5 ms·

If its a wedding where a large number of key figures will be then its arguable. Somehow I see that as far more rational outcome than a meeting of key figures i

If its a wedding where a large number of key figures will be then its arguable. Somehow I see that as far more rational outcome than a meeting of key figures in a nursery or a schoolyard unless you're going to war against babes or schoolchildren which suggests you have bigger problems. Introducing the school/nursery begs the question though: > If someone surrounds themselves with children 24/7 but commands an army or commits otherwise potentially savage deeds are they immortal in your eyes from a direct attack? The blurring of combatants and non-combatants happens often in practice, especially as the scales tilt strongly toward one actor. Its easy to argue your point when your the scales are even and between completely non-civilian and professional armies but when those lines are blurred your position makes one completely incapable of action. For example, if an army took its entire family onto the battlefield as civilians how would you respond? Would you consider the non-combatants civilian? Would you authorise the user of air-power against enemy positions? If a standing army has no barracks and operates from their respective family homes are their families still effectively civilians or just non-combatants and as murderable as an army technician or medic?

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
Historically, the primary tactic of organised armies was to attack the enemy's infrastructure, including their civilian base. For instance, in ancient times, military campaigns typically ended with the winning side pillaging and razing the defeated enemy's city and taking its civilian population as slaves (the ones who were docile enough- the rest were put to the knife). That was the case for the more merciful campaigners. Others simply slaughtered everyone and burned everything (e.g. the Mongols). In recent years, we have this notion of battlefield morality, where armies are supposed to fight each other and an invading force is expected to occupy the enemy's territory _without_ proactively harming its civilians. Whether this is actually achieved in practice or not is a different matter (it is not- civilian populations are still the ones that bear the brunt of any invasion). The thing is, modern morality leans very strongly away from attacking civilians with militaries. Again, whether this is at all possible in practice is a completely different issue, but what is certainly not equivocal, or "arguable" is that civilians must not be attacked deliberately. You will notice for instance that even when the US bombs weddings or other civilian targets (it's usually the US) they never, ever, under any circumstances try to justify the killings. Instead, they explain the civilian deaths as a mistake and try to explain the mistake (the wedding participants were firing their AK-47s into the air as per custom, the bride's gown looked like an Islamic oriflame, the groom had a suspiciously long beard, or something equally absurd). In other words, you might consider that bombing a wedding to kill an enemy lieutenant visiting it is "arguable"- but you are very certainly into a minority. And like I say, that's some very dangerous arithmetic. We don't accept that innocent people should suffer in order to harm a legitimate target. You seem to be arguing that it's just a matter of how many innocents and how many legitimate targets we're talking about. There can clearly be no definitive answer, which opens the gates for a lot of what we currently recognise as war crimes. Edit: removed a bit about genocide, to avoid further misunderstandings. Apologies.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> Its easy to argue your point when your the scales are even and between completely non-civilian and professional armies but when those lines are blurred your position makes one completely incapable of action. I don't disagree. The current situation is that we're trying to find a balance between the perceived necessity of warfare and the undeniable horror of the consequences of it to civilian populations. It's absurd to think that we can nicely and cleanly separate war against a nation's army from war aginst that nation's people. The obvious solution would be to not accept the necessity of warfare anymore. But I guess, we're very far from that.
- Quarrelsome 8y ago
  > The obvious solution would be to not accept the necessity of warfare anymore. But I guess, we're very far from that. One could argue that conflict is a consequence of human behaviour so I don't see that ever being a likely outcome. Nice to see we can somewhat agree. I just feel that coming down hard on either side is missing out on discussing the detail. I don't see the conflict in Yemen as just but at the same time I feel like countries should have the freedom to declare war on neighbouring countries, especially given an uprising. Sure, between the lines the Saudi Kingdom is trying to retain its puppet government but this is what we get from having allies that we don't see eye-to-eye with.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

Historically, the primary tactic of organised armies was to attack the enemy's infrastructure, including their civilian base. For instance, in ancient times, military campaigns typically ended with the winning side pillaging and razing the defeated enemy's city and taking its civilian population as slaves (the ones who were docile enough- the rest were put to the knife). That was the case for the more merciful campaigners. Others simply slaughtered everyone and burned everything (e.g. the Mongols). In recent years, we have this notion of battlefield morality, where armies are supposed to fight each other and an invading force is expected to occupy the enemy's territory _without_ proactively harming its civilians. Whether this is actually achieved in practice or not is a different matter (it is not- civilian populations are still the ones that bear the brunt of any invasion). The thing is, modern morality leans very strongly away from attacking civilians with militaries. Again, whether this is at all possible in practice is a completely different issue, but what is certainly not equivocal, or "arguable" is that civilians must not be attacked deliberately. You will notice for instance that even when the US bombs weddings or other civilian targets (it's usually the US) they never, ever, under any circumstances try to justify the killings. Instead, they explain the civilian deaths as a mistake and try to explain the mistake (the wedding participants were firing their AK-47s into the air as per custom, the bride's gown looked like an Islamic oriflame, the groom had a suspiciously long beard, or something equally absurd). In other words, you might consider that bombing a wedding to kill an enemy lieutenant visiting it is "arguable"- but you are very certainly into a minority. And like I say, that's some very dangerous arithmetic. We don't accept that innocent people should suffer in order to harm a legitimate target. You seem to be arguing that it's just a matter of how many innocents and how many legitimate targets we're talking about. There can clearly be no definitive answer, which opens the gates for a lot of what we currently recognise as war crimes. Edit: removed a bit about genocide, to avoid further misunderstandings. Apologies.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

>> Its easy to argue your point when your the scales are even and between completely non-civilian and professional armies but when those lines are blurred your position makes one completely incapable of action. I don't disagree. The current situation is that we're trying to find a balance between the perceived necessity of warfare and the undeniable horror of the consequences of it to civilian populations. It's absurd to think that we can nicely and cleanly separate war against a nation's army from war aginst that nation's people. The obvious solution would be to not accept the necessity of warfare anymore. But I guess, we're very far from that.

Quarrelsome 8y ago
> The obvious solution would be to not accept the necessity of warfare anymore. But I guess, we're very far from that. One could argue that conflict is a consequence of human behaviour so I don't see that ever being a likely outcome. Nice to see we can somewhat agree. I just feel that coming down hard on either side is missing out on discussing the detail. I don't see the conflict in Yemen as just but at the same time I feel like countries should have the freedom to declare war on neighbouring countries, especially given an uprising. Sure, between the lines the Saudi Kingdom is trying to retain its puppet government but this is what we get from having allies that we don't see eye-to-eye with.