Poll of the Day > Is it okay to kill civilians in war?

(+) Yeah! (+)

It seems today that a lot of people see war like it should be a clean and cut thing. Only militants get killed while civilians, at worst, are only killed by 'the bad guys' with even accidental shootings being war-crimes. Do you feel this is a good thing? Please note: I am NOT saying something like 'if you feel it's okay to kill civilians you want to mow them down in the streets with a light machine gun'.
---

It's against the Geneva Convention to target civilians. The problem is, our current enemies know this and they specifically hide amidst civilians.
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

It's against the Geneva Convention to target civilians.

Exactly.

I mean, this shouldn't be a difficult issue.
---

It's an inevitability, but one which should be minimized as much as possible.
---

It depend on what we gain if we were to kill as civilian.

If killing a civilian meant killing 20 militants, then yes.

Thats just my opinion though
---

As long as they are not Americans or American allies it's fine
---

No.

Does it and will it always happen? Yes. Let us not forget America nuked Japan twice. And yes the Japanese military did bad things too. We all suck.
---

darkknight109 posted...

XlaxJynx007 posted...

It's against the Geneva Convention to target civilians.

Exactly.

I mean, this shouldn't be a difficult issue.

Its not that easy since a lot of soldiers will use civilians as shields and many armies just dont care about the convention. North Korea certainly wont give a crap for example.
---

adjl posted...

It's an inevitability, but one which should be minimized as much as possible.

---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

It's against the Geneva Convention to target civilians. The problem is, our current enemies know this and they specifically hide amidst civilians.

Our current enemies don't give two shits about the Geneva Convention.

I say we should simply abolish it, and win all wars, at ALL costs.

TheWorstPoster posted...

XlaxJynx007 posted...

It's against the Geneva Convention to target civilians. The problem is, our current enemies know this and they specifically hide amidst civilians.

Our current enemies don't give two shits about the Geneva Convention.

I say we should simply abolish it, and win all wars, at ALL costs.

I say we should send your freeloading ass overseas to fight for us.
---

FellWolf posted...

Does it and will it always happen? Yes. Let us not forget America nuked Japan twice. And yes the Japanese military did bad things too. We all suck.

One thing that gets glossed over: America had already been targeting civilians with napalm bombings way before the nukes. The nukes took center stage because they were the more extravagant show of power.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

XlaxJynx007 posted...

It's against the Geneva Convention to target civilians.

Exactly.

I mean, this shouldn't be a difficult issue.

Its not that easy since a lot of soldiers will use civilians as shields and many armies just dont care about the convention. North Korea certainly wont give a crap for example.

So you're saying we should be more like North Korea?
---

It's okay if you win, because you can always wipe that out of the history books.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Unbridled9 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

XlaxJynx007 posted...

It's against the Geneva Convention to target civilians.

Exactly.

I mean, this shouldn't be a difficult issue.

Its not that easy since a lot of soldiers will use civilians as shields and many armies just dont care about the convention. North Korea certainly wont give a crap for example.

So you're saying we should be more like North Korea?

I'm saying that believing something like a simple convention will suddenly turn all war into a clean-cut gentlemanly conflict in which civilians never get hit in the crossfire, people don't use civilians as shields, and it doesn't become important to do things like disable production capabilities (which results in civilian casualties), all to the tune of a piping kettle and hot cup of tea is stupid. We shouldn't be like North Korea; but we shouldn't act like the convention is also going to just stop civilian casualties except when done by crazy sociopathic lunatics either.
---

No.
---

TheWorstPoster posted...

Our current enemies don't give two s***s about the Geneva Convention.

Your allies, however, do. That's why your allies care about your enemies. The Geneva Convention exists not to let its member nations scream "you're not following the rules" when somebody breaks it, but rather to unite those nations behind the cause of stopping any nation that does perpetrate such war crimes.

TheWorstPoster posted...

I say we should simply abolish it, and win all wars, at ALL costs.

That's pretty easy for somebody to say who will never in any way be involved in bringing about such an outcome. If you aren't ready to personally mow down a militant's grandmother to get to him, then you're in no place to suggest that anyone else should do such a thing.
---

I wish things had remained nations fighting one-another conventionally. Terrorism is annoying because youre left with two bad options: kill everyone or let it keep happening.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

I wish things had remained nations fighting one-another conventionally. Terrorism is annoying because youre left with two bad options: kill everyone or let it keep happening.

This is ignorant to say. "Traditionally" in many cultures had the men executed, woman raped, and people sold as slaves.
---

its fine and dandy to say that we need rules of engagement ie geneva convention but the reality is that war is not a gentlemans "game" it has no rules and it should not have rules this isnt marquis of queensbury here its life or death and has always been this way since our common ancestor (lets call him ug) hit his neighbour over the head with a rock.

the problem with having rules is that though you may follow the rules as we have seen recently the enemy dont they will always do everything they can to win.
---

War is war. I always found it funny that we needed to create a set of rules to determine what can and can't be done in wars.

