tech can be advantageous, but as long as your enemy has more economic units than you (More population), they will always be able to maintain a technological advantage in the long run, unless you use this stolen technology to somehow reduce the amount of economic units your opponent has.

 

[Smote]

Nuking might be the easiest way to kill civilians. Biological weapons would work well too. The diplomatic repercussions are severe, however.

 

[gay_Aleks]

If your model represents Civilization, why is war imminent? I won't praise the diplomacy in Civilization games - it's rudimentary and sometimes non existent, but surely you can work something out?

 

[Sanguivorant]

If your model represents Civilization, why is war imminent? I won't praise the diplomacy in Civilization games - it's rudimentary and sometimes non existent, but surely you can work something out?

Ah, so the topic of diplomacy and international relations. There are various views on IR, but let us first address the civilization thing.

In the Civilization universe, you are ultimately playing a game, and this game has one goal: to win.

If your goal is to win this game, and you have other civilizations who could also potentially win the game, then these civilizations will always be your enemies in the end, even if you might have friendly relations with them for a time. They are in your way from getting victory, because we all know that if no other civilization existed but yours, you would automatically get a victory, because there would be no other competitor.

So if you know that a civilization is getting close to a cultural victory, you know that you must do everything in your power to prevent that from happening so that you can have a chance at winning. Even if they were your most valuable friend for the last thousand years.

If you have ever played a game of Civ with real people, who all intend to win, you can witness this way of thinking for yourself:

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/mp_mistakes.php

As this guide best puts it, "EVERY SINGLE THING YOU DO IN AN ONLINE GAME SHOULD BE DONE TO INCREASE YOUR MILITARY!!!"

Why military? Having a strong military gives you the freedom to pursue any of the victory options. You can try to win the space race, and even if you have a million scientists and engineers working on that, if you have no military, then your work can easily be taken away from you.

Now how does this relate to real life international relations? It is obviously different, because there is no objective in real life that we can classify as a win. Civilizations won't just give up because someone shot a space ship to Alpha Centuari.

When you are talking about reconciliation between states, this is a liberal way of looking at international relations. It suggests that states can benefit much more if they work with each other. This type of thinking has only existed recently, starting in the 20th century.

For most of history, many people held a realist view when it came to international relations. In this view, the most important thing to a state is its survival, sovereignty and self-sufficiency. States have fought with each other mostly because of sovereignty issues. The best way to cement your sovereignty is to have a large enough military to prevent other states from neglecting you. But the problem is that every state that exists potentially threatens your sovereignty.

That's all I can say before it starts to get dicey, and I start to write meaningless essays.

 

[Phrossack]

Winning a war by civilian attrition is like eating very hot soup with a severed child's hand. It's slow, messy, inefficient, painful, and utterly horrifying. Wars of attrition are slow, painful, and wasteful enough without trying to kill all the civilians, too.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Besides, if you exterminate the civil population, the city will be useless.

Your scenario shows us only the picture on the isolated landmass. Surely, two cities with 20 pop can't be all that exists in there. So, theoretically, there have to be more civilizations, much stronger than these two, and they'd be better off cooperating against an eventual common enemy. So long as they don't become satellites of said powers, of course..

Besides, what use of one million clubmen if the enemy has lasers?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Stealing tech can be advantageous, but as long as your enemy has more economic units than you (More population), they will always be able to maintain a technological advantage in the long run, unless you use this stolen technology to somehow reduce the amount of economic units your opponent has.

Have you ever played the Lalande scenario in Civ II: Test of Time?

Nuking might be the easiest way to kill civilians. Biological weapons would work well too. The diplomatic repercussions are severe, however.

Not to mention the necessity for cleanup before the environment is shot. You should never use nukes unless you have a good number of Engineers handy to do cleanup.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Or for that matter, if you're nuking a hostile faraway land impossible to invade through conventional matters, and whose cities you won't even use.

 

[Joecoolyo]

The problem is that the state is not one living entity. It is a function resulting from interactions within the society.

