Hierchal value of life in wartime. What should be the order?

[Mtgman]

Ok, there are four basic categories of people when there is a conflict.

Our civilians.
Our military.
Their civilians.
Their military.

So, how should these groups be ranked in order of whose lives it is more important to protect? All else being equal, if a certain behavior is likely to increase risk to one of these groups, which should it be? Please note that although obviously inspired by debates about the Iraq war (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12276-2004Sep10?language=printer), this thread is an attempt to get conflict and nation independent rankings.

I'd say the two outliers are the easiest. Our civilians are the most important and the most effort should go into protecting them. We put our soldiers in front of them for precisely this reason. This means we are willing to accept more risk to our soldiers than our civilians. The other end of the spectrum, their troops, are similarly easy to place. They are the de facto targets. Aside from casual massacres of this group pretty much anything goes.

The other two are the sticky wicket. All else being equal, is it more important to preserve the lives of civilians on their side or soldiers on ours?

History is replete with times and places where these questions flip-flopped like mad. The firebombings of Dresden and Hamburg, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Deliberate targeting of civilians instead of military personnel, each for their various reasons. Still these events were not the norm. In general warfare has been designed to deplete the enemy's troops, not their civilians. The Geneva Convention treaties specify protecting of civilians when possible. So that would argue that in general care should be taken to minimize danger to civilians. If we place our military beneath their civilians in this hierarchy of "worth" then logic would dicatate that in a choice between increasing danger to our forces versus their civilians that we choose to increase danger to our troops. Is this generally agreed? Why or why not?

Enjoy,
Steven

[Bricker]

You might wnat to address and distinguish the cases in which civilians are used to protect military targets. If my army's command staff holds its weekly meetings in the middle of a neonatal hospital ward, for instance, may they legitimately rely on the protection of being surrounded by helpless infants to avoid any attack?

[davenportavenger]

ALL civilians, equally
our soldiers
their soldiers

I believe that maximum care should be taken at all times to protect civilians in a time of war. If that means we risk the lives of American soldiers, so be it. The soldiers signed up to be in a war (and don't give me that crap about "they signed up for college loans," signing up explicitly means that you are willing to fight and die in a war), but the civilians didn't sign up to be born in the wrong country at the wrong time. The exception is draftees: although you could make the argument that any draftee who was really against war would have gotten out of it somehow (allowed himself to be arrested, gone to Canada, cut off his trigger finger), for many people conscientiously objecting is not a viable option. This is one of the reasons I hate the draft--it blurs the line between soldierdom and civilianhood, and makes the moral questions less clear-cut. In that case, I think that I would personally value the life of a draftee over that of a willing soldier, though less than a civilian (since he did, after all, go to war).

I don't see much of a difference between which "side" a civilian is one. To me, civilians HAVE no sides, we're all just people trying to make it through the day, no matter what soil we were born on. If there's a military procedure that will kill either 500 Americans or 1000 Iraqis, it is morally indefensible to choose the option that will kill more people. Nothing makes American lives worth more than other lives. Given that, it seems a little hypocritical that I haven't grouped all soldiers together, but if the object of a war is to win it, then I guess you have to "debase" enemy soldiers by making their lives (on a theoretical level) worth "less" than ours.

[Mtgman]

There are all kinds of specifics we could get into, and I would like to later in the thread, but for now I'd just like to focus on these four broad populations. Guerilla warfare alone throws a huge wrench in the works. Things like the Iraqi insurgency, human shields, Dresden, Nagasaki, all muddy the waters. I'm not afraid of those waters, and I look forward to getting there, but I think we should start from some agreed upon common ground.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Mtgman]

I don't see much of a difference between which "side" a civilian is one. To me, civilians HAVE no sides, we're all just people trying to make it through the day, no matter what soil we were born on. If there's a military procedure that will kill either 500 Americans or 1000 Iraqis, it is morally indefensible to choose the option that will kill more people. Nothing makes American lives worth more than other lives.Broadly speaking I'd agree with this. Where the rubber meets the road though it doesn't hold up. The decisions about that military procedure are made by people charged with protecting the civilians of their nation. I'd agree that in an extreme case(total annhiliation of the entire rest of the globe versus a handful of "our civilians") the answer is pretty clear, but in a state of war the decision makers have a responsibility to their civilians. Since there is no global authority who can be even handed with such decisions then we have to go with what we have.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Bricker]

ALL civilians, equally
our soldiers
their soldiers


I understand your point.

But I disagree. I would rather save American soldiers than enemy civilians in time of war. I agree that we should not wantonly kill civilians, but if there is a ranking, our soldiers come first.

[Neurotik]

The hierarchy goes:

Me
My buddies
Friendly troops
Friendly civilians
Enemy civilians
Enemy troops

[Bricker]

The hierarchy goes:

Me
My buddies
Friendly troops
Friendly civilians
Enemy civilians
Enemy troops

Right.

If I had to choose between saving a member of my family, and saving you, I'm sorry, bud, but you're toast. I don't do this gladly, but I don't value all human life equally. There are some human lives I value more.

[Mtgman]

The hierarchy goes:

Me
My buddies
Friendly troops
Friendly civilians
Enemy civilians
Enemy troops
Friendly troops over friendly civilians? That sounds a bit odd. Aren't they the ones specifically designated for taking on the hazardous work? I'm trying to keep this from getting personal, which is why I didn't take the groups all the way down to intimates/family/self levels. The idea is to pretend we're a head of state and come up with how we should view these groups of potential casualties for policy decisions like those which had to be made during the decision to firebomb Dresden or nuke Nagasaki.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Neurotik]

The idea is to pretend we're a head of state and come up with how we should view these groups of potential casualties for policy decisions like those which had to be made during the decision to firebomb Dresden or nuke Nagasaki.
You're absolutely right, I misinterpreted the OP. I was looking at it as if I was a soldier in a wartime operation, not as the head of state. My mistake. I think everyone would agree with the two outliers - our civilians are at the top, their troops are at the bottom. The real question is who gets priority, our troops or their civilians. In a perfect, ideal world we'd be able to leave civilians completely out of it and let the two militaries duke it out.

