Which of the following is acceptable in war?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:47:27 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Which of the following is acceptable in war?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Unless explicitly specified, assume civilians are not acting in support roles
#1
War itself is never acceptable
 
#2
Killing civilians acting in support roles as collateral damage
 
#3
Targeting civilians acting in support roles
 
#4
Killing civilians as collateral damage
 
#5
Targeting civilians when military targets are out of reach
 
#6
Targeting civilians to terrorize and/or demoralize
 
#7
Targeting civilians because keeping them alive would be costly logistically/economically
 
#8
Targeting neither military of civilian; but killing indiscriminately when loyalties are uncertain
 
#9
Killing indiscriminately regardless of suspected loyalties
 
#10
Targeting civilians for personal pleasure
 
#11
War is acceptable, but NOTA specific actions are
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 36

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: Which of the following is acceptable in war?  (Read 4768 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 09, 2006, 05:24:59 PM »

Vote.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 09, 2006, 05:35:38 PM »

Maybe civilians known to aid the enemy. But that is about it. Give them warning of your attack, if they refuse to yield then go ahead.
Logged
Speed of Sound
LiberalPA
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,166
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 09, 2006, 05:37:59 PM »

War isnt acceptable. Not for either party.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2006, 05:42:55 PM »

All except the first and last two. Targeting civilians for pleasure is never necessary for tactical or strategic advantage, the rest can be.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,550
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2006, 05:43:43 PM »

Options 2 and 3, 4 is horrible and shouldn't happen but if it does it isn't as bad as actually targeting the citizens.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2006, 06:06:06 PM »

2-4 have been accepted by most combatants historically, given that a war is already taking place.

9-10 are generally considered war crimes, but there is some ambiguity. For example soldiers away from home get antsy without female companionship. If a commander does not allow his troops to rape the locals, they may be resentful or even rebellious and this could jeopardize the discipline he is able to maintain. Does this count as personal pleasure or logistical efficiency?

5-8 is the clash that truly confuses me, however. These actions could have utility for the war effort, but involve a deliberate targeting of innocents. Arguments seem to have been made from either side, given particular instances.

All of this is assuming a war is already taking place. Obviously, it says nothing about "just war" theory; what are the preconditions for engaging in a just war in the first place. These questions are solely about what is acceptable assuming that one has already begun to engage in a war.
Logged
Moooooo
nickshepDEM
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,909


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2006, 06:09:55 PM »

Im not 100% sure, but Id say...

Killing civilians acting in support roles as collateral damage
Targeting civilians acting in support roles
Killing civilians as collateral damage

and under some circumstances...

Targeting civilians to terrorize and/or demoralize
Logged
PBrunsel
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,537


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2006, 06:46:48 PM »

You can't win a modern war without bringing it to the homefront.
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2006, 09:22:49 PM »

Options 4 through 10 are unacceptable to me, but I realize that they all happen or happened.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2006, 10:27:37 PM »

In most wars, 2 and 3 are acceptable and 4 is unfortunately going to happen so is barely acceptable but should be avoided if possible.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2006, 11:26:36 PM »
« Edited: February 09, 2006, 11:30:28 PM by Supersoulty »

It all depends.  Are we fighting in asymetircal warfare or a war with a limited objective (ie capture and hold THIS island) or are we fighting someone like the Nazis?  All these factors are contingent on the circumstances.

I guess that indiscriminate killing or doing it for personal pleasure is never acceptable.
Logged
Citizen James
James42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,540


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2006, 11:37:53 PM »

.

9-10 are generally considered war crimes, but there is some ambiguity. For example soldiers away from home get antsy without female companionship. If a commander does not allow his troops to rape the locals, they may be resentful or even rebellious and this could jeopardize the discipline he is able to maintain. Does this count as personal pleasure or logistical efficiency?


Quite simply, let the troops have a dirty magazine and a little free time to themselves.  Raping the locals is always unacceptable (and making use of local prostitiutes highly questionable), and any soldier engaging in such crimes should be subject to immediate court martial.

We have an army of professionals, not a bunch of undisiplined thugs.  Raping locals would be discracing the uniform they wear, and they should be handled accordingly for having besmirched our good name with thier criminal behavior.

