3 ms·
Why would that be the case. If anything, the last 20 years have reinforced the idea that if enemy combatants simply embed themselves in civilian populations, th
by bart_spoon 3y ago
Why would that be the case. If anything, the last 20 years have reinforced the idea that if enemy combatants simply embed themselves in civilian populations, they are virtually impossible to target without mass collateral damage.
- saagarjha 3y agoAssuming you are unwilling to put in effort to identify enemy combatants or risk anything to do so, sure.
- Jensson 3y agoIf the enemy is in a group of civilians then the only way to take him out is to fire into the group of civilians, there is no getting around that.
- ZoomerCretin 3y agoAssuming you are only willing to use aerial bombs, yes. A ground war would have been far more discriminate.
- runarberg 3y agoNo no no no no no no, please no. Under no circumstances is that OK. If the enemy is in a group of civilians, you use the police, arrest them, put them for a trial and send to prison. If the enemy is in a group of civilians, and your immediate action is to bomb them along with the civilians, then you don’t value the lives of those civilians. At best you don’t care whether those civilians are alive or dead, and at worst you actually want those civilians dead. In the former case, you are doing a war crime, a crime against humanity, in the latter case you are doing a genocide and using the enemy as an excuse or justification. In any case, there are plenty of ways to get around that. Unless the mass casualty is the point.