Human Shields

Originally posted by FMF
Force X has the option of mounting a more costly attack that minimizes risk to Civilians Y.

How much more costly? How much does it minimize risk?

I doubt you think 1000 soldiers should be sacrificed to keep one civilian from being killed.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I doubt you think 1000 soldiers should be sacrificed to keep one civilian from being killed.

Oh dear. More of sh76 type steel jowls that deepen-the-vacuum stuff!

1,000 to save 1?

Why the absurd scenario?

Originally posted by FMF
Why isn't the least despicable thing to do to consider it stalemate until Force X can attack Force Y without killing innocents?

War is despicable by definition because normal moral standards disappear -- they cannot co-exist with war. In war, pragmatism rules.

So the only reason for Force X to hesitate attacking Force Y, including any civilians who get in the way, is if Force Y's civilians are somehow valuable to Force X.

Historically, this would occur when Force X is conquering the area and intends to stay so Force Y's workers will be needed. But today, wars of conquest are out so this reason no longer applies.

More recently, Force X wishes to win the Peace as well as the War, and therefore wishes world opinion (and most of Force Y's surviving civilians) to be favorably disposed to Force X (i.e. Nation X). This provides the motivation to be careful -- even at the risk of taking longer to win the war.

But this is very much a trade-off. If winning the War can be achieved by ignoring the issue of civilian casualties and the consequences for the Peace are minimal, Force X may well go for it.

Originally posted by FMF
Oh dear. More of sh76 type steel jowls that deepen-the-vacuum stuff!

1,000 to save 1?

Why the absurd scenario?

Because you imply that the numbers don't matter by not addressing them in the OP. OK, so it's ok to avoid that lvel of risk (1000 soldiers: 1 civilian).

What about 1:1? Or 2:1? How many soldiers is a civilian worth?

This is why I said it depends. There's no simple answer to your question.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Because you imply that the numbers don't matter by not addressing them in the OP. OK, so it's ok to avoid that lvel of risk (1000 soldiers: 1 civilian).

What about 1:1? Or 2:1? How many soldiers is a civilian worth?

This is why I said it depends. There's no simple answer to your question.

I don't see what was wrong with the 'burn down the town' vs 'hand to hand fighting option' example that I gave to flesh out the OP. At least it wasn't reductio ad absurdum.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't see what was wrong with the 'burn down the town' vs 'hand to hand fighting option' example that I gave to flesh out the OP. At least it wasn't reductio ad absurdum.

How much time have the defenders had to set traps and fortify their positions? How densely packed are the civilians? Etc.

It depends.

Originally posted by FMF
1,000 to save 1?

Why the absurd scenario?

To counter the equally absurd conditions cumulatively placed on this scenario since the OP no doubt. Since when did reason and logic feature well in the chaos that is war.

Why not suppose that when force Y submerges itself among the civilian population it abrogates the rights of those citizens and co-opts them into the armed struggle. From that point onward all Y's are part of the enemy and should be treated as such by Force X.

Its no less unfair on the citizens of Y had they as trained soldiers of Y been led into battle by inept leadership.

Originally posted by kmax87
To counter the equally absurd conditions cumulatively placed on this scenario since the OP no doubt. Since when did reason and logic feature well in the chaos that is war.

Why not suppose that when force Y submerges itself among the civilian population it abrogates the rights of those citizens and co-opts them into the armed struggle. From that point onwa ...[text shortened]... the citizens of Y had they as trained soldiers of Y been led into battle by inept leadership.

good point.

If a nation is at war, it often enacts a draft that requires its citizens to become part of the army.

The use of human shields could be viewed as a kind of ad hoc draft. In each case, you have people being brought into a fray they'd prefer not to be a part of.

So perhaps we can discuss the morality of a nation requiring citizens to serve in the military.

Originally posted by 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 o minimize the impact of the despicable acts of Force Y.

That's what it boils down to.

Look, FMF, cut the cackle. Only Hamas have done that in recent times, but no doubt you think that laudable. Shows they have 'guts'?

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
Look, FMF, cut the cackle. Only Hamas have done that in recent times, but no doubt you think that laudable. Shows they have 'guts'?

To show the world the great virtuousness of his nation, should he be the leader of one that had the indescribable joy of having to deal with the tactics of those laudable Hamasians, no doubt his heightened sense of civilized duty would see him unnecesarily sacrifice the blood of some of his land's finest fighting forces, just so that he could hold his head high and smugly swan about while he condescendingly tut tut''s all and sundry at every international leaders forum. Oh the price the young of his land would have to pay for his grossly unfettered ego.

Originally posted by FMF
Why isn't the least despicable thing to do to consider it stalemate until Force X can attack Force Y without killing innocents?

Because the attackers aren't there to "prevent civilian casualties", they're there to complete some mission objective. That's why war was initiated in the first place. Both parties came to an impasse.

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
Only Hamas have done that in recent times, but no doubt you think that laudable. Shows they have 'guts'?

No I don't think using a human shield is laudable. It is despicable, as I have said on this thread over and over again. It's also completely understandable. The issue here is whether it is the only despicable thing that happens once the tactic is resorted to. My question has always basically been: does the human shield defensive tactic effectively snooker the attacking force, morally. And the consensus here seems to be the answer 'no'. As for 'guts', they are necessary for engaging in combat.

Originally posted by FMF
No I don't think using a human shield is laudable. It is despicable, as I have said on this thread over and over again. It's also completely understandable. The issue here is whether it is the only despicable thing that happens once the tactic is resorted to. My question has always basically been: does the human shield defensive tactic effectively snooker the at ...[text shortened]... ere seems to be the answer 'no'. As for 'guts', they are necessary for engaging in combat.

I agree with an earlier poster that there is no black and white answer to that question. It greatly depends on many different factors.

For countries that are scrutinized by the world like the US, Israel and most European countries it certainly makes things more challenging. But against someone like Hamas or al-Qaeda blending into your civilian population doesn't really change a thing.

Originally posted by Beyer
Because the attackers aren't there to "prevent civilian casualties", they're there to complete some mission objective. That's why war was initiated in the first place. Both parties came to an impasse.

So, the long and short of it is - and in reality - 'killing civilians' just isn't despicable. For either side. Right?

Originally posted by FMF
So, the long and short of it is - and in reality - 'killing civilians' just isn't despicable. For either side. Right?

No. It depends on intent. Since Force X is doing its best to reduce civilian casualties (in the context of war), their course of action is applaudable. Why is this despicable to you?