07 Apr 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesIt may be the case of a perceived threat.
If Force Y is COMPLETELY inferior, then how could they possibly be a threat? The only thing Force Y would be able to do is issue empty threats that Force X would ignore. Force Y would eventually disperse by itself without causing any damage.
The Nazis were pretty serious of the Roma people or the disabled ones being threats. And these two groups were completely inferior to the Nazi power.
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFI believe, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that your OP was inquiring as to the moral culpability of Force Y in and of itself, not the moral culpability of Force X and/or the moral culpability of Force Y in relation to that of Force X.
So endangering civilians is more despicable than actually killing them?
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by sh76I am correcting you, then. The OP is asking 'what is it that is despicable?' Is it 'killing civilians'? Is it 'causing civilians to be killed'? 'Forcing your enemy to kill civilians?' 'Killing combatants when they are mingled with non-combatants?' But the moral culpability of Force Y, in and of itself, is an interesting question too - and wholly pertinent.
I believe, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that your OP was inquiring as to the moral culpability of Force Y in and of itself, not the moral culpability of Force X and/or the moral culpability of Force Y in relation to that of Force X.
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFstarting with the assumption that Force X has a legitimate reason to defend itself against Force Y's threats.
I am correcting you, then. The OP is asking 'what is it that is despicable?' Is it 'killing civilians'? Is it 'causing civilians to be killed'? 'Forcing your enemy to kill civilians?' 'Killing combatants when they are mingled with non-combatants?' But the moral culpability of Force Y, in and of itself, is an interesting question too - and wholly pertinent.
obviously, the top priority for Force X is to defend itself in a way that does no harm to civilians - indeed, the first priority is to find a peaceful way to settle the issue without doing harm to anyone.
But assuming that Force Y represents a legitimate threat, and that Force X cannot stop that threat in any other way, then Y's human shield tactics essentially leaves Force X with no choice but to risk harming or killing innocent civilians. And assuming that even now, Force X is still vigilant in minimizing the impact on civilians.
In this instance, Force Y must accept all of the blame for its cowardly actions.
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesWhat if Force X could minimize Civilian Y casualties by handling Force Y's 'human shield' tactics in a way that is more expensive, in terms of lives lost, for Force X? e.g. through engaging in hand to hand combat rather than using airstrikes.
obviously, the top priority for Force X is to defend itself in a way that does no harm to civilians - indeed, the first priority is to find a peaceful way to settle the issue without doing harm to anyone.
07 Apr 10
now - assuming that inferior Force Y has a legitimate reason for attacking Force X. Suppose Force X is committing terrible atrocities to it's own people and Force Y wants to stop it.
Force Y has no way of stopping Force X's actions due to Force X's military superiority - so the only way Force Y can get the upper hand is to use human shields (presumably humans that Force X cares about)
This becomes an interesting dilemma .
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFAssuming that Force X's aims are justified, then all members of Force X are no less "innocent" than the civilians.
What if Force X could minimize Civilian Y casualties by handling Force Y's 'human shield' tactics in a way that is more expensive, in terms of lives lost, for Force X? e.g. through engaging in hand to hand combat rather than using airstrikes.
It would seem that there's no real answer here - beyond a utilitarian calculus that considers taking the action that would result in the fewest total casualties.
Either way, Force Y still takes the blame for putting Force X into this awful situation to begin with.
07 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesReally?
all members of Force X are no less "innocent" than the civilians.
Isn't that a dangerous road to go down?
Doesn't that mean that if Force Y feels strongly that it is justified in its military action, then Civilians X become no less "guilty" than Force X?
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFIf Force X's military action was justified in the first place, then I would say that Force X has no moral requirement to sacrifice X lives to spare collateral damage Civilian Y deaths. Of course, Force X has a moral requirement to do what it reasonably can to minimize collateral damage Civilian Y deaths. But I don't think that extends to sacrificing X lives.
What if Force X could minimize Civilian Y casualties by handling Force Y's 'human shield' tactics in a way that is more expensive, in terms of lives lost, for Force X? e.g. through engaging in hand to hand combat rather than using airstrikes.
07 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFsee my post regarding the case where Force Y has a legitimate beef.
Really?
Isn't that a dangerous road to go down?
Doesn't that mean that if Force Y feels strongly that it is justified in its military action, then Civilians X become no less "guilty" than Force X?
you do end up with all sorts of dilemmas
complicating things further is that regardless of what's really happening, both Force X and Force Y can usually come up with arguments to convince themselves that they are fighting on the side of justice and righteousness, and that the other side is a pack of monsters
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesIt's you, in fact, who has been seeking to complicate this with extra scenarios. The dilemma in the OP is pretty straight forward. Put justice and righteousness aside, assume it's six of one half a dozen of the other, and focus instead on the military tactics and the fate of wholly innocent civilians as opposed to the fate of combatants.
complicating things further is that regardless of what's really happening, both Force X and Force Y can usually come up with arguments to convince themselves that they are fighting on the side of justice and righteousness, and that the other side is a pack of monsters
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesNot neccessarily. Perhaps they have some natural resource, like fewh water, territory, oil, or a religion they want to practice. Perhaps they are not violent at all. They just want to be left alone with what they have.
I am assuming that Force X has some legitimate reason to attack Force Y. This would mean that Force Y is threatening X in some way.
Let's stick with the conditions that the OP had, and not inventing another scenario in order to complicate things.
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesPrecisely. That sort of cowardly behaviour is what is truly despicable. What sort of man pushes his wife and children into the line of fire FMF?
starting with the assumption that Force X has a legitimate reason to defend itself against Force Y's threats.
obviously, the top priority for Force X is to defend itself in a way that does no harm to civilians - indeed, the first priority is to find a peaceful way to settle the issue without doing harm to anyone.
But assuming that Force Y represents ...[text shortened]... civilians.
In this instance, Force Y must accept all of the blame for its cowardly actions.
07 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYou can't really put justice and righteousness aside - because that's what war is about. If both sides are merely bloodthirsty adventurers who just love to kill, then clearly, both sides deserve blame for putting all civilians in the region at risk just because they want to turn the countryside into a real life version of the latest video game.
It's you, in fact, who has been seeking to complicate this with extra scenarios. The dilemma in the OP is pretty straight forward. Put justice and righteousness aside, assume it's six of one half a dozen of the other, and focus instead on the military tactics and the fate of wholly innocent civilians as opposed to the fate of combatants.
But I can make it a relatively neutral case. Two tribes are fighting to acquire enough land to feed their people. There isn't enough land to feed everyone, so tribe X and Y have to fight it out. Both Force X and Force Y have a legitimate reason to fight to gain the land that they need.
Because of Force X's inherent military superiority, it will be able to control enough land to create large-scale starvation for Y. Y's only hope to prevent this is to engage in a tactic that involves human shields.
Y's tactics would be fully understandable - as would X's feelings of frustration.
The fairest approach would probably be one that allows the land to be evenly divided, with both sides accepting an equal share of starvation. But X, with its superior force, is going to have a hard time telling convincing its people to accept this. And Y is going to have an equally difficult time convincing its people to accept this - after all, its tactic of using human shields is tying X up in moral knots.
So it becomes very hard to apportion the blame for the civilian casualties.