War and Unarmed Civilians

[Debater Slayer]

Over the years, I have noticed a consistent trend in discussions about different wars: some people justify attacks on unarmed civilians, who or may not even be in favor of the war, as long as said civilians are from the "enemy state." I usually avoid comment sections below online articles, but I read through one a few days ago and saw multiple comments hoping for attacks on Russian civilians and strictly residential areas.

The Ukraine war is not the only war in which I have seen people wish for or support such things. Many years ago, one of the first things that sparked my skepticism toward fundamentalist strains of Islam was that I saw a lot of people justify or defend 9/11 and the London bombings of 2005 by saying that civilians, even if they were unarmed or might oppose war, in enemy states automatically became valid targets, or by saying that they deserved to be attacked because the majority of voters in their country put warmongers in office. I have gotten into arguments with people over that mindset many times over the years, but it has usually been without effect on their views.

I also see the same thing regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where some people consider all Israeli civilians to be valid targets and support Hamas' attacks on them, while others justify or express apathy toward the civilian deaths that have occurred in Palestinian territories during IDF operations.

Another example is support for the Vietnam War, despite events like the cover-up of the My Lai massacre and the numerous civilian deaths throughout the war, and support for the usage of nukes against Japan even though both situations resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. Support for the war on Ukraine despite the numerous war crimes and tens of thousands of deaths also falls within this category.

In your opinion, should unarmed civilians be seen as valid targets in a war, or should it be seen as an atrocity or a war crime to carry out strikes either intentionally targeting residential areas of civilians or not minding "collateral damage" to civilians despite being aware that they will be killed? Should an unarmed civilian from a perceived "enemy state"—be it Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, the US, the UK, or otherwise—be viewed as dispensable in a war?

 

[Wandering Monk]

So, to muddy the waters a bit, if these civilians are building the implements of war, are they still considered 'innocent' or are the complicit?

 

[Revoltingest]

So, to muddy the waters a bit, if these civilians are building the implements of war, are they still considered 'innocent' or are the complicit?

I voted <no> based upon their
being in the war (ie, not innocent).

 

[Debater Slayer]

I voted <no> based upon their
being in the war (ie, not innocent).

You voted no as in they shouldn't be seen as valid targets?

The question is about regular civilians who are not involved in the production of weaponry or any other combat-related activities.

 

[Debater Slayer]

So, to muddy the waters a bit, if these civilians are building the implements of war, are they still considered 'innocent' or are the complicit?

I would say that should be assessed in context. For instance, are the factory workers being forced to work on the production line under the threat of being shot or sent to a labor camp for disobeying—possibly along with their families—or are they voluntarily and gladly helping the war effort?

Either way, though, the question is about the majority of regular civilians, who are both unarmed and uninvolved in any manufacturing of weaponry.

 

[Revoltingest]

You voted no as in they shouldn't be seen as valid targets?

I did.

The question is about regular civilians who are not involved in the production of weaponry or any other combat-related activities.

That's my understanding.

 

[Stevicus]

In your opinion, should unarmed civilians be seen as valid targets in a war, or should it be seen as an atrocity or a war crime to carry out strikes either intentionally targeting residential areas of civilians or not minding "collateral damage" to civilians despite being aware that they will be killed? Should an unarmed civilian from a perceived "enemy state"—be it Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, the US, the UK, or otherwise—be viewed as dispensable in a war?

I voted no, unarmed non-combatants should not be considered valid targets. They should not be deliberately targeted. "Collateral damage" is just a way of describing civilians killed in the crossfire or who got caught in a bombing near a legitimate target. It's Pentagon-speak for "Oops, we goofed."

During the World Wars, the participants utilized terror bombing as a tactic, even to the point of using atomic weapons. But even the conventional bombings were pretty horrific. And during the Cold War and even on up to today, we all live with the prospect of nuclear war which could wipe out millions or possibly even billions of civilians all told.

That's part of what justified all the geopolitical mischief and gamesmanship, because of the underlying justification that if we didn't engage in an aggressively proactive global stance, things would quickly get out of control and go nuclear pretty fast. I guess they would see it as the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, even if it sucks for the few who end up as "collateral damage."

 

[mangalavara]

In your opinion, should unarmed civilians be seen as valid targets in a war, or should it be seen as an atrocity or a war crime to carry out strikes either intentionally targeting residential areas of civilians or not minding "collateral damage" to civilians despite being aware that they will be killed?

In my opinion, targeting unarmed civilians is wrong because it is cowardly and thus unworthy of a warrior. This is because a warrior is supposed to be courageous. Fighting another armed fighter would be courageous. Those who target unarmed civilians commit an atrocity.

