Is Killing Civilians in War Justified?

[cgannon64]

It pretty much started in the Civil War with the starvation of Vicksburg. It got more common in World War I as civilians were killed with soldiers and cities were ruined purposely. It hit full swing in World War II with the bombings of London, Dresden, and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It became even worse in Vietnam as napalm and soldiers took out civilians and soldiers, being unable to tell them apart. Its pretty much accepted military doctrine now. Take out the 'soft targets', the economic targets, seige and burn the cities.

Do you think its ever justified in war? Should civilians be purposely avoided to be killed, or hunted down, or somewhere in between?

RANDOM CONNECTION TO CURRENT EVENTS: War on Iraq will use 12,000 bombs, 10x more than Gulf War I.

 

[GerrardCapashen]

I think that civilian casualties should be avoided as much as possible, but if the enemy's headquarters and command/control centers are buried under a school or hospital or other civilian building, too bad. Bomb it. However, these casualties should still be minimized because it makes the attacking country (presumably the U.S., in a war on Iraq) look bad and draws the hatred of many civilians in that country and in other countries.

 

[Kentonio]

It pretty much started in the Civil War with the starvation of Vicksburg.

Lol, no it started a few thousand years ago when armies used to raze cities to the ground as a message to their enemies.

Kentonio

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by Kentonio


Lol, no it started a few thousand years ago when armies used to raze cities to the ground as a message to their enemies.

Kentonio

Yeah, but I think the Civil War was the first time it was used extensively, purposely, and decisively. "Sherman's March to the Sea" was the first of its kind, but unfortunely not the last.

 

[jack merchant]

I'd love to know who voted for the purposely (is that the right word?) targetting of civilians I thought we were beyond that ?

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by jack merchant
I'd love to know who voted for the purposely (is that the right word?) targetting of civilians I thought we were beyond that ?

Now it's two people.

I voted for the second option, BTW.

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by jack merchant
I'd love to know who voted for the purposely (is that the right word?) targetting of civilians I thought we were beyond that ?

I guess people who beleive the end justifies the means. Targeting civilians is successful, after all - that is, if you are a heartless war tactician...

 

[Maj]

Depends on which side you're on.

 

[hbdragon88]

I don't think it's ever justified to kill civilians.

In the siege of vicksburg civilians were killed? I never knew that - then again, our social studies book (in eighth grade, when I studied the civil war) never went into great detail about any particular subject. For example, I never knew Sherman had trouble with Hood in marching to Atlanta.

AFAIL (as far as I learned) Sherman didn't purposely target civlian buildings. From what I read, Sherman gave the orders to burn military establishments and that's it - but the soldiers engaged in organized plunder to civilian targets.

 

[Neomega]

I voted for the top one. A nation whipped up into hysteria like Japan or Germany during World War II needed a clear message.

It is an unfortunate consequence of total war when the civilian population fully backs their government.

But just because our name is America doesn't mean we can't be swept up into a hysteria.

If me or my loved ones are destroyed by muslim fundamentalists in the next fifty years after the initiation of this war... I will hold my own government, and yes, my fellow citizens responsible for their foolish and ignorant actions.

I will feel no pity when the pentagon, White house or J. Edgar Hoover building is destroyed, nor will I care or "pray" for their families. They, like the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, brought it upon their own heads. It is a sad fact for those irresponsible enough to think war is a game that ends when the surrender papers are signed. It is the ultimate irony for those who thought victory was near, indeed victory may come, but for those who die, their is no victory, no rejoicing, and no choice to look back and wonder if they made the right choice.

This war is evil pure and simple, and the evil people will suffer consequences they could never imagine, unfortunately, so too will the innocents.

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by hbdragon88

In the siege of vicksburg civilians were killed? I never knew that - then again, our social studies book (in eighth grade, when I studied the civil war) never went into great detail about any particular subject. For example, I never knew Sherman had trouble with Hood in marching to Atlanta.

They wouldn't let any food into the city, and they constantly shelled it. Civilan casualties were inevitable in that style of warfare.

AFAIL (as far as I learned) Sherman didn't purposely target civlian buildings. From what I read, Sherman gave the orders to burn military establishments and that's it - but the soldiers engaged in organized plunder to civilian targets.

Really? I didn't know that. I just thought that it was - burn everything to the ground.

But hey, we shouldn't trash Sherman - wasn't Field Order No. something to free every and all slave on sight and provide them with food and shelter

 

[hbdragon88]

The general wouldn't give up, and for that the civilians had to suffer. If he had surrendered the city - which was inevitable that it would fall - the civilians would not be starving to death. The shells wouldn't have killed them either.

 

[hbdragon88]

The general wouldn't give up, and for that the civilians had to suffer. If he had surrendered the city - which was inevitable that it would fall - the civilians would not be starving to death. The shells wouldn't have killed them either.

 

[Cloudyvortex]

Before asking such questions, ask yourself this:

What is an innocent?

The more you think about it, really think about it, the less you want to. It is no wonder that those in power don't seem to have a conscience. If they had one to begin with, learning how the system, any system, works will sap them of what little goodness they had.

Hey, I'm just waiting till it's my time to go. I've long stopped caring 'how' and 'when'.

 

[Silverflame]

Second option. Civilian damage should be minimized, but if the enemy is hiding in civilian populations, then too bad for the people.

 

[sween32]

Originally posted by Silverflame
Second option. Civilian damage should be minimized, but if the enemy is hiding in civilian populations, then too bad for the people.

what about vietnam? american soldiers raped and killed thousands of innocent vietnamese for no good reason other then "they all look the same".

 

[cromagnon]

We have the capability to target specific buildings and weapons these days, unlike prior wars. Therefore, we should try to minimize such unintentional damage if at all possible.

In the old days, there really was no distinction between military targets and civilian targets. As kentonio pointed out, entire cities would be wiped out. For example, Timur Lang (Tamerlane) killed all 2000 inhabitants of a city and piled their skulls as a monument. We should try to distance ourselves from brutality, whenever war can not be avoided.

 

[Neomega]

I fully disagree, to fend off a brutal aggressor nation, one must use all methods available for it's survival. To try to make rules to war is insanity, and will cost you in the end.

War is a competition to see who can be the coldest.

Napoleon

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

We of the civilized world ought be working on a sytem for deathless war. Must be some kind of "sleeping gas" or something like that we could use to incapacitate and disarm foes then round them up.

Likewise the next big breakthough in weapons tech ought to be "malfunction ray".

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by Kentonio


Lol, no it started a few thousand years ago when armies used to raze cities to the ground as a message to their enemies.

Kentonio

Yes, and let's not forget biological warfare is far from anything new. It was not uncommon for armies to throw diseased carcasses into beseiged cities to weaken the defenders will to fight. By WW2, Japan had just about perfected biowar and was dropping bubonic plague infected fleas on the Chinese. Hmm...where was it I heard/read about their trial balloons to do the same to the US? History Channel I think.