# At what point did civilians being targeted in war become unacceptable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 12, 2013, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718 "2013-11-12T13:01:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/21 "2013-11-12T21:37:24Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > But the “civilian” population is only a target because it supports the enemy’s fighters. If they instead bow the knee to you, then they support your fighters instead. So they become a target when you are too weak to conquer them outright, and so are reduced to the expedient of denying them to the enemy. > > Likewise with sieges of cities. You march your army to the gates of the city, and demand that they open the gates. You don’t want to besiege the city, that is a waste and a loss. Instead you want them to see that it’s hopeless, and open the gates. If the citizens believe that when they open the gates they’ll be massacred, burned to the ground, and the survivors raped and then sold into slavery they will on no occasion surrender. If they think that if they open the gates they’ll just start paying their taxes to you rather than your cousin the Duke of So-And-So, they’re much more likely to surrender. > > And so total warfare is a failure of statecraft and military arts. As the man said, supreme excellence in war is not fighting and winning 100 battles, it is winning the war without fighting a single battle. War without battles tend to get rather overlooked in the history books, sadly. For everything else, what you plan to do with enemy lands and peoples is academic if you cannot weaken their defences sufficiently. Hence, civilians could expect to find themselves at risk in times of war due to their role in supply. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/22 "2013-11-12T21:46:11Z")
> [@madmonk28](#): > > The idea that civilians should not be targeted is put forward by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. He is often cited as one of the early thinkers on international law. There’s a significant communications gap in this thread because of the ambiguity in the term “acceptable.” Some are interpreting it as what various treaties and stuff say, some are interpreting it as the feeling of the general populace, and others are interpreting it as how common the practice is. Each interpretation has its own connotations: for example, simply saying that civilians have always been killed in war isn’t a very powerful argument that it has always been acceptable. Lots of things are common in history (e.g., drug abuse, misogyny, racism, piracy, etc.) but the fact that those things exist is not evidence of general acceptance. The existence of a practice could be evidence that it is accepted, or it could be due to a societal denial that bad things are even occurring, not to mention other possible explanations. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/23 "2013-11-12T21:55:43Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > There’s a significant communications gap in this thread because of the ambiguity in the term “acceptable.” > > Some are interpreting it as what various treaties and stuff say, some are interpreting it as the feeling of the general populace, and others are interpreting it as how common the practice is. > > Each interpretation has its own connotations: for example, simply saying that civilians have always been killed in war isn’t a very powerful argument that it has always been acceptable. Lots of things are common in history (e.g., drug abuse, misogyny, racism, piracy, etc.) but the fact that those things exist is not evidence of general acceptance. The existence of a practice could be evidence that it is accepted, or it could be due to a societal denial that bad things are even occurring, not to mention other possible explanations. I don’t believe that, in general in the past that the common folks were consulted as to what was or wasn’t acceptable, so I’m unsure how this would factor in. Conversely, I think that the existence of a practice that was generally followed DOES show what was at least nominally acceptable to the societies that perpetuated it. And it’s pretty clear that through much of human history, it was acceptable to target civilians to one extent or another. Obviously, the civilians so targeted would disagree…but, would they disagree that the other sides civilians weren’t acceptable targets? Would they even care about the other sides civilians for much of human history? ---
**Author:** ![cornopean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@cornopean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cornopean)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/24 "2013-11-12T22:04:03Z")
I doubt the targeting of civilians was ever accepted. It certainly isn’t now. But back in the day, they didn’t have the means to do targeted anything. you just dropped your bombs and hoped 1% of them hit the target. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/25 "2013-11-12T22:09:51Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I don’t believe that, in general in the past that the common folks were consulted as to what was or wasn’t acceptable, so I’m unsure how this would factor in. Conversely, I think that the existence of a practice that was generally followed DOES show what was at least nominally acceptable to the societies that perpetuated it. And it’s pretty clear that through much of human history, it was acceptable to target civilians to one extent or another. Obviously, the civilians so targeted would disagree…but, would they disagree that the other sides civilians weren’t acceptable targets? Would they even care about the other sides civilians for much of human history? I think your case on the acceptance of targeting civilians in the past would be bolstered by citations showing that it was acceptable to target civilians. Let’s keep in mind that “civilians being killed during war” is not the same as “civilians being targeted during war.” Even today, there is no legal penalty for the death of civilians during a war, provided that the laws of armed conflict pertaining to proportionality and discrimination are followed. “Targeting civilians” means deliberately NOT adhering to proportionality and discrimination. I am not arguing that civilians have not been deliberately targeted in the past. I’m saying I think you have a ways to go to connect your factual assertions. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/26 "2013-11-12T22:32:43Z")
