Should you be able to kill civilians in war?

[TR33]

The initial thought is "hell no", but hear me out.

 

This doesn't really pertain to the current wars scaling in the East, but rather a look back at how WW2 was and if something like that were to happen again. In WW2 the Germans bombed British cities constantly. When the German army was finally on the decline the UK started bombing every square inch of the German land while the Americans tended to bomb more of the factories, other production plants, and major cities. Both sides killed millions of civilians. If this where to happen today there'd be an outcry about how evil and ruthless whoever it was is that's bombing the "innocent". This is where I believe people have it wrong.

 

Civilians are the backbone for a country's war effort. Without them there are no taxes coming in, no supplies being made, no new soldiers being enlisted. You hit a country's backbone hard enough and they crumble (As the UK would of done without the US and as Germany did at the end). You ignore their backbone and keep hacking off their ligaments (deployed soldiers) then these ligaments keep growing right back and you have an incredibly long and drawn out war.

 

Possibly a happy medium would be to do more of what the US did in WW2, which is to bomb the factories and plants primarily. Maybe some big cities too. Yes, civilians will be killed in the process. But here's the thing, they're not innocent. View their effort as another country. They provide troops, equipment, and money to the state. If another country did this they too would be considered an enemy and targeted accordingly. I know, it's not really the civilians choice in most war situations. They are often forced support their country. But that's life.

 

If you're fighting someone you don't keep trying to hurt the arms and legs that are physically attacking you. Instead, you go right for where it hurts, their core or backbone if you will. Sure, the core isn't the one actually dealing the blows, but they are the supplier of the energy to the arms and legs. You stop their core and soon their arms and legs have no power.

 

I vote to an extent. No you shouldn't ruthlessly kill civilians for no reason. As you shouldn't kill POW's. But yes, you should in the cases I described. Would love to hear some thoughtful opinions.

Edited July 27, 2014 by TR33

[Russian69]

No it's just plain inhumane killing the innocent.

[idntbot]

[TR33]

No it's just plain inhumane killing the innocent.

What's the difference between killing a man now when he is supplying the army with bullets and killing him a year later when he is supplying the army a tool to deliver these bullets?

Like I said, this doesn't pertain to the current issues in the East. Those type of civilian deaths aren't for the reasons I described.

[darkxor]

Killing civilians during war called genocide. It is useless. You could'nt do anything with ruined territory without people.

[TR33]

Killing civilians during war called genocide. It is useless. You could'nt do anything with ruined territory without people.

What you are describing sounds more like after you defeat a country. Which would be like killing POW's. Which I do not support.

[darkxor]

I think that almost any war leads to decreasing of standing of living, to both sides of war. Just imagine, where we could be now, if there were no first world war and second world war. Even USA and England didnt get their life level better from those wars, they just lowered life level of other world, so they can say "we live better".

[Varc]

I see where you are coming from with this and you make some very valid points. The only thing I would say is that soldiers are the ones who are supposed to be doing the fighting that's why they sign up to the forces. If you are bombing cities you will be killing innocent women (I understand some women would work in factories and i will get on to that point) and children who contribute nothing towards the actual war itself even if they are paying taxes and so forth. Therefore I do not think they can in any way be perceived as part of the war.

 

Factories yes I agree to truly crumble a nation and win a war you must cut off supplies. Although it may seem quite barbaric to do so and what many people would consider innocent people would be killed, these people in their own way are a huge part of the war. If you truly want to win a war you are right when you say you must target the backbone and that would be to put a cease to moral within the country in question, however I myself do not think I could drop a bomb on an enemy nation knowing full well I would be killing women and children. Factories and plants yes, targeting cities in order to kill civilians no. I personally think that if they are civilians although they will of course be supporting their country in the effort they should not be dragged into it.

 

War is something everybody has different views on but if there was to be another world war then nuclear warheads would come into the equation and I feel like there could be no real winner in that situation.

[darkxor]

What you are describing sounds more like after you defeat a country. Which would be like killing POW's. Which I do not support.

If you want to kill civilians, then you want to destroy towns. This comes together. Also, you want to kill captives. If you think that killing civilians is good because they could'nt supply enemy army, then killing captives is also good - you can use them, but in the end - kill.

[Impassive]

I see where you're coming from...

 

However, in my opinion, it is a corrupted way of thinking. Like you said, most of those civilians have no choice , so it shouldn't be okay to punish them. I would agree that attacking a country's supply units, factories, etc is okay as they have direct impact on war efforts. 

[TR33]

I think that almost any war leads to decreasing of standing of living, to both sides of war. Just imagine, where we could be now, if there were no first world war and second world war. Even USA and England didnt get their life level better from those wars, they just lowered life level of other world, so they can say "we live better".

Actually WW2 brought America out of the Great Depression. You also wouldn't be able to be communicating with me right now without these wars.

[jordanoio]

No it's just plain inhumane killing the innocent.

Humans are the most inhumane creatures

[TR33]

If you want to kill civilians, then you want to destroy towns. This comes together. Also, you want to kill captives. If you think that killing civilians is good because they could'nt supply enemy army, then killing captives is also good - you can use them, but in the end - kill.

If they are captive then the only way they're going back to the enemy military is if you release them. You can hold on to them until the end of the war. Or trade for your own POW's.

 

I see where you're coming from...

 

However, in my opinion, it is a corrupted way of thinking. Like you said, most of those civilians have no choice , so it shouldn't be okay to punish them. I would agree that attacking a country's supply units, factories, etc is okay as they have direct impact on war efforts. 

But most of the people in the military also don't have a choice. Hence the draft. It's just what tool are you to the state? One that physically deals death or rather supplies the means to deal death. And yeah, the thing with factories and such is that there will be people in there working while you destroy it. No way around that.

[winnerowns]

inb4 the Illuminati captures you

[darkxor]

I think the question is why do you starting a war? Usually, wars have target to occupy enemy's oilfields, or other resource source. Or to make people slaves and get them working on you. Those targets does'nt justify destroying factories, infrastructure etc. And, of course, does'nt legitimate killing civilians. There are no legitimate wars in the world.