Human Shields

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
What sort of man pushes his wife and children into the line of fire FMF?

Well, I suppose - within the context of the OP - it is a Force that does not want to be defeated by the enemy Force.

The question is, if killing civilians is despicable, do Force Y's tactics force Force X to take despicable actions or refrain from taking despicable actions? Or is the only despicableness here on Force Y's part?

Should Force X be expected to postpone its assault on the 'embedded' Force Y for the Civilians Y's sake?

Or should Force X feel compelled to use tactics that might be costlier to itself in order to minimize the impact of the despicable acts of Force Y.

That's what it boils down to.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
You can't really put justice and righteousness aside - because that's what war is about.

Yes you can. And it's not case of them being "merely bloodthirsty adventurers" if we do so. Imagine this all to be set in the wars between cities, kingdoms and princedoms of 17th Century "Germany" or "Italy" where both sides have a valid case, blah blah. Things are rarely clear cut. So put justice and righteousness aside.

Originally posted by FMF
Really? I must say I am a little shocked by your view.

Why should Force X have to suffer additional deaths and risk possible failure of their operation because of Force Y's immoral usage of human shields?

In any case, these things are very difficult to discuss in a vacuum. There are so many real life variables that are relevant to the equation that any iron clad position can be shown to be absurd in the right fact pattern.

Originally posted by FMF
Should Force X be expected to postpone its assault on the 'embedded' Force Y for the Civilians Y's sake?

Should a hijacked plane that has broken off communication not be shot down because to do so would kill the innocents aboard?

I maintain- no.

For the same reason, I would answer your question, in a vacuum- no.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I can make it a relatively neutral case. Two tribes are fighting to acquire enough land to feed their people. [...] Y's tactics would be fully understandable - as would X's feelings of frustration.

So in these circumstances, you think that Force Y's tactic might not be despicable?

Your talk of "Force X's feelings of frustration" suggest that they baulk at attacking Force Y because they are embedded in Civilians Y.

Does this mean you see this holding back as the right thing to do in order to avoid the despicableness of killing civilians in the process of killing combatants?

Originally posted by sh76
Why should Force X have to suffer additional deaths and risk possible failure of their operation because of Force Y's immoral usage of human shields?

One answer might be that Force X killing the civilians that constitute the human shield involves an immorality that is to some degree comparable to Force Y's immoral use of that human shield.

Originally posted by sh76
Should a hijacked plane that has broken off communication not be shot down because to do so would kill the innocents aboard?

This analogy distorts the OP completely. A hijacked plane that has broken off communication - where whatever happens, whatever the outcome, presumably all the innocents are going to die anyway - is analogous to what straight forward military situation exactly?

Try this one.

There are 200 Force Y fighters in their own city, among 15,000 innocent "Y" civilians. Surrounding the town is Force X with 5,000 troops and the military objective of wiping out Force Y.

Should Force X burn the city down, effectively killing Force Y along with half of Civilians Y (7,500), while losing no troops?

Or should Force X assault the city, killing Force Y in hand to hand combat, killing only 500 civilians (effectively saving 7,000), and losing 200 troops in the process?

Originally posted by FMF
So in these circumstances, you think that Force Y's tactic might not be despicable?

Your talk of "Force X's feelings of frustration" suggest that they baulk at attacking Force Y because they are embedded in Civilians Y.

Does this mean you see this holding back as the right thing to do in order to avoid the despicableness of killing civilians in the process of killing combatants?

Force Y here has a choice. Use the despicable tactic of human shields, or take the despicable action of allowing most of Y's own people to starve.

Either way, Force Y has no choice but to take a morally repugnant action.

Force X faces a similar dilemma. Use the despicable tactic of blowing away those human shields, or take the despicable action of allowing most of X's own people to starve

Now we could remove the extra conditions, and consider the whole thing in a vacuum. But in that case, neither side would have any reason to be fighting in the first place, so the obvious thing for both sides would be to stop all the fighting and do something more peaceful like knitting.

Originally posted by FMF
This analogy distorts the OP completely. A hijacked plane that has broken off communication - where whatever happens, whatever the outcome, presumably all the innocents are going to die anyway - is analogous to what straight forward military situation exactly?

Try this one.

There are 200 Force Y fighters in their own city, among 15,000 innocent "Y" civili ...[text shortened]... , killing only 500 civilians (effectively saving 7,000), and losing 200 troops in the process?

A hijacked plane that has broken off communication - where whatever happens, whatever the outcome, presumably all the innocents are going to die anyway

Not necessarily. 9/11 succeeded in part because hijackers had always aimed to safely land the plane somewhere and use the living hostages as bargaining chips toward some political end. The 9/11 hijackers were the first to use hijacked planes as missiles. They very much had the element of surprise. It's conceivable that a future hijacker would hijack a plane to safely land the passengers somewhere and use them as hostages or bargaining chips.

