DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Unconditional Surrender & Civilian Casualites

**Gromiaaborn** · 09-02-2011, 10:35 PM

Another question has to do with the civilian population. "Limited war" is a relatively new idea. Again using WWII as a basis of comparison, both the Allies and the Axis powers relentlessly bombed civilian populations. Indeed, the only atomic weapons every used in combat was against civilian populations. Under what conditions do you think it is justified to deliberately attack civilian populations?

I think this is a very difficult question. I myself like to think of it on a micro scale first. In what circumstances can I kill a fellow civilian around me? Problem is this still doesn't give me an answer. If I am in a crowded area and am 100% sure that I will kill an innocent person if I fire back at a person that is trying to kill me am I justified in doing so?

My initial thought is that if there is a 100% chance of killing an innocent person, then it can't morally be done.

But you said justified. In the Fog of War I was surprised when McNammara said that it was immoral to drop the bombs. He said it also was immoral not to drop the bombs. So I think at times we have to weight the options, for me it would come down to a reasonable analysis of which one would cause more loss of life.

An example: these drone attacks that kill a large amount of civilians...no in my book. But then depending on the target that no could turn to a yes. Well I obviously need to think more on this.

09-02-2011, 10:35 PM	#34
Gromiaaborn Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 470 Senior Member	Another question has to do with the civilian population. "Limited war" is a relatively new idea. Again using WWII as a basis of comparison, both the Allies and the Axis powers relentlessly bombed civilian populations. Indeed, the only atomic weapons every used in combat was against civilian populations. Under what conditions do you think it is justified to deliberately attack civilian populations? I think this is a very difficult question. I myself like to think of it on a micro scale first. In what circumstances can I kill a fellow civilian around me? Problem is this still doesn't give me an answer. If I am in a crowded area and am 100% sure that I will kill an innocent person if I fire back at a person that is trying to kill me am I justified in doing so? My initial thought is that if there is a 100% chance of killing an innocent person, then it can't morally be done. But you said justified. In the Fog of War I was surprised when McNammara said that it was immoral to drop the bombs. He said it also was immoral not to drop the bombs. So I think at times we have to weight the options, for me it would come down to a reasonable analysis of which one would cause more loss of life. An example: these drone attacks that kill a large amount of civilians...no in my book. But then depending on the target that no could turn to a yes. Well I obviously need to think more on this.
	Quote