2 ms·

> After WW2 we call it a war crime (or terrorism) to mass kill civilians to save military casualties. We did? Where? The laws of war have always made allowan

by refurb 3y ago

> After WW2 we call it a war crime (or terrorism) to mass kill civilians to save military casualties. We did? Where? The laws of war have always made allowances for civilian deaths as long as "military necessity" is justified. And they would have to be - there is no way to conduct a war without civilian casualties. It is true that mass killing civilians for no military purpose is a war crime. So at the extreme ends the answer is simple. But not in the middle. One can quibble at the margins - how much destruction of military capabilities are justified in exchange for the loss of X civilian lives, but that can never be answered since it's not an objective measure. There is significant overlap between civilians and military when answering such questions - are workers in a factory producing weapons civilians or means to wage war? The answer is both.

fulafel 3y ago
> We did? Where? The Geneva Conventions were updated partly in response to the Japan bombings. You can quibble how exactly the criteria my casual summary of "mass kill civilians to save military casualties" but broadly the Japan style bombing of cities full of civilians was made illegal. See eg: https://fsi.stanford.edu/news/why-atomic-bombing-hiroshima-would-be-illegal-today https://fsi.stanford.edu/news/why-atomic-bombing-hiroshima-w...
- refurb 3y ago
  That’s an opinion piece. It attempts to “infer” the purpose of bombing from select statements like a Presidential speech. It’s not all that convincing. But regardless the point stands. Proportionality is a subjective rather than objective measure. The paper claims that “less than 10% of the individuals killed were military personnel”. Ok, so what percentage makes the bombing legal? 50%? 90%? What if based on all available information the death toll was estimated at 90% but it turns out to be 70%? Is it still illegal? And could you even reliably determine the number? Is someone in the military a civilian because they took their uniform off and went home for the night?

by refurb 3y ago

fulafel 3y ago

> We did? Where? The Geneva Conventions were updated partly in response to the Japan bombings. You can quibble how exactly the criteria my casual summary of "mass kill civilians to save military casualties" but broadly the Japan style bombing of cities full of civilians was made illegal. See eg: https://fsi.stanford.edu/news/why-atomic-bombing-hiroshima-would-be-illegal-today https://fsi.stanford.edu/news/why-atomic-bombing-hiroshima-w...

refurb 3y ago
That’s an opinion piece. It attempts to “infer” the purpose of bombing from select statements like a Presidential speech. It’s not all that convincing. But regardless the point stands. Proportionality is a subjective rather than objective measure. The paper claims that “less than 10% of the individuals killed were military personnel”. Ok, so what percentage makes the bombing legal? 50%? 90%? What if based on all available information the death toll was estimated at 90% but it turns out to be 70%? Is it still illegal? And could you even reliably determine the number? Is someone in the military a civilian because they took their uniform off and went home for the night?