# What does "minimize civilian casualties" mean? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 18, 2006, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000 "2006-07-18T13:00:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/21 "2006-07-18T21:51:57Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I think it’s basically a doublespeak phrase which is used to rationalize collateral damage. If we tell oureselves we’re “minimalizing” how many innocent people we kill then it almost makes it sound ok to do it. [/QUOTE] I dunno. I certainly would rather that those engaged in war _attempt_ to “minimize civilian casualties” rather than not give a hoot, or even attempt to _maximize_ civilian casualties. Sure, there is an element of hypocracy involved - in warfare, you can be sure that people will be killed, and if you conduct your war in places where civilians are to be found, civilians will be killed. The better course is not to engage in war at all. But sometimes the choice is not yours, or rather the alternative to war is unacceptable. It is better that some attempt be made to mitigate its horrors, rather than no attempt. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/22 "2006-07-18T22:17:41Z")
I agree that in _theory_ the goal is to try not to kill civilians unless it’s absolutely necessary to take out some kind of larger and immediate threat. In practice, though, it’s just become some crap we say to feel better about collateral damage. If we were really sincere about minimizing civilaian casualties in Iraq, for instance, we wouldn’t have invaded in the first place. Since the entire conflict was unnecessary, it seems disingenuous to me when I hear the White House blabber about how they’re trying to minimize civilian casualties. The MAXIMUM number of necessary civilian casualties in Iraq was zero. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/23 "2006-07-18T22:22:59Z")
> [@](#): > > And I don’t think minimizing civilain casualties was a goal for either Hiroshima or Dresden - or the Blitz, for that matter. It was. It’s just that the goal was to cause Japan (or Germany) to surrender. It was decided that bombing these cities would prompt a surrender quicker and with less casualties than the other available means. Same thing in Iraq. The goal was to occupy Iraq and the United States has attempted to do so in a manner that minimizes casualties. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/24 "2006-07-18T22:25:12Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] It was. It’s just that the goal was to cause Japan (or Germany) to surrender. It was decided that bombing these cities would prompt a surrender quicker and with less casualties than the other available means. [/quote] This is the same logic used by terrorists. > [@](#): > > Same thing in Iraq. The goal was to occupy Iraq and the United States has attempted to do so in a manner that minimizes casualties. And why was occpying Iraq a necessary goal? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/25 "2006-07-18T22:32:17Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] The MAXIMUM number of necessary civilian casualties in Iraq was zero. [/QUOTE] The maximum number of necessary military casualties - our side and theirs - was also zero. Smart bombs used in GW 1 might be a better example. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/26 "2006-07-18T22:43:39Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] This is the same logic used by terrorists. [/QUOTE] Got a cite that a terrorists goal is anything relating to _less_ causualties? Or even claiming such? > [@](#): > > And why was occpying Iraq a necessary goal? Are you attempting to hijack this thread with this old song? :rolleyes: I know you havn’t been slleping under a rock the past 5 years and have participated in many of the dozens of threads on the very subject. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/27 "2006-07-18T22:54:43Z")
[QUOTE=AFAIKnow] Got a cite that a terrorists goal is anything relating to _less_ causualties? Or even claiming such? [/quote] The parallel logic is that targeting civilians is a reasonable way to force a surrender. The further argument that slaughtering civilians is the best way to minimize civilian casualties is too depraved and ludicrous even for terrorists to attempt to make. That’s just an American rationalization for what they did in WWII. > [@](#): > > Are you attempting to hijack this thread with this old song? :rolleyes: I know you havn’t been slleping under a rock the past 5 years and have participated in many of the dozens of threads on the very subject. I guess I missed the answer to my question then. Why was it necesary to invade Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/28 "2006-07-18T23:18:10Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] The parallel logic is that targeting civilians is a reasonable way to force a surrender. The further argument that slaughtering civilians is the best way to minimize civilian casualties is too depraved and ludicrous even for terrorists to attempt to make. That’s just an American rationalization for what they did in WWII. [/QUOTE] It’s not ludicrous in all situations. After all, that’s the whole point, morally speaking, about war; it should only be entered into in order that overall, more people are saved. If by going to war it’s clear you’d do more harm then what would occur anyway, it’s a morally unacceptable action to take. On the other hand, a situation in which many people will die or be oppressed without intervention can mean a war is morally more reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/29 "2006-07-18T23:28:50Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] The