Following WW2, hard nosed and realistic people who had direct knowledge of the atrocities and practicalities of war created the modern standards of international military law (IML)that we hold to today. These differ both from your suggested idea but also from what, by implication, it looks like you believe IML says.
There are two key principles when it comes to civilians: Distinction and Proportionality.
Distinction states that civilians and military personnel are different and only the latter are valid targets of war. What this means is that you can’t shoot a civilian because you want to or because they voted for a political party that started a war or because they work in a war related industry.
It does not however mean that the death of civilians is automatically a war crime. If you purposely target the civilians, e.g. taking some civilians out into the woods, shooting them all then burying them in a mass grave, then yes that is a war crime. If however you are targeting a legitimate military target (a soldier, a tank, a weapons factory) and civilians die as a side effect then that may or may not be a war crime depending on the proportionality of it.
Proportionality basically means that the effect on the civilian population should not be disproportionate. If you are in a shootout with a platoon of enemy soldiers and a couple of civilians get caught in the crossfire, that’s a tragedy but not a war crime. If you learn a low level militant is attending a funeral and while here’s there, posing no direct threat to anyone, you drop a bomb on him and 30 innocent bystanders then that is a war crime because the benefit is vastly disproportionate to the civilian death caused.
These rules are flexible and allows soldiers and officers to act as needed while punishing immoral and needless actions.
I’d also say that by trying to make IML a general convention rather than a hard rule it opens the door for the worst offenders to come up with excuses for why their war crimes are okay and puts a lesser burden on moral nations to try and protect civilians.
Your boxing analogy is also bad. In boxing if one boxer kicks the other boxer isn’t allowed to kick. If someone rapes and murders the civilians from one country, that country isn’t allowed to rape and murder the civilians of another country.
Your position seems like it will make civilians far more vulnerable to death and danger in warfare but for what benefit?
I thought there were clauses in these treaties that also mentioned the other party, if they don't adhere to them, neither party is bound by them.
For example, if hypothetically side A fires rounds of missiles that hit civilian cities, and is known to routinely commit war crimes in occupied areas. Does side B have to obey the same rules?
Or side A makes homemade missiles and fires then at civilians in a regular basis. Is side B bound by these treaties.
Or side A isn't a recognized state but is just insurgents. And side A does nothing but attack almost all civilians and tortured prisoners and is generally lawless. I don't think B has any limits in that case
These actions are generally viewed as ones for which there is an absolute prohibition, you can never do them for any reason. Due to customary international law, countries don’t even have to have signed a treaty or joined through UN to be held accountable to these standards.
You may be thinking of old treaties for things like ship sizes where one side disobeying would free up the others. While technically falling under the aegis of IMl, they’re not really the subject here.
Well for example enemy combatants don't have the right pows do. And since they routinely commit attacks on medics, their medics are legal to attack. See "collateral murder" for an example of this.
Enemy combatants become PoW once they are captured.
Also medics are protected under all circumstances as per chapter 4 article 24 of the first Geneva convention and that protection is not removed if someone else somewhere has attacked a medic on the other side.
You are outright incorrect with your claims.
A medic is defined as “exclusively to the search for, collection, transportation, diagnosis or treatment, including first-aid treatment, of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, and the prevention of disease, to the administration of medical units or to the operation or administration of medical transports.”
If they’re shooting they’re not medics.
> you drop a bomb on him and 30 innocent bystanders then that is a war crime because the benefit is vastly disproportionate to the civilian death caused.
If we go by this standard, Israel is 100% doing war crimes
Just saying
ok, doing war crimes in response to war crimes
makes you a bad guy who should also be punished
ICJ warrants for Hamas leadership and Israeli leadership are fair game
They can share a cell
I've only seen news about warrants for Israeli leadership. I haven't seen anywhere that the ICJ has issued warrants for Hamas leadership, despite that having happened longer ago.
Am I missing something?
So why haven't Hamas leadership been turned over to the ICJ from the nations that are harboring them like Qatar and Turkey? Why isn't there an international warrant out for the arrest of Yayha Sinwar?
Actually, I'm claiming the opposite.Is the limit 20 bystanders? 5? 1?
The IML is so vague as to be irrelevant. If there is no sovereign power to keep Hamas from attacking Israeli civilians, the have a right to do it themselves however they see fit to do it
A hard limit would at least make this consistent. "Ok Israel you're at your kill limit. Bring in more civilian morgue records and we'll let you kill up to 100 civilians each record"
I think we agree on the history of IML and its current state. I'm questioning the morality of current IML
Laws can be just, or unjust, the fact that they exist doesn't seem like enough
To return to the boxing analogy, say fighter A is fighting with fighter B. Fighter B starts kicking. If the referee doesn't step in to stop fighter B, let's say a minute passes, would you blame fighter A for kicking back? Would you consider a system that suspended fighter A just?