The problem is that there's overlap. I think everyone would agree that wiping out 100,000 enemy civilians to save 1 friendly soldier would be completely immoral. Probably even 100 enemy civilians to save 1 friendly soldier. And it would go around the other way, sacrificing 100 friendly troops to save one enemy civilian.

[straight man]

So, continuity eror (and everyone else, for that matter), does an enemy who drafts soldiers to fight change the situation? That is to say, the enemy soldiers don't always want to be there, either.

[Sevastopol]

= Civilians of the defending country
= Neutral parties

Military of the defending country

civilians of the aggressor country

military of the aggressor country

[davenportavenger]

I understand your point.

But I disagree. I would rather save American soldiers than enemy civilians in time of war. I agree that we should not wantonly kill civilians, but if there is a ranking, our soldiers come first.But why? Didn't the soldiers sign up to be put in danger? And about the "there are some lives I value more" comment, I agree when it's family or friends, but do you (or anyone else) have kinship with some random American vs. some random Iraqi? I don't feel closer to someone upon hearing they're American; the world is divided between "people I know" and "people I don't know" and while I do value the first over the second I don't feel as if I "know" any random American better than any other random person. And knowing that the average American has a greater negative influence over the environment and general world situation than say, the average Indian, makes it seem more moral to kill the American, since his existence might impact my life or that of my family's life negatively (in an infinitesmal way, of course), whereas the Indian's wouldn't.

So, continuity eror (and everyone else, for that matter), does an enemy who drafts soldiers to fight change the situation? That is to say, the enemy soldiers don't always want to be there, either.Yes, they'd be treated just like draftees from our side, except maybe a little lower. So I guess the order would go:
friends and family
all other nonsoldiers
our draftees
their draftees
our willing soldiers
their willing soldiers

I'm still trying to figure out why I'd support killing their troops over killing ours. It feels like an ethical inconsistency to me.

[Mtgman]

= Civilians of the defending country
= Neutral parties

Military of the defending country

civilians of the aggressor country

military of the aggressor country
I'm not sure using the categories of "aggressor" and "defending" work here. Each head of state is sure to see themselves as the good guy(s). I can't see a way to make this work in the case of a pre-emptive war, or a war where alliances forced participation by one or more states. I'd rather not get into the 3+ party war scenarios just yet, although they are certainly the norm today(and for the past several centuries actually).

Still, you bring up a good point by mentioning neutral parties. I'd suggest that neutral parties should belong somewhere in the middle as well. Not as high as your own citizens, but from there it gets unclear. Should you increase the risk to your troops with a policy decision to protect neutral parties? Shouldn't they work to protect themselves? I agree you shouldn't target them, but should you run interference for them with your own troops if they are threatened?

Enjoy,
Steven

[Sevastopol]

Pre-emptive war is a nonsense, or at best an implausible hypothetical.

I don't care who sees themselves as the 'good guys'. If you're the aggressor, you are the bad guy. It's a triumph of justice when your troops die, less so for your civilians and a tragedy when troops and civilians of the defending nation are injured.

[davenportavenger]

= Neutral partiesBut aren't most civilians neutral? With the exception of insurgents (and you'd probably put them in the "military" category), most people are not involved with the fighting of war at all and are just waiting for the war to end, especially when the war is being fought on their soil. I'm sure that most Vietnamese (to give an example of an impoverished group of "enemy" civilians) didn't care which side won or lost; they just wanted ALL the soldiers out of their land so their lives could go back to normal.

[Liberal]

Pre-emptive war is a nonsense, or at best an implausible hypothetical.

I don't care who sees themselves as the 'good guys'. If you're the aggressor, you are the bad guy. It's a triumph of justice when your troops die, less so for your civilians and a tragedy when troops and civilians of the defending nation are injured.I agree completely. You have nicely applied the libertarian Principle of Noncoercion.

[davenportavenger]

Pre-emptive war is a nonsense, or at best an implausible hypothetical.

I don't care who sees themselves as the 'good guys'. If you're the aggressor, you are the bad guy. It's a triumph of justice when your troops die, less so for your civilians and a tragedy when troops and civilians of the defending nation are injured.I agree mostly, but what about if there are gross human rights violations on the defender's side? If we had invaded Germany before being attacked by Japan, would we have been the bad guys?

[BobLibDem]

All lives are equally important. When we stand before St Peter, I don't think he is going to ask about kill ratios or how many of our countrymen, he's going to ask how we treated ALL of mankind.

[Liberal]

All lives are equally important. When we stand before St Peter, I don't think he is going to ask about kill ratios or how many of our countrymen, he's going to ask how we treated ALL of mankind.I agree with that as well. (At least, with the intent of the metaphor.)

[Mtgman]

I realize the question lends itself to discussions of overall human life and the measures thereof. Maybe we should re-focus a bit.

You are a head of state. You are at war. Aggressor/defender, doesn't matter right now. You are charged with crafting policies, broad-ranging policies, for the conduct of this war. Your advisors evaluate each policy and give you feeback based on the amount of impact these policies are likely to have on the five groups in discussion. Your civilians, your troops, neutrals, their civilians, their troops. If a policy is in front of you and your advisors tell you it is likely to increase the danger to one of these groups(such as moving troops in to block an advance) and decrease the danger to another group(such as the civilians which would be protected by the troop movement), and they give you estimated body counts(with no numbers smaller than a few hundred) of each group based on each policy. It is your job to weight each of these numbers based on how important protecting these groups are relative to each other.