 

[ChristineM]

Unarmed... To target the unarmed is cowardly whether in war or not.

 

[Koldo]

Over the years, I have noticed a consistent trend in discussions about different wars: some people justify attacks on unarmed civilians, who or may not even be in favor of the war, as long as said civilians are from the "enemy state." I usually avoid comment sections below online articles, but I read through one a few days ago and saw multiple comments hoping for attacks on Russian civilians and strictly residential areas.

The Ukraine war is not the only war in which I have seen people wish for or support such things. Many years ago, one of the first things that sparked my skepticism toward fundamentalist strains of Islam was that I saw a lot of people justify or defend 9/11 and the London bombings of 2005 by saying that civilians, even if they were unarmed or might oppose war, in enemy states automatically became valid targets, or by saying that they deserved to be attacked because the majority of voters in their country put warmongers in office. I have gotten into arguments with people over that mindset many times over the years, but it has usually been without effect on their views.

I also see the same thing regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where some people consider all Israeli civilians to be valid targets and support Hamas' attacks on them, while others justify or express apathy toward the civilian deaths that have occurred in Palestinian territories during IDF operations.

Another example is support for the Vietnam War, despite events like the cover-up of the My Lai massacre and the numerous civilian deaths throughout the war, and support for the usage of nukes against Japan even though both situations resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. Support for the war on Ukraine despite the numerous war crimes and tens of thousands of deaths also falls within this category.

In your opinion, should unarmed civilians be seen as valid targets in a war, or should it be seen as an atrocity or a war crime to carry out strikes either intentionally targeting residential areas of civilians or not minding "collateral damage" to civilians despite being aware that they will be killed? Should an unarmed civilian from a perceived "enemy state"—be it Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, the US, the UK, or otherwise—be viewed as dispensable in a war?

I voted 'Other', because my answer would be 'generally no', rather than a 'always no'.
It is very easy to condemn acts of terrorism, and rightfully so, when the terrorists target random groups of civilians that have little to do with the cause that "provoked" the attack. I can't think of any circumstance where this kind of action would be justified.

But it gets more complicated...
Imagine, for example, a conscript being forced into war against his will.
Imagine now a group of adult civilians who openly, and willingly, support attacks on your country that you find inexcusable.
How can we say that it is invalid to target those civilians if we regard as valid to target those conscripts? Just because they are civilians, even though their support helps furthering the war and the aggressions? And if we don't regard as valid to target those conscripts, how do we protect ourselves when the time comes?

Or, imagine for example there is a certain situation where the enemy is using civilians as human shields, or disguising military buildings as civilian buildings, and making civilians take part in it. Should your country's military lose soldiers to spare those civilian lives? I don't think that is a reasonable request.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is a bit more complicated, but in general civilians are not legitimate target themselves, but they are generally accepted as collateral causalities.

Example. For a busy bridge that the enemy military uses for logistics, the bridge is valid target and any civilians caught in an attack on the bridge will even for the laws of war be considered collateral causalities.

The problem comes when you started attacking all forms of logistics in as wide understanding as possible, then anything the military uses or can use, becomes a target.
All energy and all vehicles/trains/planes are targets and also factories and food production become a target. Then the following view can be taken, those are not legitimate targets, because the resources could be used on proper strict military targets.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Take #2.
I forget another reason for targeting civilians. The enemy military have to divert resources away from the purely militarily usage to defend the civilians. Now this is in my view in one sense wrong, in another one right and in a third one just have war works.

 

[Augustus]

Depends on the nature of the war, context, power balance, military capabilities, etc.

Generally it should be avoided.

If your country is attacked by a more powerful one and you want to impose a cost on them maybe. If you think it serves a strategic purpose and you have few other options then it might be ok.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Depends on the nature of the war, context, power balance, military capabilities, etc.

Generally it should be avoided.

If your country is attacked by a more powerful one and you want to impose a cost on them maybe. If you think it serves a strategic purpose and you have few other options then it might be ok.

Those last two scenarios were among the main justifications I heard for 9/11 and the London bombings. They're also a widely cited point among supporters of Hamas' attacks on Israeli civilians, since Israel is the far more powerful side in the conflict.

Even if we entirely set aside ethics, a problem is that this rarely ever seems to work out in practice. Attacks on civilians usually lead to even more aggressive attacks from the enemy instead, and the vicious cycle of bloodshed merely becomes worse from all sides involved. It has happened during the "War on Terror," the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Vietnam War. Attacks on civilians and massacres targeting them rarely ever dissuade the more powerful sides or benefit the weaker ones.

