Why do we kill civilians?

[Mackmax]

Why is it that during war, it is common for the enemy to drop a bomb on buildings filled with innocent civilians. Why does this happen? The civilians have done nothing wrong, and in most cases, don't even support the war that is being fought, the government and congress do. Why not kill them instead of people who don't have or want any trouble with your country?
I understand that this is a technique used to push the opposing country into surrender, since they don't want hundreds of thousands of their citizens killed, but this is still stupid. Some countries continue fighting wars regardless of how many soldiers and citizens they have lost and will continue to lose in the process. If you want to kill someone, kill the officials who are causing you problems, but don't kill the people who are doing absolutely nothing to you.

 

[Bread]

Well, technically that's easy to do if you know exactly where and when those officials would be, but even then you would still kill a couple of civilians that could be nearby, however, putting things into perspective, at war there are no innocent people and stuff like that. Not for the military force and not for the soldiers who are risking their own lives at war, everyone is a potential threat and that plays a large role into why they're not willing to let a couple of killed civilians get in the way of it. That is what I think if the army of that certain country is non-aggressive. More aggressive countries will do it for more rabid reasons; revenge, blood and just because they can.

 

[CanisLupas]

Civilians are never a legitimate targets, but they can legitimately be collateral damage. Think of Iraq during Dessert Storm (GW1), Saddam was often filmed with children and newly weds invited into his palace to deter allied bombing. In Palestine we find mortars routinely set up in schools and near hospital for the same reason. So the question is, should an enemy be allowed to attack without recourse because they are willing to use civilians as shields?

During WW2 Europe, the Germans blitzed London and other cities with the intent of demoralizing the people (it back fired - but that's obstinate Brits for you ) - the Brits turned Dresden into glass because that's where the munitions were manufactured. Germans replied with V2 rockets that hit indiscriminately, continuing their terror campaign.

 

[Bread]

@CanisLupas, Collateral damage, seems like such a cold word. Damn, war is a horrible thing. It makes people sound like apples being tossed into pie, cause that's just the way it goes.

War isn't on the innocent people, it is for the officials. I think that if we wish to stop harming innocent civilians at wars, maybe those innocent civilians need to learn that they have to protect themselves from their own government before it escalates into war with another country. The problem really stems from when they don't want to do this or are too afraid to do it, making the death of some people, unfortunately inevitable.

 

[CanisLupas]

@CanisLupas, Collateral damage, seems like such a cold word. Damn, war is a horrible thing. It makes people sound like apples being tossed into pie, cause that's just the way it goes.

War isn't on the innocent people, it is for the officials. I think that if we wish to stop harming innocent civilians at wars, maybe those innocent civilians need to learn that they have to protect themselves from their own government before it escalates into war with another country. The problem really stems from when they don't want to do this or are too afraid to do it, making the death of some people, unfortunately inevitable.

Yeah I wasn't condoning the sentiment, just stating how they justify those civilian deaths. War is always decided by those that do not fight - at least since Elizabeth the 1st (last major royal to lead from the from - even if the Armada was sunk by Mother Nature instead ).

 

[orangesunset]

Civilians work in factories which make weapons, also civilians pay taxes which fund the war. The civilians per say are not innocent. If the civilians would refuse to work, thier military would not be able to function.

 

[CanisLupas]

Civilians work in factories which make weapons, also civilians pay taxes which fund the war. The civilians per say are not innocent. If the civilians would refuse to work, thier military would not be able to function.

Civilians will include those children and the elderly too don't forget. We all pay taxes, we cannot be considered to be complicit just because we pay taxes - we do not have direct access to where those tax dollars end up. Factories are a legitimate target, but can be hit at times of lowest casualty count - the workers are soft targets and should not be targeted - that is what makes soldiers different from terrorist - the end does NOT justify the means.

 

[RingoBerry]

Civilians are never a legitimate targets, but they can legitimately be collateral damage. Think of Iraq during Dessert Storm (GW1), Saddam was often filmed with children and newly weds invited into his palace to deter allied bombing. In Palestine we find mortars routinely set up in schools and near hospital for the same reason. So the question is, should an enemy be allowed to attack without recourse because they are willing to use civilians as shields?

Sad but true, civilians killed in a war will be labeled as nothing more than collateral damage or simply put as plain casualty. The ones actually participating in wars specially those controlling it will never call them otherwise. Understand that its not just the weapons that kill people, starvation and lack of medical attention for a simple infection kills people. So even before the conflict between opposing forces begins to fire at each other, they've already victimized hundreds of people without needing to directly harm them. Severely limiting their access to basic help and living necessities is enough to get the job done.