There are 200 Force Y fighters in their own city, among 15,000 innocent "Y" civilians. Surrounding the town is Force X with 5,000 troops and the military objective of wiping out Force Y.

Should Force X burn the city down, effectively killing Force Y along with half of Civilians Y (7,500), while losing no troops?

Or should Force X assault the city, killing Force Y in hand to hand combat, killing only 500 civilians (effectively saving 7,000), and losing 200 troops in the process?

Well, yes, a scenario can be drawn up to make any position sound extreme. That's why these things are so difficult to discuss in a vacuum.

What about the opposite? What if Force X could wipe out Force Y and kill one civilian of Y (let's call him Civilian Y) and sustain no deaths or sacrifice 100,000 soldiers of Force X and kill no civilians of Y? It is obligated to sacrifice 100,000 soldiers to save Mr. Civilian Y?

Originally posted by sh76
What about the opposite? What if Force X could wipe out Force Y and kill one civilian of Y (let's call him Civilian Y) and sustain no deaths or sacrifice 100,000 soldiers of Force X and kill no civilians of Y? It is obligated to sacrifice 100,000 soldiers to save Mr. Civilian Y?

Well the scenario I offered was not absurd. But the fact that you counter it with an utterly absurd scenario ( "let's call him Civilian Y" and the 100,000 dead soldiers ) suggests that you thought my scenario was completely barmy. I beg to differ. I think mine lets a little air into the vacuum. I think yours does not.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
But in that case, neither side would have any reason to be fighting in the first place

Sides in conflicts always have reasons for fighting. Always. And wars are not always fought because of existential threats.

Originally posted by sh76
[b]A hijacked plane that has broken off communication - where whatever happens, whatever the outcome, presumably all the innocents are going to die anyway

Not necessarily. 9/11 succeeded in part because hijackers had always aimed to safely land the plane somewhere and use the living hostages as bargaining chips toward some political end. The 9/11 hijacke ...[text shortened]... ll no civilians of Y? It is obligated to sacrifice 100,000 soldiers to save Mr. Civilian Y?[/b]

I think one problem here is we're used to watching movies where the bad guy grabs an innocent bystander and puts a knife to their throat and warns the good guy to "cooperate" or else Waldo "gets it".

And in the movies, the good guy is always able to find an ingenious way to spare Waldo and still catch the bad guy before he wreaks havoc. So there tends to be an assumption that in real life, the good guy is always able to avoid making that hard choice - and there's the assumption that the good guy would never be a position of having to use the Waldo tactic to save the city.

Originally posted by FMF
Well the scenario I offered was not absurd. But the fact that you counter it with an utterly absurd scenario ( "let's call him Civilian Y" and the 100,000 dead soldiers ) suggests that you thought my scenario was completely barmy. I beg to differ. I think mine lets a little air into the vacuum. I think yours does not.

I didn't mean that your scenario was absurd. I only meant that that these things often have to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

What if I replace Civilian Y with Hostage Y in a bank taken over by 50 armed gunmen; and I replace the 100,000 soldiers with the 25 or so police officers who would likely be killed in an invasion of the bank against the 50 heavily armed robbers to save Hostage Y?

Now is my scenario a bit less absurd?

Originally posted by FMF
Sides in conflicts always have reasons for fighting. Always. And wars are not always fought because of existential threats.

So we can then consider the worthiness of each side's reasons and judge accordingly.

If the sides are engaging in a foolish war (rival kings merely burnishing their own egos), then clearly, both sides are in the wrong, and the mere fact that they are fighting is absolutely despicable

If one side clearly has a worthy cause, and is doing everything it can to minimize civilian impact, while the other side is just burnishing an ego or defending an atrocity, then the latter side bears full blame for all despicable actions.

If both sides have a worthy cause, then you have the dilemma I have been posing.

Originally posted by sh76
What if I replace Civilian Y with Hostage Y in a bank taken over by 50 armed gunmen; and I replace the 100,000 soldiers with the 25 or so police officers who would likely be killed in an invasion of the bank against the 50 heavily armed robbers to save Hostage Y?

Now is my scenario a bit less absurd?

It is 4,000 times less absurd, precisely, for which I thank you.

I don't see why you feel the need to approach this with scenarios where the "combatants" outnumber the "civilians" in these ways. This is hardly ever the case in real life.

You must have jowls of high tension steel. You are sucking even more air out of the already complete vacuum!