2-4 btw, minimizing 4 if possible.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2006, 11:41:50 PM »

that's why we should let women into the army and have them in the same units. Then they can have some fun on their own free time without raping the locals. Works for communist guerillas.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2006, 11:56:13 PM »

Im not 100% sure, but Id say...

Killing civilians acting in support roles as collateral damage
Targeting civilians acting in support roles
Killing civilians as collateral damage

and under some circumstances...

Targeting civilians to terrorize and/or demoralize


These are basically my feelings as well.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2006, 02:41:45 PM »

Voted the last option, but really it depends on the definition of "acceptable".
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2006, 04:31:22 PM »

Im not 100% sure, but Id say...

Killing civilians acting in support roles as collateral damage
Targeting civilians acting in support roles
Killing civilians as collateral damage

and under some circumstances...

Targeting civilians to terrorize and/or demoralize


That last option sounds like what the 911 terrorists did. Does that mean they just did the same thing we would do?

I vote options 2,3 and 4.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2006, 04:37:17 PM »

Im not 100% sure, but Id say...

Killing civilians acting in support roles as collateral damage
Targeting civilians acting in support roles
Killing civilians as collateral damage

and under some circumstances...

Targeting civilians to terrorize and/or demoralize


That last option sounds like what the 911 terrorists did. Does that mean they just did the same thing we would do?

I vote options 2,3 and 4.

This is what I was afraid of... people are mixing the idea of when one can start a war justly and what one can justly do in a war that one is already engaging in. The whole idea is that once a war has started, the acceptable range of behaviors broadens immensely, but this should only inform our conservatism in judging when it is just to start a war in the first place...

911 was wrong primarily because bin Laden had no just cause to go to war against America in the first place. The fact that he targeted civilians only adds to the atrocity, but the second part is admittedly debatable, as you point out. Many combatants have targeted civilians historically, including this country during WW2... but we were clearly attacked. The main reason 911 was an atrocity however was that bin Laden started the war himself and he had no just cause to start it to begin with.
Logged
CheeseWhiz
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,538


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2006, 05:09:46 PM »

Maybe civilians known to aid the enemy. But that is about it. Give them warning of your attack, if they refuse to yield then go ahead.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2006, 08:50:55 PM »

2,3,4,5,6, all depending upon circumstances.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2006, 08:56:24 PM »

10, only.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2006, 10:36:00 PM »

I voted for the second, third, and fourth options.  But I do think that if our soldiers are operating under constant fear of investigation and court-martial for every little mistake they make, then we're bound to lose any war we fight.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2006, 10:40:57 PM »

I voted for the second, third, and fourth options.  But I do think that if our soldiers are operating under constant fear of investigation and court-martial for every little mistake they make, then we're bound to lose any war we fight.

I agree.  We can't hope to win a war if we take all our options off the table at the outset.

There was no war more moral than WW II.  Morality required that we fight it.  And we had a policy of deliberately targeting civilians, in order to de-house them and demoralize them.  Cloudy days that made it harder to hit military targets were called "women and children days" by the air force pilots.  The famous firebombing of Dresden was undertaken specifically to kill as many civilians as possible so as to force the Germans into unconditional surrender.

I would rather win a war like WW II through means that may be brutal than allow monstrous evil to prevail.  Sometimes, ugly choices have to be made.  It is unrealistic to think otherwise.
Logged
Inverted Things
Avelaval
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,306


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2006, 09:01:53 PM »

Anything is acceptable in war. The last war we actually fought in was WWII. Just ask congress. Anyway, war no longer has much point. There are at least six coutries who can blow anyone off the map. This makes war obsolete.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2006, 09:31:33 PM »

Im not 100% sure, but Id say...

Killing civilians acting in support roles as collateral damage
Targeting civilians acting in support roles
Killing civilians as collateral damage

and under some circumstances...

Targeting civilians to terrorize and/or demoralize


That last option sounds like what the 911 terrorists did. Does that mean they just did the same thing we would do?

I vote options 2,3 and 4.

Good point.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 13, 2006, 08:28:51 PM »

options 2 to 10
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 14 queries.