So you've got numbers, but how do you assign the weights?

Enjoy,
Steven

[bump]

One thing we're overlooking here is what kind of war we are talking about.

If we're talking about a traditional, stand-up fight between two nations' armies, then at some point, the enemy's civilians should be considered part of what makes the enemy capable of continuing the war. World War II is replete with examples of this doctrine.

However, in a lopsided fight or insurgency, then civilian casualties should be minimized as much as is reasonable.

As for me, I'm firmly on the side of my side, then their side, in the decreasing order of worthiness:


Our Civilians
Our military
Their civilians
Their military

[davenportavenger]

If we're talking about a traditional, stand-up fight between two nations' armies, then at some point, the enemy's civilians should be considered part of what makes the enemy capable of continuing the war.But civs aren't cogs in a machine. Sure, they may be manufacturing weapons to use against us, but it's just their jobs; most people have no true feelings about a war one way or another, they just want it to end. And in many cases, civs don't want to do their jobs, they don't want to build tanks or manufacture propaganda, but they have no choice. If they don't do it they'll DIE. They certainly didn't sign up to be part of the war machine, as soldiers (both ours and theirs) did.

Basically, for me it comes down to "who do I have more in common with?" I sure feel a lot more kinship with the average Iraqi worker, a man or woman trying to live their life the best way they can, than I do with an American commando who voluntarily signed up to kill and die in a war (something I can't comprehend doing). Why do you (or anyone) feel more emotionally connected to someone just because they're American? Or does emotional connection have nothing to do with it?

[bump]

Maybe, but in a "total war" as described in WWII, the civilian population is what enables the troops at the front to continue fighting. Eliminate them, or their desire to continue producing war materiel and new troops, and you eliminate the nation's ability to fight, thereby ending the war.

I suspect that most of the US and British civilians in World War 2 did not have the attitudes you describe- nobody forced anyone to work in our factories- it was voluntary and they were paid. There are plenty of stories about extraordinary efforts by workers to improve production and effect repairs in record time to help the war effort. Things that peacetime workers would not do.

Do a thought experiment and consider the situation if we had not started systematically destroying Japanese cities and war production through B-29 raids. It's likely that the war would have gone on longer, and been far bloodier, probably overall, but for sure on the Allied side.

As for whether I feel any emotional connection, sure I do. It's just that for me, Iraqis are people living thousands of miles away, who have a foreign language, foreign customs, and who probably hate me for no reason other than where I was born.

That American volunteer soldier, however, could be my friend's brother, my co-worker's son, a friend of mine, a guy who went to my high school, etc... At least in my part of the country and my social circles, it's not uncommon to know people whose sons, daughters and spouses are in the military.

While I don't feel a particularly large amount of kinship with the soldiers themselves, I sure do feel a lot with their families.

Iraqis... well, I don't feel any more or less kinship with them than anyone else who isn't part of my sphere of influence.

[Queen Bruin]

All life is equal.

From the blue whale to the smallest microbe. Even life we cannot understand. Until we understand this, we will continue to kill each other. Maybe we can get it right next war and smoke the whole lot of us. The planet would be better off.

[Captain Amazing]

But civs aren't cogs in a machine. Sure, they may be manufacturing weapons to use against us, but it's just their jobs; most people have no true feelings about a war one way or another, they just want it to end. And in many cases, civs don't want to do their jobs, they don't want to build tanks or manufacture propaganda, but they have no choice. If they don't do it they'll DIE. They certainly didn't sign up to be part of the war machine, as soldiers (both ours and theirs) did.

Yeah, but the same thing is true of soldiers. They're not just cogs in a machine, they generally want the war to end too, and if they don't do their jobs, there's a chance they'll die too. And a lot of soldiers (although not US soldiers since Vietnam) didn't voluntarily "sign up"...most soldiers are conscripts who are fighting because they have to, and, when their term of service is up, will go back to being civilians.

[fushj00mang]

I'd have to say that the list, in the order in Steven's op is the way that most national leaders would follow.

Depending on the nation which is currently on the offensive (as opposed to agressor,) the numbers of people in group 3 (enemy civilians) who bleed will vary. More technologically advanced and socially responsable forces (NATO and even a few former Pact nations) will limit civilian casualties because, as noted in one reply, many civilians on the opposite side of the lines aren't doing anything to really further the war effort, and carpet bombing is both expensive and counter productive. Depending on sentiment, it will sap the will or galvanize it. 50/50 chance.

The one problem I have with the op is the fact that he states that this is at the level of the nation-state. Most of us would be more able to understand the level of say, fire team leader, squad leader, platoon commander. Somewhere between four and sixty men. I had nine guys under me when I was in Iraq. At that point my view with regards to protecting people was:

My men.

That's it. We did not go on bloody rampages through civilian houses and we did not intetionally attack civilians. But if we were drawing sniper fire from the top floor of what was nominally a civilian home, we'd rip it with a .50, break in the door, and mop up the place. Rarely were there civilians involved. Once, there was an older fellow who took a fragment to his hip. We cleaned him up and he was payed personal damages by the CPA. Anyway, the sensable commander realizes that the farest fight is the one in which all of his men come home whole and healthy. I would not want to serve anyone who'd trade my life to prevent the risk of harming a civilian on the other side of the wire (now, if we're actively trying to protect that 'enemy' civilian, that's another story.)