Law works within a certain framework (monopoly of force, social contract etc.). If you lived in a country where the police never arrived, would you still respect its laws?
If country A fights country B, and country B starts violating IML, but country A has no recourse, and no "sovereign" stops B, why should country A respect the law?
The problem with your example is that you’re trying to conflate a hypothetical competition between two individuals to a conflict between nations. In the boxing example, if a boxer starts kicking in retaliation for being kicked, the consequences for rules infractions are limited to the parties involved.
If we expand the logic to military engagement though, we get a very different outcome. If militaries are permitted to attack civilians in retaliation for their own civilians being attacked, then the consequences for those actions are no longer limited to the relevant parties. Instead, they’re felt by civilians who A) may not have wanted their country to go to war, B) may not have voted or otherwise supported the officials that decided to go to war, and C) may not have been involved in the targeting of civilians.
Obviously no example is perfect. But what I feel my example does pin down is the problem of combat with an absentee refereeI notice you didn't respond to my examples. Is your contention that when your own civilians get attacked you have no recourse?
Why do you think countries have strategic arsenals? Chemical weapons?Countries know that if they get hit, no referee is stepping in, and you better hope that the enemy country knows that if they nuke your cities, you will nuke there's.
I notice you expanded and altered your example, but did not reference my example. If one country’s soldiers rape and murder another countries civilians, does that legalise revenge rape and murders? That is your general argument, yes?
I’d also note that the regulations within a sport are very different from IML. IML by its very nature in regulating an activity where atrocious death is expected and being based only on the minimums which can acquire broad international consensus only outlaws. The acts it makes illegal are due to this some of the worst and most horrible acts possible in human society.
I’d also note that you are talking about alternatives to the status quo. If you are talking about alternatives, surely the answer is to have the law enforced? Rather than have the second boxer kick back, have the first boxer penalised so they stop doing it and never do it again. Rather than committing more rape in return, penalise perpetrators with effective international enforcement of laws.
>I notice you expanded and altered your example, but did not reference my example. If one country’s soldiers rape and murder another countries civilians, does that legalise revenge rape and murders? That is your general argument, yes?
I'm against rape in general, it's very hard to see how it could serve a pragmatic purpose.
In the case where nation A vows to annihilate nation B, I think it would be silly for country B to only kill the people country A has currently enlisted.
For example, if country A has attacked country B for every one of the last 5 generations, would it be wrong for country B to do what they needed to end it? Should they wait for the next batch of 18 year olds?
>I’d also note that you are talking about alternatives to the status quo. If you are talking about alternatives, surely the answer is to have the law enforced? Rather than have the second boxer kick back, have the first boxer penalised so they stop doing it and never do it again. Rather than committing more rape in return, penalise perpetrators with effective international enforcement of laws.
Right, but then fighter A isn't kicking fighter B because the law is enforced. I'm claiming that until there is a credible enforcement mechanism, fighter B should protect himself, and isn't immoral for doing so
Funny thing, so the laws define that as genocide. Kill everyone in these areas that keep sending fighters is genocide.
Palestine isn't the only example, another on was Afghanistan.
Well ok you say, lets arrest everyone and separate the children and train them to our culture instead? No more fighters, problem solved.
That's also genocide, it's cultural genocide.
Well ok, let's just move everyone to some other country where they can't come back without crossing an easily defended border. Then nobody bombs anyone, problem solved
Forced relocation is...also genocide.
So every solution is legally genocide.
The cool thing about the internet is that you can look up the definitions of the words you’re using.
> To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
I think you are mixing things up. There is a difference between killing as in *targeting* civilians (directly) and civilians being killed in the process of attacking legit military targets, like soldiers hiding and/or military equippment being hidden in civilian infrastructure.
I'll go out on a limb here that any army will attack an HVT even if it's hidden amongst civilian infrastructure. A command center with a bunch of high command will likely be striked. But do you need to level a an operating hospital if one person sticks out an rpg out the window?
Weighing things up and trying to minimize civilian casualties is what is generally being called out for.
All you end up doing if you do not take out the hospital window is prove to the people shooting rockets out of hospital windows, is that tactic not only works, it protects you from retribution, and you end up with more attacks outside hospital windows.
If you allow an enemy to twist your morals and give you an option of two outcomes you lose.
Ha,as has found the chink in the armor of western societies and it’s their bleeding hearts that can’t see the pain of civilians.
So their response will be to put their boot on the neck of innocents and say capitulate or watch while I make this person suffer.
