Which of the following are valid military targets during war

[dead0man]

(I really wish we could preview the poll options)

Nobody seemed to want to discuss which civilians are worthy targets in the US carpet bombing thread, so here we are.  I'm sure there are probably a dozen or so more grey area things, but 17 seems like plenty of options (not that all 17 are grey).

[ingemann]

I'm not sure what you nean with a hospital used for active military action. If it treat wounded it's not a legitimate target, if it's use to quartering troops or as stronghold it'sa legitimate target, soldiers on leave and civilians is not a legitimate target either (but collateral damage happens). Exceptions can be made to all these if there's very good reasons (as example von Braun was a legitimate target, because his skill set was a strategic assets).

[dead0man]

I'm not sure what you nean with a hospital used for active military action.

Like using the parking lot to launch rockets or store major weapons in the basement.


edit-and damn it, I didn't allow 17 voting checkmarks.....bah!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm not sure what you nean with a hospital used for active military action.

Like using the parking lot to launch rockets or store major weapons in the basement.

All but 3 and 11, then.

[Goldwater]

I tried to vote for all except 11, which is apparently too many options.  I guess I'm just too bloodthirsty.

[dead0man]

I tried to vote for all except 11, which is apparently too many options.  I guess I'm just too bloodthirsty.

It's my fault for not checking everything before posting.  Can't edit polls.  (I wonder if a mod can?)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nobody seemed to want to discuss which civilians are worthy targets in the US carpet bombing thread, so here we are.

Actually we were mostly discussing the bombing campaigns in Europe which were directed by the RAF's Bomber Command and which the American military was not happy about. Please don't steal our war crimes.

[tpfkaw]

Actual answer: That's for the winner to decide, isn't it?

My personal opinion:

1-2: Ok.
3: Acceptable collateral damage, ok to take prisoner, ok to specifically target if an officer or other high-value target, not ok to specifically target if an ordinary enlisted man.
4-10: Ok, should attempt to minimize civilian casualties to the greatest extent reasonably possible.
11: Acceptable collateral damage, not ok to specifically target.
12-13: Given your description, ok, but should attempt to minimize non-combatant casualties to the greatest extent reasonably possible. The enemy forces are violating the First Geneva Convention by staging military actions from a hospital.
14: Ok, should attempt to minimize civilian casualties to the greatest extent reasonably possible. The level of acceptable force also depends on the ratio of soldiers to civilians in the hotel; it's not ok to blow up hundreds of civilians to get a handful of soldiers.
15: Depends on whether the rock-throwing constitutes lethal or dangerous force, whether the soldiers having rocks thrown at them are engaged in combat, and the dangerousness of the civilian in question (a military-aged male is obviously more dangerous than a small child).
16-17: Yes, and as non-uniformed combatants they are not entitled to the protections of international law.