Whatever the cost, whatever the effort!
---

Of course not. Killing is not ok, in- or outside of a war. Killing civilians is worse, they didn't sign up for it, and soldiers are supposed to protect them. However, civilians often get killed in wars, especially since WWII.

Locke90 posted...

its fine and dandy to say that we need rules of engagement ie geneva convention but the reality is that war is not a gentlemans "game" it has no rules and it should not have rules this isnt marquis of queensbury here its life or death and has always been this way since our common ancestor (lets call him ug) hit his neighbour over the head with a rock.

the problem with having rules is that though you may follow the rules as we have seen recently the enemy dont they will always do everything they can to win.

Gone are the days of soldiers putting down their guns on Christmas. Our rules are outdated. The West feels like French military doctrine circa 1940...
---

Unbridled9 posted...

I'm saying that believing something like a simple convention will suddenly turn all war into a clean-cut gentlemanly conflict in which civilians never get hit in the crossfire, people don't use civilians as shields, and it doesn't become important to do things like disable production capabilities (which results in civilian casualties), all to the tune of a piping kettle and hot cup of tea is stupid

Fortunately, no one believes that.

The Geneva Convention outlaws the deliberate targeting of civilians for no purpose beyond punishment/general mayhem and states that wherever possible the death of civilians is to be avoided. Accidental killing of civilians is not considered a violation of the Convention, as long as it can be shown that the act that caused civilian casualties had military necessity and all reasonable steps were undertaken to limit civilian casualties.

And for the record, production facilities dedicated to the production of military goods are considered legitimate military targets and the Geneva Convention does make allowances for their destruction.

Unbridled9 posted...

We shouldn't be like North Korea; but we shouldn't act like the convention is also going to just stop civilian casualties except when done by crazy sociopathic lunatics either.

Noe one's acting that way, though.

Saying "We should take all reasonable steps to avoid killing civilians" is not incompatible with acknowledging that deaths will still sometimes happen.
---

Saying "We should take all reasonable steps to avoid killing civilians" is not incompatible with acknowledging that deaths will still sometimes happen.

Well sure. However something I've noticed is that it seems nations are MORE than glad to ignore the convention unless it's someone they hate who just killed civilians. Then suddenly it becomes a big deal. I do agree that all reasonable steps should be taken to avoid them. I'm also saying that, when dealing with people perfectly willing to use civilians as shields, use civilian cover to hide, and ignore the convention if they even bothered to acknowledge it in the first place, acting like someone is a monster because they shot a civilian miiiight not be reasonable.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Unbridled9 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

XlaxJynx007 posted...

It's against the Geneva Convention to target civilians.

Exactly.

I mean, this shouldn't be a difficult issue.

Its not that easy since a lot of soldiers will use civilians as shields and many armies just dont care about the convention. North Korea certainly wont give a crap for example.

So you're saying we should be more like North Korea?

I'm saying that believing something like a simple convention will suddenly turn all war into a clean-cut gentlemanly conflict in which civilians never get hit in the crossfire, people don't use civilians as shields, and it doesn't become important to do things like disable production capabilities (which results in civilian casualties), all to the tune of a piping kettle and hot cup of tea is stupid. We shouldn't be like North Korea; but we shouldn't act like the convention is also going to just stop civilian casualties except when done by crazy sociopathic lunatics either.

The Geneva Convention isn't meant to stop all civilian casualties, it's meant to minimize the unnecessary loss of life and property and to minimize suffering.
---

benbeverfaqs posted...

Of course not. Killing is not ok, in- or outside of a war. Killing civilians is worse, they didn't sign up for it, and soldiers are supposed to protect them. However, civilians often get killed in wars, especially since WWII.

I'm about 90% positive that there's less civilian casualties in war per capita since WW2, since that was when and why the Geneva Conventions were held. Also, there are many situations where killing is A-OK, in- or outside of war.
---

Sadly, no war is without collateral damage. Every effort should be made to preserve civilian lives, though.
---

Apparently perfectly legit to drop Agent Orange all over civilian populations tho
---

How about not get into wars in the first place?

Sand_Flare posted...

How about not get into wars in the first place?

impossible because we as a species dont have the maturity to not be assholes.
---

total annihilation is the only victory
---

VeeVees posted...

total annihilation is the only victory

And a pretty good game, too.
---

I think civilians are fair game considering how it's war, not a friendly chat. If it's got to the point of war then both sides need to accept the risk of total annihilation.
---

Sand_Flare posted...