[Shodan]

Can we assume for the sake of the argument that "my side" is waging a just war? That is to say, the war is in furtherance of some morally justified end.

In that case, I think the ultimate end of winning the war needs to be considered.

Assuming that bringing about an end to the war, with victory for my side, will save lives overall, the rank ought to be:
The mission My civilians Neutral civilians My soldiers Enemy civilians Neutral soldiers Enemy soldiers

But, as has been mentioned, there is going to be overlap. One might consider sacrificing a hundred neutral civilians to save a thousand of my soldiers.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

I had nine guys under me when I was in Iraq. Thank you for your service.

Regards,
Shodan

[Mtgman]

The one problem I have with the op is the fact that he states that this is at the level of the nation-state. Most of us would be more able to understand the level of say, fire team leader, squad leader, platoon commander. Somewhere between four and sixty men.The reason I scoped the OP as I did was because that is the level at which civilians have some input into shaping policy in a western-style democracy, via communication with the executive and voting. People don't vote for fire team, squad, or platoon leaders, nor should they. The chain of command needs to be independent of the whims of voters except at the very top strategic level where the executive is responsible to his constituents. The executive should be responsible to the people, but the chain of command should be independent except for that position.

I think this is a necessary demarcation to give the distance needed to make the kind of decisions the commander in chief has to make. A small unit's commander would, out of love and friendship for his unit, probably not have the kind of detatchment from the men which would be necessary to order them into danger. The personal attachment from daily interaction would be almost impossible to overcome. This is as it should be. I'm not sure any psychologically healthy individual could have a daily relationship and maintain enough detatchment to initiate(versus merely follow) an objective which would put his men in danger. The strategic decisions have to be made by someone with distance from the troops on the ground, not without empathy for them of course, but with enough distance to be able to weigh their lives versus the strategic objectives.Can we assume for the sake of the argument that "my side" is waging a just war? That is to say, the war is in furtherance of some morally justified end.I think this is implicit in the parameters of the OP. Every national leader thinks they're they one which is justified, unless they're insane(like some ancient Roman emperors) and that case isn't really worth talking about. So from the PoV we're considering, yes it is a "just" war as an axiom.

Enjoy,
Steven

[clairobscur]

Can we assume for the sake of the argument that "my side" is waging a just war? That is to say, the war is in furtherance of some morally justified end.


I don't think your list logically results from this assumption. Putting the mission first makes sense, but why putting "my civilians" above "neutral civilians", for instance?

[Shodan]

I don't think your list logically results from this assumption. Putting the mission first makes sense, but why putting "my civilians" above "neutral civilians", for instance?
Mostly because I am assuming a just war. Therefore, there is (to some extent) a moral duty to cooperate in bringing about the just end, which is not accomplished by remaining neutral.

I am assuming that "my civilians" are cooperating with the rest of the country in waging the war to the extent that civilians should - industrial production, moral support, etc. - and that neutral civilians are not.

In individual cases, this might not be true - the US was officially "neutral" before Pearl Harbor, but still had a Lend-Lease program with Great Britain.

I also think you owe a greater moral duty to your own countrymen, particularly in wartime, than to others. Enough, in other words, to bump "my civilians" ahead of "neutral civilians", but not enough to bump "my soldiers" ahead of "neutral civilians".

Not that it won't usually end up a judgment call anyway. You might even want to sacrifice a large number of neutral civilians (thru inaction, say) to bring their country into the war on your side and thus end the war and achieve its goals sooner.

Regards,
Shodan

[Clothahump]

ALL civilians, equally
our soldiers
their soldiers


Except when you can't tell the difference between their civilians and their soldiers. In that case, you class them all as their soldiers and act accordingly.

[jsgoddess]

But civs aren't cogs in a machine. Sure, they may be manufacturing weapons to use against us, but it's just their jobs; most people have no true feelings about a war one way or another, they just want it to end.

Civilians in a democracy are pretty responsible for what their governments do, I think.

I despise George Bush's actions in Iraq, but I am responsible for them all the same.

[Shodan]

Civilians in a democracy are pretty responsible for what their governments do, I think.

I despise George Bush's actions in Iraq, but I am responsible for them all the same.
I'm not sure I buy this. I think citizens of a democracy are only responsible for their own actions, and when they have some reasonable way to change the situation but don't take it.

I would say that if you voted against Bush, you have done what you can to distance yourself from his actions. The fact that a majority of your fellow citizens overruled your part of that decision more or less absolves you. It's not like you could do much more.

I suppose you could renounce your citizenship, but that may not be reasonable. Neither would attempts at impeachment. Which leaves, what, assassination? Not reasonable, I think - especially since Cheney would continue the same course (as would the Speaker of the House), probably hardened in their resolve as the US was after 9/11.

I am not accusing you of this, but your position reminds me too much of the idea that we were responsible for 9/11.

War-like action against civilians might be unavoidable, they might be justifiable, but that is not because they are responsible.

Regards,
Shodan

[Hoodoo Ulove]

Except when you can't tell the difference between their civilians and their soldiers. In that case, you class them all as their soldiers and act accordingly.To move to the actual war the US is fighting now, there are no enemy civilians, right? We're there to help them. And since we can't tell the difference between the civilians and the soldiers, maybe we shouldn't kill any of them. Or do you think we should kill them all?

[New Iskander]

I don't care who sees themselves as the 'good guys'. If you're the aggressor, you are the bad guy. It's a triumph of justice when your troops die, less so for your civilians and a tragedy when troops and civilians of the defending nation are injured.We all heard that one before.

When ObL declared war on US and the West in 1998 and called on his supporters to kill all Americans anywhere, he justified himself by saying that US already invaded and oocupied Muslim world long time ago. So no pity for "little Eichmanns".