parallel logic is that targeting civilians is a reasonable way to force a surrender. The further argument that slaughtering civilians is the best way to minimize civilian casualties is too depraved and ludicrous even for terrorists to attempt to make. That’s just an American rationalization for what they did in WWII. [/quote] Don’t you ever get tired of this? I know I do. It was a different time, a different type of war, and there is no comparison between now and then. None. > [@](#): > > I guess I missed the answer to my question then. Why was it necesary to invade Iraq? I guess you missed the OP, where it was specifically stated that this wasn’t about Iraq and he/she didn’t want it to turn into what you typically turn these threads into, an all Iraq all the time sausage fest. How many times do you have to hijack a thread with the same topic, only to get the same answers? ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/30 "2006-07-18T23:36:52Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] The parallel logic is that targeting civilians is a reasonable way to force a surrender. The further argument that slaughtering civilians is the best way to minimize civilian casualties is too depraved and ludicrous even for terrorists to attempt to make. That’s just an American rationalization for what they did in WWII. [/QUOTE] Again, do you have a cite where they attempted to further that argument? > [@](#): > > I guess I missed the answer to my question then. Why was it necesary to invade Iraq? WMD’s and Saddam’s history of ignoring UN resolutions ring a bell? ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/31 "2006-07-18T23:43:57Z")
**Dio** , I generally agree with you but I think you’re off base here. The U.S. wanted to crush Japan’s industrial base and force it to capitulate as soon as possible. Same for Germany and Italy. Why would anyone want to minimize civilian casualities here? That doesn’t even make sense. Heck, the atom bombs, as **xtisme** pointed out, probably did end up saving more lives compared to doing a land invasion (talk about a meat grinder). They also weren’t as destructive as the strategic fire bombing, which AFAIK is what really tore Japan up. As they say, war is hell. It’s not a chest beating game to be played by empty suits. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/32 "2006-07-18T23:58:51Z")
[QUOTE=AFAIKnow] Again, do you have a cite where they attempted to further that argument? [/quote] Scroll up. At least three people have made that argument in this thread. > [@](#): > > WMD’s and Saddam’s history of ignoring UN resolutions ring a bell? The WMD were a lie and the US had no authority to unilaterlally enforce UN Resolutions over the OBJECTIONS of the UN. None of the UN Resolutions sanctioned regime change anyway. So tell me again, why was it NECESSARY for the US to invade Iraq and kill civilians? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2006, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/33 "2006-07-19T00:01:11Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] Don’t you ever get tired of this? I know I do. It was a different time, a different type of war, and there is no comparison between now and then. None. [/quote] I’m not into that kind of moral relativism. Sorry. > [@](#): > > I guess you missed the OP, where it was specifically stated that this wasn’t about Iraq and he/she didn’t want it to turn into what you typically turn these threads into, an all Iraq all the time sausage fest. How many times do you have to hijack a thread with the same topic, only to get the same answers? I’m not the one who brought up WWII. I brought up Iraq to illustrate a point about the difference between “minimizing civilian casualties” in theory and in practice. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2006, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/34 "2006-07-19T00:02:27Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Scroll up. At least three people have made that argument in this thread. The WMD were a lie and the US had no authority to unilaterlally enforce UN Resolutions over the OBJECTIONS of the UN. None of the UN Resolutions sanctioned regime change anyway. So tell me again, why was it NECESSARY for the US to invade Iraq and kill civilians? [/QUOTE] I meant the terrorists making that claim, as you asserted. I don’t care if you agree with the reasons or not, but those are the reasons. That is like you saying you have to go to the store for milk and your wife calls you while you are driving and said she found some in the back of the fridge, so wtf are you still doing driving dammit. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2006, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/35 "2006-07-19T00:22:21Z")
[QUOTE=AFAIKnow] I meant the terrorists making that claim, as you asserted. [/quote] I didn’t assert any such thing. One more time, Sparky, I was equating the argument that killing civilians would force a SURRENDER. I specifically said that even terrorists weren’t sick enough to try to delude themselves that targeting civilians was a way to SAVE civilians. > [@](#): > > I don’t care if you agree with the reasons or not, but those are the reasons. That is like you saying you have to go to the store for milk and your wife calls you while you are driving and said she found some in the back of the fridge, so wtf are you still doing driving dammit. My point is that if the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and non-defensive, then none of the casualties on either side can sincerely be argued as having been “minimized.” I didn’t know anybody was still trying to pretend the invasion was necessary anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2006, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/36 "2006-07-19T01:34:14Z")