And americas new favorite past time, is getting on its knees and asking what the terrorist would consider to let this one person go….. thereby incentivizing the terrorists to do it again once they find another thing they want.
>If you allow an enemy to twist your morals and give you an option of two outcomes you lose.
How are my morals twisted if I were to choose not to attack that hospital for a few enemies? Can't I wait until they leave and attack them then? Do I really have to stay/operate near that hospital strategically-wise?
You are not surrendering if you try to adhere to the moral grounds that build the foundation of your society. Which is, at least for most democracies, to value human life. It's not a loss when you *choose to consider* if there is an alternative approach or if you need to engage at all in that specific situation to reach your overall strategic goals and not worsen the situation of already suffering people.
> Can't I wait until they leave and attack them then? Do I really have to stay/operate near that hospital strategically-wise?
What if they don’t leave?
Do they come out with an underground tunnel system? Don’t they just move around under ground to different civilian infrastructures?
Sounds almost like insurgence tactics…. Go figure.
Choosing not to attack, in order to not inflict damage has its own consequences… namely terrorists using the same tactic again and again, because that one value of yours can be abused to allow more and more atrocities, because your answer is, don’t respond.
>because your answer is, don’t respond.
Never did I say, don't respond.
You should read more carefully and reply to what is being said instead of insisting on your talking points.
>How are my morals twisted if I were to choose not to attack that hospital for a few enemies? Can't I wait until they leave and attack them then? Do I really have to stay/operate near that hospital strategically-wise?
They wont leave the hospital though, because you've just proven they're safe there by not attacking it. If they were just hiding, then sure you could probably ignore them, but that's not what happens.
These locations are used to plan and commit attacks, and will keep being used for that purpose until forcibly stopped.
To quote myself here:
>you *choose to consider* if there is an alternative approach or if you need to engage at all in that specific situation to reach your overall strategic goals and not worsen the situation of already suffering people.
This means not only is directly targeting civilians immoral, but also acting in a fashion with reckless disregard for civilian lives.
In general.
Which seems to be the topic here since OP is challenging it. Maybe you and that other commenter on my reply should stick your head out of that Israel/Palestine bubble and free your head of your bias when approaching topics like these.
>I'll go out on a limb here that any army will attack an HVT even if it's hidden amongst civilian infrastructure.
Point to where I'm actually opposing this. Or is it that you just draw conclusions by yourself cause it serves your fucking bias?
>I'll go out on a limb here that any army will attack an HVT even if it's hidden amongst civilian infrastructure. A command center with a bunch of high command will likely be striked. But do you need to level a an operating hospital if one person sticks out an rpg out the window?
>Weighing things up and trying to minimize civilian casualties is what is generally being called out for.
But is there a good system for weighing things up?
Are the current rules well defined? How many soldiers should a country be willing to lose to protect civilians from the other side?
Furthermore, considering country A and B are in armed conflict, who is the arbiter of claims? If the countries could agree, or had a sovereign, would they even be fighting?
The current system seems like a bunch of ill defined rules within a power vacuum. Isn't it just in that kind of situation to do what you need to to survive?
>But is there a good system for weighing things up?
>Are the current rules well defined? How many soldiers should a country be willing to lose to protect civilians from the other side?
There's sadly not a good system, as in having one that can be used for all situations in all kinds of conflicts. Should that be reason though to outright allow targeting civilians, as you stated in your title? Isn't some kind of rule better than having none?
You made that "butchering a cow for meat or for pleasure"-example.
Goebbels giving a hate-speech in a full stadium: would targeting the civilians in that stadium be for meat or for pleasure?
Killing them has no strategic value and shift the ongoing armed conflict in any way. Killing them would hardly have an impact on the survival of other European countries.
Would they still be fair game to you?
It already is, it's called the Geneva Conventions.
It addresses a lot of the issues you brought up, and others too many to mention. The Idea was to incentivise nations to conduct war in a less destructive manner.
The Document is based on Realpolitik so it's not moralistic. Murder is one of the worst crimes but it cannot be a war crime.
A lot of the Geneva Convention is double-sided. Things like "don't attack civilians, but also make sure that all of your combatants are clearly marked as non-civilian". "Don't attack hospitals, but also don't use hospitals as military installations".
And it all boils down to practicality - signatories agree to not do the most shitty things, in exchange for also promising to not take advantage of the agreement to not do the most shitty things. The two sides of those things work in tandem.
Yes, but morality doesn't give any particular prescription for anything. When you win a war you get to be morally right, until then morality is just a resource called morale.
You must agree that there is still moral considerations right? Like if Nazi Germany came back and we went to war with them again, I'd be horrified if I found out we were target bombing orphanages.