Ward?

[Latro]

Well I heard all the crap in this OP before...

Hmm, we are killing civilians.
Wasn't that wrong?
Hmm, we can't be doing something wrong, that's impossible.
So, let's redefine what is wrong so that we come out with that sometimes isn't wrong to kill civilians.

Hmm, we are waging a war of agression..
Wasn't that wrong?
Hmm, we can't be doing something wrong, that's impossible.
So, let's redefine what is wrong so that we come out with that sometimes it's all right to invade others without cause.

Hmm we are torturing POW's..
Wasn't that wrong?
Hmm, we can't be doing something wrong, that's impossible.
So, let's redefine what is wrong so that they are no longer POW's

etc

Or we could just cry 'Well at least we are not as bad as the Nazi's so we are still OK.

[gum]

Well I heard all the crap in this OP before...

Hmm, we are killing civilians.
Wasn't that wrong?
Hmm, we can't be doing something wrong, that's impossible.
So, let's redefine what is wrong so that we come out with that sometimes isn't wrong to kill civilians.

Hmm, we are waging a war of agression..
Wasn't that wrong?
Hmm, we can't be doing something wrong, that's impossible.
So, let's redefine what is wrong so that we come out with that sometimes it's all right to invade others without cause.

Hmm we are torturing POW's..
Wasn't that wrong?
Hmm, we can't be doing something wrong, that's impossible.
So, let's redefine what is wrong so that they are no longer POW's

etc

Or we could just cry 'Well at least we are not as bad as the Nazi's so we are still OK.
If you are Dutch, seeing your location, I'd think a bit about our own war history before being sarcastic [if that's what it was] about someone else's.

[Latro]

If you are Dutch, seeing your location, I'd think a bit about our own war history before being sarcastic [if that's what it was] about someone else's.

I was wondering if I should write 'Well, we are not as bet as them (insert other bad doer), so we're still OK'

But that usually devolves into 'Well, we're still not Nazi's'

Next you will come with Realpolitik, yes?

[Sevastopol]

We all heard that one before.

When ObL declared war on US and the West in 1998 and called on his supporters to kill all Americans anywhere, he justified himself by saying that US already invaded and oocupied Muslim world long time ago. So no pity for "little Eichmanns".

Ward?

Be assured, if that post were intelligible a mightly confluence of prose and poetry would wash it from the sight of the righteous.

[Jurph]

All life is equal.

From the blue whale to the smallest microbe. Even life we cannot understand. Until we understand this, we will continue to kill each other. Maybe we can get it right next war and smoke the whole lot of us. The planet would be better off.

Right. I'll let the colonel know we should switch back to dropping 500-pound bombs out of our airplanes, rather than continuing to drop burlap sacks full of puppies and kittens. And also, that we should give that "Anthrax" thing another shot, because we gain hundreds of thousands of bacillus anthracis lives each time a human dies. What a ratio!

Seriously, though: destroying military targets like ordnance factories is fair game. If you can hit them when nobody is there, that's better. On the one hand, you're not killing their bomb-making experts, which is marginally less effective. On the other hand, you're not killing hundreds of factory workers.

If there's an anti-aircraft gun on top of a hospital, the ideal attack would be to knock it off the top of the hospital. You're probably going to lose people in the top two floors of the hospital doing this, but tough shit -- the enemy put them in harm's way, and is responsible for their deaths.

If someone's running around armed after dusk in no uniform near my troops, he's a grease-stain. I'll end him and ask permission later. I don't want anyone in my command risking our lives to see whether someone is hostile or just deeply stupid.

[New Iskander]

Be assured, if that post were intelligible a mightly confluence of prose and poetry would wash it from the sight of the righteous.Your attempt to introduce "agressor and victim" categories in this debate is absolutely uncalled for. OP is trying to define some rules of warfare within relatively sane bounds. Of course, once the naked act of agression is admitted, no rules abide anymore. Agressor will not respect any rules and victim is perfectly justified to do likewise. For example, if you consider Operation Iraqi Freedom an act of agression, then resisting Iraqis would be perfectly justified to hunt Americans all over the globe and cut their heads off. The problem arises that anybody can claim a "victim of agression" status. AlQ suicides on 9-11 firmly believed they are avenging somebody for something US has done. Thus we enter into twisted realm of crimes, religion, politics and insanity, where no debate is possible.

[Gangster Octopus]

Our civilians, our soldiers, their civilians, their soldiers simply because I think this is the priority that would lead to the fastest conclusion of the war, in our favor of course, which I presume is the primary objective.

[jsgoddess]

I'm not sure I buy this. I think citizens of a democracy are only responsible for their own actions, and when they have some reasonable way to change the situation but don't take it.

Let see if we can find some common ground. Stranger things have happened! :)

If a civilian voted for the guy who took a country to war, are they responsible for that guy being in power, and therefore responsible for the country going to war? I'd say yes.

[Shodan]

Let see if we can find some common ground. Stranger things have happened! :)

If a civilian voted for the guy who took a country to war, are they responsible for that guy being in power, and therefore responsible for the country going to war? I'd say yes.
And I agree.

You could even make a case that it is morally more justifiable to strike at civilians who support a war than conscientious objectors. So if the US and Allied forces in WWII could somehow preferentially target Nazi civilians, that would better than attacks that killed neutral civilians. Or if al Queda could target Republicans only.

But the al-Queda case doesn't work so well because, al-Queda and other terrorists tend to strike preferentially at the innocent, and I am assuming always that the side under discussion is waging a just war. And I deny that al-Queda is fighting for a just end.

Regards,
Shodan

[jsgoddess]

And I agree.