How about not get into wars in the first place?

Not really feasible. There are a multitude of reasons people will go to war. Be it territory disputes, economic issues, political issues, overthrowing a government (both internally and externally), religious reasons, threat of nuclear weapons, and so-forth. Many of them simply cannot be solved at the diplomacy table or end up have any chances blown apart. For example, WWI started off with an assassination and a sandwich which cascaded into a mire of defensive pacts, political maneuvering, and failed diplomacy attempts. Many despots have both been removed, and installed, by a group of people resorting to violence to oust the prior ruler. That's not to mention the odd sociopath who is just willing to kill and invade to increase their power base.
---

Deliberately? Not really.

Locke90 posted...

Sand_Flare posted...

How about not get into wars in the first place?

impossible because we as a species dont have the maturity to not be assholes.

Wars are a symptom, not the disease. Even if we didn't get into wars, the problems would still remain and, in many cases, never improve or actually get worse.
---

adjl posted...

It's an inevitability, but one which should be minimized as much as possible.

---

It must be ok, how many civilians has the us killed in the middle wast at this point?
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I think civilians are fair game considering how it's war, not a friendly chat. If it's got to the point of war then both sides need to accept the risk of total annihilation.

lolkyuubi
---

FellWolf posted...

Yes. Let us not forget America nuked Japan twice.

You did seem to forget that it wasn't a sneak attack. The US military themselves dropped pamphlets in the weeks leading up to it to warn all civilians to leave, or at least tried to depending on enemy intervention, and that was standard practice for bombings.
---

Darth_CiD posted...

The US military themselves dropped pamphlets in the weeks leading up to it to warn all civilians to leave

I actually never heard of that.

I know the squadron that dropped the bomb immediately felt remorse for doing so but I wasn't aware the US was trying to warn people it was going to happen.
---

Besides, had Japan not surrendered the subsequent invasion would have almost certainly resulted in massive amounts of casualties on all sides, most certainly a higher civilian casualty count being among that. I'm smart enough to know it wasn't JUST the bombs, but the fact is that... war and history is a complicated thing. It's easy to go 'that was horrible' by our modern standards only for a future generation to see something we decided was terrible was fine while wondering how we could even consider something like exposing our children to the brain-rotting influence of Kindergarten. How could we NOT know just how badly it was screwing up our kids! (Note: I'm not condemning Kindergarten. Just using it as an example of how something we see as acceptable now can end up being condemned by future generations)
---

Japan was notorious for fighting to the last man. If the US didn't hit them hard and profoundly, the war in the Pacific was going to continue and do more harm to Japan than the two atomic bombs did.

If anything we did them a favor because we got their emperor to concede defeat before he threw his people's lives away any further.
---

Solid Sonic posted...

Darth_CiD posted...

The US military themselves dropped pamphlets in the weeks leading up to it to warn all civilians to leave

I actually never heard of that.

I know the squadron that dropped the bomb immediately felt remorse for doing so but I wasn't aware the US was trying to warn people it was going to happen.

https://www.atomicheritage.org/key-documents/warning-leaflets

As usual, my memory is a bit spotty on the subject so here is some more accurate information.
---

Darth_CiD posted...

Solid Sonic posted...

Darth_CiD posted...

The US military themselves dropped pamphlets in the weeks leading up to it to warn all civilians to leave

I actually never heard of that.

I know the squadron that dropped the bomb immediately felt remorse for doing so but I wasn't aware the US was trying to warn people it was going to happen.

https://www.atomicheritage.org/key-documents/warning-leaflets

As usual, my memory is a bit spotty on the subject so here is some more accurate information.

It is argued that this isn't true.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-US-dropped-flyers-as-a-warning-before-bombing-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki

So fervently among American and Japanese historians that this "fact" was removed from US Air Force OTS history classes

Also, the firebombings in Germany and Japan killed around five times as many people and had no warnings besides the populations generally knowing that they were at war.
---

Solid Sonic posted...

If anything we did them a favor

Oh, lordy
---

Well it was tragic, no doubt, but it would have been worse to see Japan ruin itself over the long term because their emperor would never give up.

The radiation effects of the bomb were also terrible but nothing short of a large act like that would actuall prompt a surrender.
---

Why do Americans insist Japan wasn't going to surrender? They just weren't willing to give unconditional surrender, and considering how they're extremely prideful and the kind of crap the US forced on Japan, I get why.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Why do Americans insist Japan wasn't going to surrender? They just weren't willing to give unconditional surrender, and considering how they're extremely prideful and the kind of crap the US forced on Japan, I get why.

There has been plenty of research and documentation done on this event from all sides. There were multiple reasons why Japan surrendered such as the russian invasion, but had they NOT surrendered they were ready to fight for every last inch.
---