The chevauchée was a widely used tactic during the Hundered Years War. > **[Chevauchée](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauch%C3%A9e)** > > A chevauchée (French pronunciation: ​\[ʃəvoʃe\], "promenade" or "horse charge", depending on context) was a raiding method of medieval warfare for weakening the enemy, primarily by burning and pillaging enemy territory in order to reduce the productivity of a region, in addition to siege warfare most often as part of wars of conquest but occasionally as a punitive raid. The use of the chevauchée declined at the end of the 14th century as the focus of warfare turned to sieges. It is conceptually sim... The point of the chevauchée was to weaken the enemy, and to demonstrate that the enemy couldn’t protect civilians, by murdering as many of them as you could catch, and burning their stuff. It is hard to say how “accepted” this was. Certainly, the English and French forces both used it, and as far as I know, the English at least were proud of it - there is little hint in the histories that they felt they were behaving in a manner morally wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/27 "2013-11-12T23:07:26Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Likewise with sieges of cities. You march your army to the gates of the city, and demand that they open the gates. You don’t want to besiege the city, that is a waste and a loss. Instead you want them to see that it’s hopeless, and open the gates. If the citizens believe that when they open the gates they’ll be massacred, burned to the ground, and the survivors raped and then sold into slavery they will on no occasion surrender. If they think that if they open the gates they’ll just start paying their taxes to you rather than your cousin the Duke of So-And-So, they’re much more likely to surrender. But if they don’t surrender, you kill them all and hope it serves as an incentive for the \*next \*city. Like it or not, that’s good military strategy. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/28 "2013-11-12T23:19:42Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Let’s keep in mind that “civilians being killed during war” is not the same as “civilians being targeted during war.” Even today, there is no legal penalty for the death of civilians during a war, provided that the laws of armed conflict pertaining to proportionality and discrimination are followed. “Targeting civilians” means deliberately NOT adhering to proportionality and discrimination. More importantly, there is virtually no penalty for any act undertaken by the winner of a war, particularly when it’s an internally sanctioned part of the winning strategy. Total war, in the guise of large-scale strategic warfighting targeting the means of production needed to wage war, and population’s will to wage war, does weird things to the ideas of proportionality and discrimination… everything about an enemy becomes a legitimate target, and nothing is disproportionate short of intentional comprehensive genocide. Very odd. Very unfortunate. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2013, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/29 "2013-11-12T23:24:50Z")
I think its gone back and forth as both the stakes of warfare and the tech to carry it out has changed. I was reading Thucydidtes a few months ago, and one thing that stood out is how shocked he depicts the Greek world being at the ever-increasing brutality of the Pelopennisan War. Prior to that war, wars between Greek states were fairly ritualized affairs. Armies would meet in a battle field, fight for a bit, and which ever side broke first would loose territory to the winner. But as Athens and Sparta grew in power and number of allies, they sustained wars that were more drawn out and complex, and sacking cities and killing/enslaving civilian inhabitants as punishment for being on the wrong side became more routine. Similarily, in Richard Rhodes “Making of the Atomic Bomb” he talks about how prior to WWII the great powers generally agreed that bombing civilians was a war crime. But as the war went on, a mixture of increasing willingness to kill other people, total war, happanstance and most importantly, the realization by Generals that air power wasn’t accurate enough to target many military targets, led each power in turn to say “screw it” and start bombing each others cities. ---
**Author:** ![slowlearner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@slowlearner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slowlearner)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/30 "2013-11-13T00:53:16Z")
In the Old Testament God generally mandates destroying the civilian population in any war he has any say in. Targeting civilians has never gone out of fashion, just being proud of it. The armed forces of the United States killed well over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children for absolutely no good reason at all, and so far as I can tell nobody gives a rat’s ass about it. Well, it wasn’t on purpose, but what are you thinking orbiting an urban neighborhood at night in an AC-135 pumping out 105mm artillery shells? Is a scared soldier ordered to hose down a residential area with an M2 at any blame for his rounds being lethal out to 2 miles? It makes me puke and swallow my own vomit to see Donald Rumsfeld being rehabilitated as a great American. And John Kerry a warmonger? Let’s bomb Syria, but it will be such a little bit…the innocent die like insects in war, whether they’re in Melos or Ghouta. And the future? Hillary has had a hard on to attack Iran since she learned to find it on a map. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/31 "2013-11-13T00:59:50Z")
The answer is A.D. 632. The first caliph of Islam, Abu Bakr, summarized the prophet Muhammad’s rules of warfare regarding civilians as follows: Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/32 "2013-11-13T00:59:52Z")