You could even make a case that it is morally more justifiable to strike at civilians who support a war than conscientious objectors. So if the US and Allied forces in WWII could somehow preferentially target Nazi civilians, that would better than attacks that killed neutral civilians. Or if al Queda could target Republicans only.

I think I'd argue that it's just as just to strike at civilians who support a war as it is to strike at the soldiers who are fighting it.

Now, I'll grant that it's hard to separate the pro-war civilians from the anti-war civilians, but if we look at a war like WWII, the pw civilians (US) greatly outnumbered the aw civilians. I feel that the civilians then are justifiable targets if anyone is a justifiable target.

It simply chaps my hide when people seem to think that they can support programs or policies or presidents and then should be protected from the consequences because they didn't end up in the military. I don't have as much sympathy for soldiers (volunteer) as I should. I want to start smacking them upside the head and demanding to know exactly what they expected. But it seems that civilians are in exactly the same place, morality-wise.

Now, as for why I hold myself responsible for things that George Bush does against my will? Well, I haven't left the country. I'm still accepting the benefits of living here. I haven't put my money where my mouth is. So long as I continue to sit here and say that it's not bad enough for me to get off my butt and leave, then I'm responsible for what happens.

What happens to the country happens to the whole country, for good or ill. I don't get to act like it's not my problem just because I was agin it.

[Shodan]

I think I'd argue that it's just as just to strike at civilians who support a war as it is to strike at the soldiers who are fighting it.

Now, I'll grant that it's hard to separate the pro-war civilians from the anti-war civilians, but if we look at a war like WWII, the pw civilians (US) greatly outnumbered the aw civilians. I feel that the civilians then are justifiable targets if anyone is a justifiable target.I would still like to retain the distinction between civilians and soldiers.

It has to do (IMO) with degree of involvement and responsibility. If someone smacks you in the mouth, and I can't do anything about it, I bear little or no responsiblity for it. If someone smacks you, and I see it, but don't care and don't interfere, I bear some responsibility for not intervening. If someone smacks you and I see it, and heartily approve of it (I don't and wouldn't :) ) and the only thing that stops me from joining in is some kind of circumstance (I am too old, too scared of you, whatever), then I bear more blame. But in none of these cases do I bear as much blame as the one who smacked you.

Same thing. If you voted for Kerry because you disapprove of the way Bush is prosecuting the war on terror, you aren't really very much responsible for Bush's foreign policy. Particularly not if you are working against Bush, protesting and marching, and so forth. If you didn't vote, you bear somewhat more responsibility. If you voted for Bush, you have done as much as any civilian can to support the war on terror. Thus you bear much more responsiblity than a Kerry supporter.

But you are still not as legitimate a target as a soldier or sailor would be. They are the ones smacking faces in the WoT. The blame (and the credit) is still theirs in a way it can't be for you or me.

Naturally, you are correct that you cannot rule yourself out as a target even if you are a disapproving civilian. It might be necessary to kill you if you are working in a war industry, or as "collateral damage" if you are too near a military target. Or maybe even because shit happens, and people aren't perfect and sometimes in the course of waging the best war, something is going to go wrong. Individual cases can certainly be condemned and should be minimized. But there is never going to be a perfect war, where no innocent person gets hurt.

Regards,
Shodan

[jsgoddess]

It has to do (IMO) with degree of involvement and responsibility. If someone smacks you in the mouth, and I can't do anything about it, I bear little or no responsiblity for it. If someone smacks you, and I see it, but don't care and don't interfere, I bear some responsibility for not intervening. If someone smacks you and I see it, and heartily approve of it (I don't and wouldn't ) and the only thing that stops me from joining in is some kind of circumstance (I am too old, too scared of you, whatever), then I bear more blame. But in none of these cases do I bear as much blame as the one who smacked you.

You're in a bar and a guy walks up to you and smacks your face. You'd be angry with the guy.

You discover that he has a gun on him and will die if he doesn't smack you. You might still be angry at him, but he's not the cause of the face smackin' action. Sure, he would rather smack you than die, but the people standing behind him don't have even that excuse.

To me, civilians are the ones standing behind the face slappers. How many wars have been entered into at the request of the soldiers? The soldiers are pawns, and the king isn't the president. It's the people.







Wild tangent: What's interesting is the difference in level of offense in an enemy killing a soldier and an enemy killing a police officer.

In both cases, the ones in uniform are there to protect civilians. They're there because they chose to be (exception made for the draft), and are trained and armed.

In one case, they are the expected target and it's "fair." In the other, they are an unacceptable target. I don't understand that.

[Shodan]

You're in a bar and a guy walks up to you and smacks your face. You'd be angry with the guy.

You discover that he has a gun on him and will die if he doesn't smack you. You might still be angry at him, but he's not the cause of the face smackin' action. Sure, he would rather smack you than die, but the people standing behind him don't have even that excuse.I don't think your analogy quite holds.

The guy who smacks me doesn't consent to the action. Forcing him to smack me at gunpoint is like forcing a conscientious objector to pull a trigger with the threat of death.

A better analogy would be a group of people who agree that my face needs smacking, and one guy volunteers to do it (or they elect the biggest guy).
Wild tangent: What's interesting is the difference in level of offense in an enemy killing a soldier and an enemy killing a police officer.

In both cases, the ones in uniform are there to protect civilians. They're there because they chose to be (exception made for the draft), and are trained and armed.

In one case, they are the expected target and it's "fair." In the other, they are an unacceptable target. I don't understand that.
I think it has to do with the mission of the police.

The duty of a soldier is to fight gallantly, and kill efficiently. The duty of the police officer is to preserve public order. Certainly the cop will kill if he needs to, but that is not his first choice of action.

