Would you support a country who kills innocent people for strategic advantage?

[Banana Jelly]

So, this thread was inspired by a debate, and I thought I would want to have opinions.

Do you believe a country should resort to tactics such as killing innocent people who was never involved in the war, to have a strategic advantage over the other country?

The tactics I am talking about is, when a country kills innocent people to weaken there opponent country. The innocents are not involved in any way. They country kills the innocents purposely.

I personally believe it is barbaric. What is your opinion?

[Big War Bird]

If killing a person imparts a strategic advantage can that person ever really be called innocent?

[Banana Jelly]

If killing a person imparts a strategic advantage can that person ever really be called innocent?

The tactics I am talking about is, when a country kills innocent people to weaken there opponent country. The innocents are not involved in any way. They do it purposely, so they win by playing dirty. But you already made your decision I see, so you can't change your mind anyway.

[Exarch]

might is always right,
wont matter anyway, doesnt matter who's right, just who's left.

[Oldgamer]

might is always right,
wont matter anyway, doesnt matter who's right, just who's left.

Might is always right, unfortunately. He who is left alive wins. We agree again, Exarch.

I believe that killing innocents purposely is a barbaric practice. However ....

Consider the bombing of cities in WWII. These practices had two purposes. They caused fear, though there isn't much evidence that the fear of being bombed caused any populace to demand "peace at any price". The other purpose was to destroy enemy targets that had military value, like manufacturing plants, transportation hubs, and the like.

The problem in the Second World War was the inaccuracy of aerial bombing. Often, entire cities were targeted in order to have a slight hope of destroying the military target. Could these targets have been spared, in order to protect innocent life?

I don't think so. As of the Spring, 1945, German war production was at its highest point in the course of the entire war, despite the 24/7 bombing of German cities. If the military targets in these cities had been spared, Germany would not have been defeated.

It could be argued that the aerial campaign against Japan took the nature of terror raids, rather than true bombing raids with military value. Many have asserted this. However, Japanese manufacturing spread the burden of making military items through the entire economy, and even involved groups of people working in private homes. Given the wooden/paper construction of Japanese buildings, the only way to slow their production was to destroy cities, using high explosives to spread flammable material about, and then setting it on fire with incendiaries. Hence, the so-called "Fire Raids".

The situation is quite different, today, given the lethality and extreme accuracy of modern weapons. This is why millions of Iraqis did not die during the opening phases of the recent unpleasantness. Carpet bombing is no longer necessary.

Given my "druthers", I would not allow any military action that endangered innocent lives. However, we don't live in a perfect world, do we? The purpose of war is to kill the enemy, and destroy his capacity to make war upon us.

Imperfect and messy world, indeed ...

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I don't think so. As of the Spring, 1945, German war production was at its highest point in the course of the entire war, despite the 24/7 bombing of German cities. If the military targets in these cities had been spared, Germany would not have been defeated.

German had no hope of doing anything but prolonging their defeat by 1945. And Germany's production peaked in 1944.

That's not to say bombing wasn't effective. Germany planned to produce 1,500 King Tiger tanks by 1945, for example, but due to bombing they only produced 492.

War brings out the worst of humanity and in war the unthinkable are always done to achieve victory no matter what the cost.

I think it's far more terrifying that it also brings out the best in humanity.

[RomanSoldier9001]

If killing a person imparts a strategic advantage can that person ever really be called innocent?

YOu just ripp off the term of innocent god bye Genebra Convention.

[Big War Bird]

I'm trying to point out that to you are begging the question. "Innocent civilians" strongly suggests that they are not strategically important targets, therefore anybody that targets them is barbaric.

The tactics I am talking about is, when a country kills innocent people to weaken there opponent country. The innocents are not involved in any way. They do it purposely, so they win by playing dirty. But you already made your decision I see, so you can't change your mind anyway.

How can you claim that the innocents are not involved in any way when killing them weakens an enemy. That shows the innocents are involved. You can't have it both ways.

[Banana Jelly]

I'm trying to point out that to you are begging the question. "Innocent civilians" strongly suggests that they are not strategically important targets, therefore anybody that targets them is barbaric.




How can you claim that the innocents are not involved in any way when killing them weakens an enemy. That shows the innocents are involved. You can't have it both ways.

Wow. You are not getting my question. If one country kills innocents, the other country has to react and protect them. It either would surrender, because it has to protect it's citizens.

Ok, I will give you a clear example.


ex.

I am the Huns, and you are Rome.

I during the battle, I see that there are some innocent civilians (They are not involved in the battle, it was just a village.). I attack them, and you (Rome) tries to react and chase me, then when you come, I flank you with my other army. You lost.