> [@](#): > > This is the same logic used by terrorists. No, it’s completely different. The goal of the terrorists (assuming you’re talking about the insurgents in Iraq) is broadly speaking to cause the United States to pull its military out of Iraq. They could have chosen several means to achieve: they could have worked to stablize Iraq in hopes that the United States would honor its pledges to withdraw when this occurred; they could have made deals with the occupiers, promising them they would publically declare their support for US policy as long as they were allowed a free hand in domestic affairs; they could have attempted a program of mass non-violent resistance, in order to turn world opinion and public opinion in the US against the occupation. But they chose terrorism as a strategy to achieve their goals - they chose to use a strategy that was based on maximizing civilian casualties rather than minimizing them. > [@](#): > > And why was occpying Iraq a necessary goal? It wasn’t. Occupying Iraq was a unnecessary goal and a generally bad idea. But it was the goal. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2006, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/37 "2006-07-19T01:40:15Z")
> [@](#): > > My point is that if the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and non-defensive, then none of the casualties on either side can sincerely be argued as having been “minimized.” I didn’t know anybody was still trying to pretend the invasion was necessary anymore. As the saying goes, if my aunt had a dick she’d be my uncle. The goal, regardless of whether it was a good idea, was to occupy Iraq. Having set that goal, it was achieved in a manner that minimized casualties. Arguing that a different goal would have achieved fewer casualties is a completely different issue. It’s like saying that the invasion of Iraq wasn’t so bad, because we could have invaded Iraq, Iran, and Syria. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2006, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/38 "2006-07-19T03:01:20Z")
I believe that in all cases where civilians aren’t the target the minimization of civilian casualties is built in automatically. If you are attacking a military target the object is to put all the bombs, shells or whatever on the target. You are trying to obliterate, neutralize or at least put the target out of action for a while. Every bit of ordnance that doesn’t land on the target is wasted effort and endangers the end result that you are after in attacking the target in the first place. Attacking a military target involves the expenditure of materiel and human resources and if the objective in attacking the target isn’t achieved then you have to do it all over again with more materiel and people. As to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the objective wasn’t a military target in the sense of a factory or a railroad or ship yard. The objective was to wipe out a city in hopes and expectation that it would be the final straw that resulted in the Japanese surrender since they were already in bad shape and their leaders must have known it. Minimization of civilian casualities was never even considered since it was impossible given the objective and the nature of the weapon. ---
**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:** [July 19, 2006, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/39 "2006-07-19T03:05:11Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] As to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the objective wasn’t a military target in the sense of a factory or a railroad or ship yard. The objective was to wipe out a city in hopes and expectation that it would be the final straw that resulted in the Japanese surrender since they were already in bad shape and their leaders must have known it. Minimization of civilian casualities was never even considered since it was impossible given the objective and the nature of the weapon. [/QUOTE] Um…you realize don’t you that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki (especially Nagasaki) WERE military targets, being logistics and shipping centers…right? Undoubtedly they were picked to send a message to the Japanese in the hopes they would fold their hand…but they were also picked because they would hurt the Japanese ability to fight if they decided to press on. -XT ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2006, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000/40 "2006-07-19T04:03:33Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] Um…you realize don’t you that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki (especially Nagasaki) WERE military targets, being logistics and shipping centers…right? Undoubtedly they were picked to send a message to the Japanese in the hopes they would fold their hand…but they were also picked because they would hurt the Japanese ability to fight if they decided to press on. -XT [/QUOTE] Sure, but the military targets in those cities could have been attacked with conventional weapons. By the last few months of that war, Japanese air defenses were in terrible shape. B-29’s were area firebombing cities at night from low altitude and almost without opposition. The atomic bomb was in essence a continuation of that tactic. Don’t assume that because I say that the whole city was deliberately the target in those bombing that I disapproved of them at the time or that I do so now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-minimize-civilian-casualties-mean/365000.md?page=3)