7 ms·
"The line already drawn, no indiscriminate killings of civilian" In modern warfare, civilians have always been the main casualties of war. Whether this really
by pmoriarty 3y ago
"The line already drawn, no indiscriminate killings of civilian"
In modern warfare, civilians have always been the main casualties of war. Whether this really counts as "indiscriminate" is for war lawyers to argue over, but the fact remains that the civilian toll far exceeds the military toll, and for the victims and their families it matters little whether their deaths were "justified" to some lawyer or politician.
As technology advances, more and more power is going to be concentrated in the hands of individuals, many of whom won't be bothered by niceties such as the Geneva convention, and will target those they hate, be they civilian or military. High tech weapons will only make this easier.
We are headed for a very dark time.
- neatze 3y agoAre you arguing that war without modern technology had less civilian casualties ?
- RandomLensman 3y agoWhat are your measures? How do you compare WWI and WWII, for example?
- neatze 3y agoIt is really hard, if not impossible to compare civilian causalities directly effected by weapon systems, no two wars are same, not all wars culminated within urban area(s), parties in conflict use different weapons systems, and engagement rules, etc. For example, hellfire missile is more effective and substantially less destructive then carpet bombing few cities blocks, furthermore video feeds from drones provide some accountability.
- glitchc 3y agoThe modern era has dramatically reduced civilian casualties compared previous generations. Moreover the decline is in absolute terms, despite the fact that global population has been increasing in the same time frame. Precision munitions contribute heavily to this reduction. All in all, war has become a lot safer for the typical civilian.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago> All in all, war has become a lot safer for the typical civilian. Tell that to the 387,000 civilians killed in the "war on terror", roughly equal to the number of "opposition fighters" https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2019/direct-war-death-toll-2001-801000 https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2019/direct-war-... > Precision munitions contribute heavily to this reduction. Tell that to all the wedding parties blown up by precision munitions launched from drones because somebody's uncle, who exchanged texts with an "opposition fighter" and keeps an AK in the bed of his truck, showed up.
- neatze 3y agoNo one here said that war is NOT hell, what exactly are you trying to say?
- arcticbull 3y ago> Tell that to the 387,000 civilians killed in the "war on terror", roughly equal to the number of "opposition fighters" The fact things aren't perfect doesn't mean they're not objectively better.
- hammyhavoc 3y ago~226,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone, most of which were civilian. Shall we include people drafted into a war they didn't want to fight? People shot by their own countrymen because they didn't want to go over the top as they were a scared civilian with minimal training being used as cannon fodder? Those same scared civvies with minimal training who did go over the top and got mowed down by machine guns and shells? Shall we do civilian resistance groups next? Whole villages of France that were shot dead? You can still visit at least one of them and see it as it was left. It's shocking, and it's left like that as a reminder of how shit things were. Yes, proxy wars are terrible, as are all wars. All loss of life is horrible. Nobody is saying anything to the contrary. But saying it isn't less terrible is blatant denialism. These are all people who are all someone's son or daughter, both now, and then.
- 3y ago
- trinsic2 3y agoThis makes me think about the ghost in the shell movie. When you have that kind of technology at your disposal, you can inflict great suffering.