So innocent civilians were harmed by playing dirty tricks.


Or another example would be when America used the two atomic bombs which killed innocent civilians to just frighten and force Japan to surrender.

Innocent civilians are like you and me. We aren't in the army, we aren't doing anything to support the war. We are just normal people... Never thought this would be a trick question.

Do the workers of a munition factory count as innocents?

Nope. They don't. If you destroy a factory, and they die, they don't count as innocents.

No What he is saying is if civilians are in the way of a target and they die do to collateral damage it is okay I know it was my arguement which I see he twisted.

It was never collateral damage if a country intentionally attacks the other country knowing there would be innocent civilians living there. That wasn't what I was talking about either. Remember you said if killing innocents give strategic advantage, then it should be used? That's what I was talking about. I didn't twist your words.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Depends on which nation I'm a member of.

[Stark of Winterfell]

I think the original poster is describing a situation in which a country tries to break its enemies' morale by killing civilians who aren't participating in the conflict, such as children.

[charles the hammer]

No What he is saying is if civilians are in the way of a target and they die do to collateral damage it is okay I know it was my arguement which I see he twisted.

[HMS Empire Broadsword]

Absolutely not. There are, or rather were, such things as the Rules of War, you know. That involved treating captured enemies with some decency, never to harm civilians, not to use nasty things like nukes, phosphorus and napalm.

Unfortunately, these things died out at the start of the First World War. Strategic bombing and exterminating millions of civilians in WWII was also very much breaking the rules.
These Rules should have been kept. I know the primary product of war is dead people, but there's no reason why it can't at least be kept civilised.

[Ciabhán]

Absolutely not. There are, or rather were, such things as the Rules of War, you know. That involved treating captured enemies with some decency, never to harm civilians, not to use nasty things like nukes, phosphorus and napalm.

Unfortunately, these things died out at the start of the First World War. Strategic bombing and exterminating millions of civilians in WWII was also very much breaking the rules.
These Rules should have been kept. I know the primary product of war is dead people, but there's no reason why it can't at least be kept civilised.

What a load of . For all the pretense of civility and chivalry in the past those armies still raped, pillaged, and murdered. War has and always will be ugly and nothing is going to change that.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

That doesn't actually work against guerillas you know.

That's the only reason I can imagine anyone targeting civilians. To weaken their support for a guerilla force. But it only strengthens their resolve.

The Irish war of independence and the Russian war in Afghanistan are just two examples of that.

[Manco]

Do the workers of a munition factory count as innocents?

[Treize]

If the other country is the agressor and it is the only way to save yourself from occupation, then yes kill them.

[Phier]

Or another example would be when America used the two atomic bombs which killed innocent civilians to just frighten and force Japan to surrender.

Not a valid compairson. Those cities were slated for destruction as we werw involved in a total war with Japan, with an enemy who was very unlikely to surrender. The bombs were not used to frighten Japan to surrender, they were used to destroy Japanese cities, and if the nature of the instant destruction caused Japan to surrender so much the better. Had we done just as much or more damage with conventional bombing such as we did in Tokyo, odds are they would have just shrugged it off and continued planning for the invasion.

Now to really be valid for your argument, the US would have had to have used the bombs on a city like say Vancouver, or London, and said 'Surrender or we do this to YOU!'

The US use of the bomb in what really happened was a acceptable, but if we used the second hypothetical example it was not acceptable.

[Vanoi]

Not a valid compairson. Those cities were slated for destruction as we werw involved in a total war with Japan, with an enemy who was very unlikely to surrender. The bombs were not used to frighten Japan to surrender, they were used to destroy Japanese cities, and if the nature of the instant destruction caused Japan to surrender so much the better. Had we done just as much or more damage with conventional bombing such as we did in Tokyo, odds are they would have just shrugged it off and continued planning for the invasion.

Now to really be valid for your argument, the US would have had to have used the bombs on a city like say Vancouver, or London, and said 'Surrender or we do this to YOU!'

The US use of the bomb in what really happened was a acceptable, but if we used the second hypothetical example it was not acceptable.

The se of atomic weapons was very much justfied for it is well known that more civilian and U.S lives would have been lost trying to invade the island than dropping the atomic bombs themselves.

[Boer]

Not a valid compairson. Those cities were slated for destruction as we werw involved in a total war with Japan, with an enemy who was very unlikely to surrender.

Except that for practically all of 1945 Japan had been attempting to enter into surrender negotiations with the only caveat being the retention of the emperor, which happened anyway.