The soldier, on the other hand, is obligated to shoot any enemies he sees (subject to the orders of his superiors and the tactical situation, of course). Police don't operate on the same kind of "shoot on sight" presumptions. Soldiers therefore present a much more direct threat to the enemy than a policeman is.

That's why we have a military - to kill people and break things. And once a soldier is set to work, that's what he does. A police officer who responds to his job by shooting everyone in gang colors is not going to last long on the police force. Neither would a soldier who responded to a battlefield situation by reading the enemy his Miranda rights.

The organization of the police force is certainly paramilitary, but the mission is not comparable. The purpose of war is to break th enemy's will to resist. - von ClausewitzTo protect and to serve. - LAPDNot quite the same.

Regards,
Shodan

[Mtgman]

Well I heard all the crap in this OP before...Perhaps you have, but your post looks like you didn't understand it. I am asking questions, not offering justifications for anything. I hope to come to some sort of consensus and then move into a different phase of discussion where we apply these rules to actual on-the-ground decisions. They could be historical, Hiroshima/Hamburg, or current. But the idea is to come up with reasonable and rational guidelines for the unreasonable and irrational thing that humans do to each other from time to time that we call war. War is hell. We are forced, in time of war, to make decisions we hoped we never would. Given the goal of a sustainable peace at the close of the conflict(I hope we can all agree this is the goal?), what should be the rules of engagement with regards to the value of the lives of the groups involved.

The kind of floating definitons and re-defining of the value of lives or individual freedoms of those affected by a war that you list in your post is actually the opposite of what I'm trying to get at here. I am arguing for overarching standards by which the military policies of various actors, regardless of their "side", in the conflict can be judged. If the consensus comes out, like it did in the Geneva conventions, in favor of protecting civilians even at the cost of national troops, then so be it. Let that be a baseline by which actions and policies can be judged. Floating definitions and rationalizations have done a lot of damage in times of conflict. This isn't a movie. It isn't over with the signing of a treaty or the surrender/death of one "side". We all have to live together in the post-war timeframe. I think a strong and upfront policy on what the rules of war will be makes it simpler to have the world, and the citizens on both sides, understand that the lesser of evils is being chosen because we want peace after the conflict ends and we want the residual hatred and emnity to be as low as possible.

Enjoy,
Steven

[What Exit?]

Ok, there are four basic categories of people when there is a conflict.
Our civilians.
Our military.
Their civilians.
Their military. ...


Easy one for me. You listed them in the right order, but left one out.
The priority of waging warfare should be protect
Our civilians first,
Neutrals second,
Our soldiers third,
Enemy civilians 4th,
Enemy military last.

[gum]

I was wondering if I should write 'Well, we are not as bet as them (insert other bad doer), so we're still OK'

But that usually devolves into 'Well, we're still not Nazi's'

Next you will come with Realpolitik, yes?
Tell you the truth; I have no idea what you're saying here.

Next you will come with Real words, yes?

[jsgoddess]

I think a strong and upfront policy on what the rules of war will be makes it simpler to have the world, and the citizens on both sides, understand that the lesser of evils is being chosen because we want peace after the conflict ends and we want the residual hatred and emnity to be as low as possible.

To rephrase what I've been mangling so badly, I think that the reason wars get dragged out the way they do is that civilians sit on their asses and send someone else to die for them. Civilians are off-limits in most people's minds, so what's the risk of being at war? If I, especially as a woman, can sit here and blithely support a war because I'm not at risk, what impetus do I have for getting the damned thing stopped?

This isn't true of everyone, obviously. After all, I am a woman and I am against war. But one of my reasons is that I wouldn't trust myself to be for a war, knowing as I do that I'd be playing dice with someone else's life.

And, of course, now I realize that I'm talking like that episode of Star Trek with the computer generated casualties. I'll stop now. :D

[kanicbird]

Well we have 2 main sides:

Our side

and

The enemy

Each side has a:
military which destroys people and things

and

civilians which create people and things.

In order to 'win' you must have your military be able to destroy enemy people and things while denying your enemy that ability.

Now how that happens depends on you and your enemy, you will need to attack their military or civilian population as a primary target with the other being the secondary. As for what you need to defend (military or civilian), it again depends on the circumstances and what you need more of (creative or destructive ability).


Sometimes I think the Art of War should be taught in public schools.

[Sevastopol]

Your attempt to introduce "agressor and victim" categories in this debate is absolutely uncalled for. OP is trying to define some rules of warfare within relatively sane bounds. Of course, once the naked act of agression is admitted, no rules abide anymore. Agressor will not respect any rules and victim is perfectly justified to do likewise. For example, if you consider Operation Iraqi Freedom an act of agression, then resisting Iraqis would be perfectly justified to hunt Americans all over the globe and cut their heads off. The problem arises that anybody can claim a "victim of agression" status. AlQ suicides on 9-11 firmly believed they are avenging somebody for something US has done. Thus we enter into twisted realm of crimes, religion, politics and insanity, where no debate is possible.

How can the US claim to be victims of aggression in the invasion of Iraq?

No, right thinking people everywhere celebrate every dead US solidier and deplore any injury to iraqis.

[jsgoddess]

No, right thinking people everywhere celebrate every dead US solidier and deplore any injury to iraqis.

Strange. I'd say right-thinking people everywhere deplore any injury to others and strenuously wish it didn't happen. To do otherwise, on either side, is to be a ghoul.

[Sevastopol]

You are mostly correct. I apologise I went too far. I regret not returning earlier and pre-empting your post.

Regrettably you are not entirely correct, given that the realistic choices are between poor options, the best outcome is merely the less-bad.

[gum]

How can the US claim to be victims of aggression in the invasion of Iraq?