I think you mean try to attack the leaders of the state? That could work, as long as the leaders are considered infallible, and all-powerful, and attacking the leaders would greatly decrease citizen morale. If that is not the case, I believe the state can always find a replacement leader. Remember, it is from the citizen population that a leader is born.

The state is not a living entity, no, but it is an entity nonetheless. It's a fragile collection of people and interactions that seek to govern or control others. You don't just target it's leaders, most states are not reliant entirely on leadership for support.

You suggest a method of targeting the state, taking out its ability to extract resources from the civilian population by removing the civilian population. I think you can be far more surgical by targeting the institutions of the state itself, impairing or severely hampering its ability to operate. I would assume this would involve assassination of leadership, disruption of communication or movement infrastructure, de-legitimization/propaganda campaigns, or other more creative methods.

Essentially, instead of knocking the whole building down and killing everyone inside, just take off the top floor instead. You accomplish the same goal of de-linking civilians with military operations without 90% of the mess.

 

[Sanguivorant]

I forgot to mention, you can also target the enemy's resources, since without them they will not be able to keep up. Obviously, if you do not have copper, then you cannot execute an axeman rush (lol).

All these strategies you describe to me are methods of temporarily shutting off or reducing the effectiveness of the enemy's economic units. I say temporary, because as long as the enemy still has economic/military units, these "power outages" can eventually be fixed.

But you are right in that doing this can force your enemy to capitulate to you or make it easier to capture their economic units.

For example, in Civ, I sometimes use espionage to cause city revolts a turn before I conquer a city. It reduces city defences and the effectiveness of the city garrison, which makes it easier to take my enemy's economic units.

But just resorting to espionage alone I don't believe is enough to eliminate an enemy, especially in a scenario where no side is willing to surrender, and it is a fight to the death.

We also didn't factor in the costs of "convincing" enemy citizens to work for you. Assimilation can be pretty expensive, and the costs that can come from uprisings of citizens who were loyal to the enemy state can be astronomical. By removing these citizens, you dispel these kinds of scenarios in the long run.

 

[Tahuti]

One purpose of the state is to fight wars and in doing so it should be largely self-sufficient from the private economy. When businesses and civilians supply weapons, food and other resources necessary to fight a war to a state, it should be a business relationship rather than being compelled to do so without any obligation from the state. When this is the case, there is no point in harming civilians since killing them will not necessarily decrease the state's ability to fight on.

In totalitarian states and democracies in general, the concept of the private is crowded in favour of the public. Thus, democratic polities incentivise enemy states to kill their civilians as the citizens are compelled to support the polities unconditionally, rather than as part of a business relationship.

 

[Sanguivorant]

One purpose of the state is to fight wars and in doing so it should be largely self-sufficient from the private economy. When businesses and civilians supply weapons, food and other resources necessary to fight a war to a state, it should be a business relationship rather than being compelled to do so without any obligation from the state. When this is the case, there is no point in harming civilians since killing them will not necessarily decrease the state's ability to fight on.

In totalitarian states and democracies in general, the concept of the private is crowded in favour of the public. Thus, democratic polities incentivise enemy states to kill their civilians as the citizens are compelled to support the polities unconditionally, rather than as part of a business relationship.

Could that perhaps be the reason why terrorist organizations fail to see a distinction between a civilian and a soldier in terms of attacking democracies?

 

[Zelig]

I skipped over the OP, because it's not really relevant to the question. Any time someone asks "Does ______ Even Exist?", the answer is yes, because common usage makes a distinction for ______ and language is defined by common usage.

 

[Tahuti]

Could that perhaps be the reason why terrorist organizations fail to see a distinction between a civilian and a soldier in terms of attacking democracies?

Terrorist organisations have essentially a very 'democratic' way of thinking in not-distinguishing between the state and its essentiel personell and those that are merely citizens of such.

The fallacy of democracy, is that citizens and state should necessarily be the same thing in order to guarantee the citizens best interests. However, doing so will make both state and citizenry less autonomous being held accountable for the actions of one another. This is why modern day democracy is a magnet for terrorism.