Unacceptable to whom? If one side targets civilians for some strategic advantage, and justifies it as serving some greater good, the other side, or their non-combatant allies, or interested third-parties, may respond by criticizing the first side for their immorality. Diplomacy and propaganda are war by other means. ---
**Author:** ![j\_sum1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8baadc/32.png) [@j\_sum1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j_sum1)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/33 "2013-11-13T01:01:22Z")
I understand that the Persian empire was pretty accommodating of conquered peoples once the military threat had been dealt with. OTOH, the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with a guaranteed civilian casualty rate. I think attitudes have always varied throughout history and will continue to do so. What the current attitude is in various parts of the world and how this compares with (a) actual actions and (b) claimed actions — I think that is GD territory. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/34 "2013-11-13T01:59:09Z")
As others have pointed out, the targetting of nocombatants has always been practiced. The notion that it ought not to be practised, however, is a fairly old one. At the very least it goes back to Aquinas, as madmonk28 points out. His thinking on just war encompasses both _jus ad bello_ - rules about when recourse to war is permissible - and _jus in bello_ - rules about conduct in the course of fighting a war. The notion that making war on the “innocent” (not in the sense of morally innocent, but in the sense of not presenting a threat of harm to you) is immoral is strongly articulated in Aquinas’s writings. The Renaissance scholar Hugo Grotius amplified this theme and asserted it as a secular as well as religious moral imperative (“. . . even if God did not exist”), and Grotius has been hugely influential on the development of international law. The Leiber Code didn’t invent the idea that noncombatant status should be respected; it merely sought to articulate what the jurists already asserted (and had asserted for a long time) was the case. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/35 "2013-11-13T02:19:24Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I think your case on the acceptance of targeting civilians in the past would be bolstered by citations showing that it was acceptable to target civilians. > > Let’s keep in mind that “civilians being killed during war” is not the same as “civilians being targeted during war.” Even today, there is no legal penalty for the death of civilians during a war, provided that the laws of armed conflict pertaining to proportionality and discrimination are followed. “Targeting civilians” means deliberately NOT adhering to proportionality and discrimination. > > I am not arguing that civilians have not been deliberately targeted in the past. I’m saying I think you have a ways to go to connect your factual assertions. Well, I’m pretty sure that at any time period you care to name I can find examples of conquerors putting cities to the sword, which to my mind would be deliberate targeting of civilian populations. This isn’t collateral damage or accidental deaths while trying to achieve military aims (well, that’s not true…in many cases civilians were put to death to achieve military aims), it’s the deliberate targeting of a civilian population. I’m sure you know this, so I’m not sure exactly what it is you want me to cite. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/36 "2013-11-13T02:36:09Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Well, I’m pretty sure that at any time period you care to name I can find examples of conquerors putting cities to the sword, which to my mind would be deliberate targeting of civilian populations. This isn’t collateral damage or accidental deaths while trying to achieve military aims (well, that’s not true…in many cases civilians were put to death to achieve military aims), it’s the deliberate targeting of a civilian population. I’m sure you know this, so I’m not sure exactly what it is you want me to cite. Yes, and there are still state sponsors of terrorism who cooperate with the deliberate targeting of civilians today. Does that mean that civilian casualties are viewed as “acceptable” today? I would say no, and I would cite international humanitarian law, war crimes prosecutions, United Nations condemnations, etc. to show that targeted killings of civilians is not acceptable today, even though it occurs with some regularity. Again, just because something occurs, does not mean it is “acceptable.” Like I said, it’s difficult to interpret what “acceptable” and “unacceptable” is in this context, but simply stating that in history, civilian populations have been repeatedly targeted is not an informative response. If you’re going to claim a long history of acceptance of targeted civilian killings which continues to this day, you should provide some evidence that the killings were viewed as acceptable when they happened, not just that the killings occurred. ---
**Author:** ![j\_sum1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8baadc/32.png) [@j\_sum1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j_sum1)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/37 "2013-11-13T02:52:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > you should provide some evidence that the killings were viewed as acceptable when they happened, not just that the killings occurred. The fact that the killings occurred means that _someone_ thought they were acceptable. The concept of acceptability is where the ambiguity lies. This really a question about who thinks it is ok to kill civilians. You will find that down throughout history and to this day there are political organisations and military organisations including terrorist organisations who believe that it is fine. Even in modern Western nations who have signed all the treaties there are on the matter, there will still be missions undertaken that stand a reasonably high probability of collateral damage. So the second ambiguity lies in the word, “targeted”. You could argue that if there is some known risk of civilian casualty and a decision is made to proceed anyway, then those civilians have been targeted to some extent. To what extent the military objective justifies the risk is a mater of debate. I just don’t think there is a GQ answer to this question. ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/38 "2013-11-13T02:58:48Z")
[wrong thread] ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/39 "2013-11-13T03:45:12Z")