I'll also admit that I deeply loathe the idea regardless of everything else. I know this is a more personal take on the issue, but I would never want to lose an uninvolved family member or a friend to some attack because of military actions that neither I nor they ever approved of or participated in. I wouldn't want that to happen to anyone else either.

 

[Koldo]

Those last two scenarios were among the main justifications I heard for 9/11 and the London bombings. They're also a widely cited point among supporters of Hamas' attacks on Israeli civilians, since Israel is the far more powerful side in the conflict.

Even if we entirely set aside ethics, a problem is that this rarely ever seems to work out in practice. Attacks on civilians usually lead to even more aggressive attacks from the enemy instead, and the vicious cycle of bloodshed merely becomes worse from all sides involved. It has happened during the "War on Terror," the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Vietnam War. Attacks on civilians and massacres targeting them rarely ever dissuade the more powerful sides or benefit the weaker ones.

I agree.

I'll also admit that I deeply loathe the idea regardless of everything else. I know this is a more personal take on the issue, but I would never want to lose an uninvolved family member or a friend to some attack because of military actions that neither I nor they ever approved of or participated in. I wouldn't want that to happen to anyone else either.

I think this involves a bigger issue: To what extent are civilians responsible for the acts of war perpetrated by their government?

 

[Father Heathen]

What about a civilian who operates a pmc that's involved in a war?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think this involves a bigger issue: To what extent are civilians responsible for the acts of war perpetrated by their government?

I think that's too circumstantial and context-dependent for there to be a uniform answer. For instance, did the civilians vote for a warmongering government knowing that it would massacre civilians or carelessly write them off as acceptable "collateral damage," or were they misled by propaganda and promises of "ethical" intervention (e.g., to "liberate" the people of another country or "protect" them from some real or imagined threat)?

Even conscripts and other soldiers vary in their situations. Many went to Vietnam or Iraq expecting to fight for a good cause and returned with PTSD from the atrocities they witnessed and the contrast between reality and what they were told by their superiors and governments. Others went simply because they were conscripted and forced to fight.

It's a complicated issue to which I don't see any one-size-fits-all answers.

 

[Debater Slayer]

What about a civilian who operates a pmc that's involved in a war?

As in a private military company? I think that would almost definitely count as a combatant or at least an aide to combatants.

 

[Koldo]

I think that's too circumstantial and context-dependent for there to be a uniform answer. For instance, did the civilians vote for a warmongering government knowing that it would massacre civilians or carelessly write them off as acceptable "collateral damage," or were they misled by propaganda and promises of "ethical" intervention (e.g., to "liberate" the people of another country or "protect" them from some real or imagined threat)?

Even conscripts and other soldiers vary in their situations. Many went to Vietnam or Iraq expecting to fight for a good cause and returned with PTSD from the atrocities they witnessed and the contrast between reality and what they were told by their superiors and governments. Others went simply because they were conscripted and forced to fight.

It's a complicated issue to which I don't see any one-size-fits-all answers.

I agree. But I had a different situation in my mind: Can the civilians be held responsible for omission? If, for example, they know a war is going to happen because of their governing body, can they be held responsible for not preventing it? To what extent civilians would have to go to prevent a war to say they are not responsible for it?

Let's consider the extremes here: If one is living under a totalitarian regime, and the mere act of speaking against the war could get you killed, it is hard to condemn the citizens for doing nothing about the war. On the other hand, if they can't not only freely speak but also demand an impeachment, if necessary for example, then it is hard to excuse the omission. And if the omission is not excusable, wouldn't that make the death of those civilians more acceptable as collateral damage?

 

[Augustus]

Those last two scenarios were among the main justifications I heard for 9/11 and the London bombings. They're also a widely cited point among supporters of Hamas' attacks on Israeli civilians, since Israel is the far more powerful side in the conflict.

Even if we entirely set aside ethics, a problem is that this rarely ever seems to work out in practice. Attacks on civilians usually lead to even more aggressive attacks from the enemy instead, and the vicious cycle of bloodshed merely becomes worse from all sides involved. It has happened during the "War on Terror," the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Vietnam War. Attacks on civilians and massacres targeting them rarely ever dissuade the more powerful sides or benefit the weaker ones.

I'll also admit that I deeply loathe the idea regardless of everything else. I know this is a more personal take on the issue, but I would never want to lose an uninvolved family member or a friend to some attack because of military actions that neither I nor they ever approved of or participated in. I wouldn't want that to happen to anyone else either.

All fair points.

The efficacy of such actions are open to debate, and they may well prove counterproductive on many occasions. Some would argue they have proved effective on other occasions.

I certainly don't think they are always justified, but don't think I can go as far as saying they can never be legitimate.