3 ms·

The Gulf War had a more extreme casualty ratio of ~1:1,000+. Would you consider that an extremely unethical war? Should the US have done something differently t

The Gulf War had a more extreme casualty ratio of ~1:1,000+. Would you consider that an extremely unethical war? Should the US have done something differently to even out the ratio?

ethbr1 1y ago
Apples/oranges. In the Gulf War there were identifiable, organized military forces. Ergo, the majority of those casualties could be attributed to military:military. Given the nature of the Gaza conflict, trying to sub-classify casualties leads inevitably to the 'military aged male' problem.
- dlubarov 1y ago
  It seems like we're in agreement now that total casualty ratios alone (like that 1:17 ratio) aren't very meaningful metrics. Civilian casualty ratios are more relevant to ethics, but we don't know that number since Hamas doesn't report their losses.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    We are not: it depends on the conflict. When one military force blends in with the civilian populace, actual civilian casualties will fall somewhere inbetween extremes (100% of those killed and 0%). Ergo, excessive casualty ratios indicate that either (a) the enemy military force is larger, (b) the IDF is exceedingly good at killing only enemy combatants without taking casualties, or (c) a large number of civilians are being killed. I don't think anyone would argue that Hamas has as many fighters as the IDF?
    - sokoloff 1y ago
      I don't think anyone would argue against the fact that the Geneva Conventions require combatants to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. When Hamas fighters repeatedly, strategically, and intentionally fail to do so, I think they bear significant (and even the majority) responsibility for the resulting increase in what you call "actual civilian casualties".
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        The onus should still be on the more technologically advanced military to justify their operations. Just because the enemy is harder to find doesn't give blanket license to level apartment blocks because it's easier.

The Gulf War had a more extreme casualty ratio of ~1:1,000+. Would you consider that an extremely unethical war? Should the US have done something differently to even out the ratio?

ethbr1 1y ago

Apples/oranges. In the Gulf War there were identifiable, organized military forces. Ergo, the majority of those casualties could be attributed to military:military. Given the nature of the Gaza conflict, trying to sub-classify casualties leads inevitably to the 'military aged male' problem.

dlubarov 1y ago
It seems like we're in agreement now that total casualty ratios alone (like that 1:17 ratio) aren't very meaningful metrics. Civilian casualty ratios are more relevant to ethics, but we don't know that number since Hamas doesn't report their losses.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  We are not: it depends on the conflict. When one military force blends in with the civilian populace, actual civilian casualties will fall somewhere inbetween extremes (100% of those killed and 0%). Ergo, excessive casualty ratios indicate that either (a) the enemy military force is larger, (b) the IDF is exceedingly good at killing only enemy combatants without taking casualties, or (c) a large number of civilians are being killed. I don't think anyone would argue that Hamas has as many fighters as the IDF?
  - sokoloff 1y ago
    I don't think anyone would argue against the fact that the Geneva Conventions require combatants to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. When Hamas fighters repeatedly, strategically, and intentionally fail to do so, I think they bear significant (and even the majority) responsibility for the resulting increase in what you call "actual civilian casualties".
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      The onus should still be on the more technologically advanced military to justify their operations. Just because the enemy is harder to find doesn't give blanket license to level apartment blocks because it's easier.