[QUOTE=Ravenman] Yes, and there are still state sponsors of terrorism who cooperate with the deliberate targeting of civilians today. [/QUOTE] Sure, but they aren’t exactly part of the mainstream. Today, you still have nation states that also deliberately target civilians as well, though again they are usually minor powers and aren’t part of the main stream, and are usually condemned by what is the international main stream. > [@](#): > > Does that mean that civilian casualties are viewed as “acceptable” today? I would say no, and I would cite international humanitarian law, war crimes prosecutions, United Nations condemnations, etc. to show that targeted killings of civilians is not acceptable today, even though it occurs with some regularity. No, they aren’t considered acceptable today…by the mainstream powers. As you noted though, obviously they ARE considered acceptable by asymmetric fighters (terrorists and the like) as well as by minor powers or powers who think they are beyond the reach of the mainstream. The Syrians, for instance, don’t seem to feel it’s unacceptable to target their own civilians, despite condemnation by the mainstream. And that’s today. > [@](#): > > Again, just because something occurs, does not mean it is “acceptable.” Like I said, it’s difficult to interpret what “acceptable” and “unacceptable” is in this context, but simply stating that in history, civilian populations have been repeatedly targeted is not an informative response. If you’re going to claim a long history of acceptance of targeted civilian killings which continues to this day, you should provide some evidence that the killings were viewed as acceptable when they happened, not just that the killings occurred. This all hinges then on how we define acceptable. To me, it’s ‘acceptable’ if all the major powers do it and there aren’t large scale condemnation by any powers that matter. So, if I demonstrate that, say, during World War II all of the major powers had policies that deliberately showed that the targeting of civilians populations were ‘acceptable’ in that they all obviously did it without widespread rebellion of their populations or even widespread protest of their own people at their policies, nor widespread condemnation by any large non-participating power, would that be sufficient? Because if not then I have no idea how I’d ‘prove’ any of this and really it should be a debate, since it’s going to hinge on our obvious difference of opinion about what ‘acceptable’ is…or isn’t. No? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718/40 "2013-11-13T03:51:24Z")
As to the distinction between “acceptable” and “unacceptable, but people did it anyway”: Presumably if God commands you to do something, that would indicate that we’re not just talking about what people actually do, but what they _ought_ to do, at least in the mind of whoever is recounting what God supposedly commands. As has already been alluded to, [Biblical rules for going to war](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut+20&version=NIV) state that if the Israelities are going to war against people in “the cities that are at a distance”, they should call on the city to surrender, and if it does so, “all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.” The lines between “You are all now my slaves” and “I am now your king and you have to pay me taxes” were maybe not so distinct if you were just an ordinary person in the Ancient Near East. Still, the impression of the status of a “distant” city that has surrendered is more of a tributary state than of mass personal enslavement–the people may have had to pay some sort of labor tax to their new rulers, but probably still kept their own homes and families and so forth. If, however, the city does not surrender, then > [@](#): > > If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. Note, first of all, it doesn’t say “put to the sword all the young men who have taken up arms against you”. _All_ the adult males are to be massacred, presumably including old men, and merchants or craftsmen or scribes who don’t know much more about swords than that the pointy end goes into the enemy. And the women and children are to be taken as “plunder”, which implies more than just “Hi, I’m your new king”. (Granted, [one man’s marriage](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021:10-14&version=NIV) may be another woman’s rape.) This all adds up to a pretty substantial degree of targeting of civilians (noncombatant adult males and women and children) for violence (killing and enslavement). This also seems to have been the “accepted” and ordinary course of warfare in a lot of times and places in the ancient world. Also, in the Old Testament, certain particularly disliked groups are the subject of special rules: > [@](#): > > However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God. Thus, in [campaigns against these peoples](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%2010:28-43&version=NIV) (and also [against the Amalekites](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2015:1-3&version=NIV)), the divine command is to leave no survivors, and to kill everything that breathes (men, women, children, and livestock). That this is perhaps a bit extreme even for the Ancient Near East is indicated by the Biblical emphasis on the point–[“When You said kill _everybody_ and destroy _everything_, You didn’t mean kill their king, right boss? And, look, I got some sweet loot…Oh, You did? :eek: My bad, boss!”]([1 - - Bible Gateway](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1) Samuel+15&version=NIV) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-did-civilians-being-targeted-in-war-become-unacceptable/673718.md?page=3)