No, right thinking people everywhere celebrate every dead US solidier and deplore any injury to iraqis.

This post is the most ignorant, hateful and FALSE thing I've read in a while.

One would think that a post like this, in which celebrating the death of a person is considered 'the right thing to do', makes one realize that there are many, many disturbed people in this world.

It also makes one think of the rules on the SDMB:

"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the SDMB to post any material that you know or should know is false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or violative of U.S. law."

[Sevastopol]

On the contrary, it is a legitimate and debatable point. One, however which on reflection I do not hold.

[tomndebb]

On the contrary, it is a legitimate and debatable point. One, however which on reflection I do not hold.
If you will recall, the banning of one prominent poster has included factors of both wishing persons to be killed or celebrating their deaths and also later claiming that the poster did not hold that position. A statement that there may be persons who hold that position that includes the logical train they will follow to arrive at or defend that position is suitable for Great Debates. An assertion, based on a number of unexpressed assumptions, that it is your belief that they should die or that others should celebrate is not acceptable.

Withdrawing the claim after being challenged is mitigating, but not exonerating.

Please take care to avoid this expression in the future.

[ /Moderator Mode ]

[Sevastopol]

The issue under discussion is who should die and who should live.

Yours is a judgment on the point under debate.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There is no difference between "our" civilians and "theirs," especially when it comes to children. All civilians need to be protected before any soldier. Our soldiers are not more valuable than "their" innocent children.

And if civilans are used to protect a military target. Then you don't attack the target. Tough titty. It is never justifiable to murder innocent people. This is especially true in a case like Iraq when we were the aggressor and had no defensive justification to be there in the first place. You can't justify killing children in any case but you sure as HELL can't justify it when you aren't being attacked and aren't in any danger.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I seem to remember people celebrating the deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons, as well as many supportive sentiments about hunting down and killing Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, etc. Is that ok? If so, why?

[tomndebb]

Yours is a judgment on the point under debate.Mine is a judgment on a particular expression within the debate that took it from the realm of discussion to the realm of personal desire.

I seem to remember people celebrating the deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons, as well as many supportive sentiments about hunting down and killing Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, etc. Is that ok? If so, why? My memory is that those expressions took place in the Pit (where the discussion regarding wishing death on people outside this board seems to be not yet resolved), not in GD. They also occurred at a time when I was not yet wearing jackboots. Celebrating the deaths of people whom posters on this board may know and love is simply disruptive to the process of discussion.

You will note that I did not make any effort to remove the topic from discussion. I simply noted that Sevastopol's personal expression of celebration was inappropriate in this forum.

[Sevastopol]

Mine is a judgment on a particular expression within the debate that took it from the realm of discussion to the realm of personal desire

Only if you credit me with being amongst "right thinking persons."

A boast I'm loath to make.

[Uzi]

In my opinion, Nations are made up of the civilians who live there. The nation does not exist unless there are people to create and support it. Thus those people are responsible for the actions of that body they created.


1. Soldiers - They protect your civililians and if you kill them all off you have no one left to do the protecting.
2. Your Civillians
3. Enemy children - not old enough yet to stop their country from starting wars.
4. The enemy - There is no difference between the soldier and civillian. Sure you try to kill the soldier because he is the one directly trying to kill you, but it is the civillians who allow their country to exist and persecute any war.

To Neurotik who was trying to decide on what is a reasonable amount of your side to sacrifice for the lives of the other side.
I think it is strange to be empathetic to enemies rather than your own people who should be sharing similar values to you. If the enemy had those same values they probably wouldn't be enemies. I don't understand this relativistic attitude at all. If I was a leader of a country and I could save one person on my side by eliminating everyone on their side, I'd do so. And sleep peacefully because of it. But if I was a leader of a country I'd do every damn thing I could to prevent a war from happening to avoid having to make such a decision in the first place. That's the sort of thing that would keep me awake nights.

[Latro]

4. The enemy - There is no difference between the soldier and civillian. Sure you try to kill the soldier because he is the one directly trying to kill you, but it is the civillians who allow their country to exist and persecute any war.


So you're OK with the attack on the Twin Towers, then?
All US citizens are fair game, after all they allowed their government's foreign policies. Right?

[Uzi]

So you're OK with the attack on the Twin Towers, then?
All US citizens are fair game, after all they allowed their government's foreign policies. Right?

Which foreign government was responsible for the attack in New York? Or was it just a bunch of religious wackos who did this? By harbouring said wackos the Taliban in Afghanistan got their asses kicked, but did they actually plan the attack? Nope, that was done by a bunch of nuts did who should have been looking closer to home as to who was causing their problems (whatever those might be), not half way round the world.

[Latro]

Which foreign government was responsible for the attack in New York?

???
Don't understand why you introduce this distinction in your reasoning.
It's ok for governments to kill enemy civilians, not for rebels, guerillas or resistance fighters?

[Uzi]

???
Don't understand why you introduce this distinction in your reasoning.
It's ok for governments to kill enemy civilians, not for rebels, guerillas or resistance fighters?

It isn't okay for anyone to kill anyone else unless there is a good reason for doing so, as in self-defense or to aid others in their defense. But as we are discussing what happens in a war then why bring up what a bunch of wackos do outside of one?

[Latro]

It isn't okay for anyone to kill anyone else unless there is a good reason for doing so, as in self-defense or to aid others in their defense.


Yet another distinction, what about if there is a war for no good reason, like Iraq or the invasion of Poland?


But as we are discussing what happens in a war then why bring up what a bunch of wackos do outside of one?

Outside of one?
Ok its not your typical conventional war but Al-Qaida did declare war on the US.
There is no 'War on Terror'?