 

[gmckee1985]

I think there are isolated incidents where individual soldiers kill innocent civilians on purpose. Those are usually people who are dealing with mental illness like post traumatic stress disorder. For the most part though, I think America is pretty honorable in the way it defends itself and conducts war. There are always going to be civilian casualties, unfortunately. That's a sad aspect of war. Always going to happen though, no matter how careful you try and be.

 

[orangesunset]

During WW2 Europe, the Germans blitzed London and other cities with the intent of demoralizing the people (it back fired - but that's obstinate Brits for you ) - the Brits turned Dresden into glass because that's where the munitions were manufactured. Germans replied with V2 rockets that hit indiscriminately, continuing their terror campaign.

Your history is 100% incorrect. Dresden never manufactured munitions, and the bombing happened in Febuary 1945 when the war was pretty much over. The V2 rocket attacks started in September 1944, and by Febuary the Nazis never had any V2 rocket sites within range of Britain, they have been over run.

 

[orangesunset]

Civilians will include those children and the elderly too don't forget. We all pay taxes, we cannot be considered to be complicit just because we pay taxes - we do not have direct access to where those tax dollars end up. Factories are a legitimate target, but can be hit at times of lowest casualty count - the workers are soft targets and should not be targeted - that is what makes soldiers different from terrorist - the end does NOT justify the means.

So the elderly and children can not go onto the streets and protest ? It is because of this attitude that USA is now losing wars. A worker requires training and is hard to replace. During the Battle of Britain the problem wasn't a shortage of airplanes, but a shortage of pilots. I am just citing this example to show, personal can be more important then equipment.

This has always been true. Ancient armies would burn farms, kill livestock and kill farmers. Without farms the enemy can not feed itself, and they will starve to death.

Is it morally right ? Using violence to solve problems is never right.

 

[CanisLupas]

Your history is 100% incorrect. Dresden never manufactured munitions, and the bombing happened in Febuary 1945 when the war was pretty much over. The V2 rocket attacks started in September 1944, and by Febuary the Nazis never had any V2 rocket sites within range of Britain, they have been over run.

The Bombing of Dresden

Arthur Harris, head of Bomber Command, had always held the view that any city that had anything to do with the Nazi war effort was a target. A number of theories do exist as to why Dresden was chosen so late in the war.

1) The city was in Nazi Germany and for this reason was a legitimate target for attack as the Allies were at war with Nazi Germany.

2) The city was not simply a cultural centre – there were factories there producing weapons and equipment for the Nazi war effort. Therefore, the city was a legitimate target. It was also a rail base to send troops to the war front with the Russians.

3) Though the Russians were allies, Churchill and Roosevelt had already decided that Stalin would be a major problem after the end of the war. Therefore, as the Red Army advanced against an army that was effectively defeated, it had no idea as to what an equal and possibly superior military force could do. Therefore, Dresden was bombed to show the Russians the awesome power of the Allies and to act as a warning to them not to stray from the agreements they had made at the war conferences.​

V2 rockets: London was not the only, or even mostly, targeted city - Antwerp was, and well within German range! They manufactured a further 700 V2's in Spring 1945 and 1100 in Winter '44. Hitler had also ordered many more to be made and deployed (although his main interest by this point was the A4, with twice the range, which was not perfected until the Americans adopted the Nazi scientists and got it fully working in Alabama). They were certainly not "out of rockets" by that time, and still manufacturing them - targets were changing as the borders/war front did due to the relatively small range of the V2.

 

[thomas pendrake]

Part of the reason any country kills civilians of countries they are at war with is to reduce support of the civilians for the war. Sometimes it is just for hate.

Frequently the strategy backfires.

 

[CivilDefense]

It is sad commentary on the state of mankind, but the concept goes back to Total War. The civilian population keeps the society running, churns out weapons and munitions, and cares for the wounded. The "logic" is the disruption or destruction of the civilian population is carried out, the war effort will be hampered. It was the reasoning behind strategic bombing on both sides during World War II and a theoretically given in a third big one. The ethics of the concept have been debated for some time.

The topic reminds me of a quote: "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[thomas pendrake]

It is sad commentary on the state of mankind, but the concept goes back to Total War. The civilian population keeps the society running, churns out weapons and munitions, and cares for the wounded. The "logic" is the disruption or destruction of the civilian population is carried out, the war effort will be hampered. It was the reasoning behind strategic bombing on both sides during World War II and a theoretically given in a third big one. The ethics of the concept have been debated for some time.

The topic reminds me of a quote: "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you haven't read "Slaughterhouse Five", I recommend that you do. Kurt Vonnegut witnessed the fire-bombing of Dresden as a prisoner-of-war, and had to participate in the clean-up . Modern terrorists such as Al-quaeda (sp?) and ISIL try to focus on killing innocent civilians to invoke terror.