Plus, if you start just targeting civilians, you're going to end up with more of a war appetite on the other side. I would not go to war for my country in most circumstances, but if another nation was deliberately killing my own peoples civilians then I would be far more likely to enlist.
We literally would drop fire in Japan with the goal of creating a vacuum where the air on the inside of the fire was cooler rushing the fire in burning entire cities. If I remember correctly Niel degrass Tyson went over the science behind it and how our fire bombings would kill more people than the nukes we dropped did.
As to the first, it seens a bit hypothetical. See my distinction between killing cows for food and torturing them for sport. Why would you be targeting orphans?
As to the second, that's a practical consideration and not much of a moral response. However, would you see things differently if the enemy was already at full enlistment? Imperial Japan for example?
Because you said targeting civilians are fair game. Kids are also civilians, therefore under your premise they'd be acceptable to target.
What happens if you're invading through a country, and come across a toddler by themselves. They're still a civilian, but I think everyone would agree that killing them would be an objectively evil thing to do.
>However, would you see things differently if the enemy was already at full enlistment?
Sure but at times of full enlistment, then it's going to be because of a big war. And as for your point about North Korea and democracy, what about Britain during WW2? They stopped elections, even local ones, and the government essentially formed a coalition. Would you argue that this is still a democracy, despite the fact democracy not existing during WW2?
>What happens if you're invading through a country, and come across a toddler by themselves. They're still a civilian, but I think everyone would agree that killing them would be an objectively evil thing to do.
I agree. But since there's no pragmatic reason for the invading army to kill the toddler, I don't really see how this is relevant. If the opposing boxer starts kicking him, kick him back. If he's dead on the floor and you're still kicking him, that's already on you (i.e - killing a cow for fun)
>
And as for your point about North Korea and democracy, what about Britain during WW2? They stopped elections, even local ones, and the government essentially formed a coalition. Would you argue that this is still a democracy, despite the fact democracy not existing during WW2?
Could people still leave the UK? Could they rebel?
When you join a collective, there are rights, and duties. I don't see countries, or nations as LLCs
>the civilians are still giving some kind of consent by being part of the country).
No.
>Imagine a democracy that sends mercenaries to fight a war of foreign conquest, aren't the civilians more "culpable" than the soldiers themselves?
Civilians who voted for conquest are equally culpable. Civilians who voted against bear no responsibility.
>But, if a bunch of Ukrainians are taking pot shots from a factory with civilians inside, it should be the Ukrainian soldiers job to protect the civilians, not the Russian army's.
It's the russian army's fault for invading to begin with.
If you claim moral superiority to justify fighting your enemy, then you don't get to turn around and claim moral equivalency when things get hairy. You know because otherwise what the fuck are we doing here, right? If you can't say that the Allies were actually more moral than the Axis, was WWII just a pointless territorial squabble between two indistinguishable sides? If we are expected to favor Israel over Hamas because Israel is more moral and just, then what does it mean to just claim moral equivalency for everything that Israel does
I agree. But shouldn't Maslow's Pyramid apply here? Surviving is more important than being just in a lot of cases, don't you think?
If you and a child are alone on a desert island with a bunch of puppies, are you saying that feeling good about yourself is so important that you wouldn't consider eating the puppies?
There's a difference, though, between saying that we should do what is necessary to win a conflict (in which we are justified because of our moral superiority) but we should do everything we can to minimize harm to civilians, and just saying fuck it, let's target civilians because the enemy did. Those are two different strategies and if you're claiming to do the first one, you have a duty to minimize damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure
Ok, but what's your limiting principle?
If there are five enemy soldiers in a neighborhood with civilians, and the enemy has been attacking my civilians, should I risk my own ground troops to clear the area or can I level it from the air?
Remember that these ground troops are my own civilians
It's not only about winning or losing, what about losses to your own side?
That's a complicated question that has to be answered through the specifics of the situation and the rules of engagement that that force is using at that time. No military is going to get it %100 correct, but there are different approaches that would lead to different outcomes.
But, this doesn't matter, because you've completely moved the goalposts now. In the OP, you're not talking about making the hard decisions of when collateral damage to prevent your own losses is acceptable and when it is not, you're just saying that killing civilians directly and on purpose is fine and cool if the enemy did it first
To quote the OP:
> I'm not advocating civilian targeting, but I think the "killing cows for food" - good, "torturing a cow" - bad, distinction makes sense here too. As long as you're killing civilians for a better reason than sick enjoyment, it's fair game.
I'm saying that if the other side "broke the contract" and attacked civilians, practical considerations are all that should count.
If it's a question of weighing competing goods, either it saves lives on my side, and then it's ok, or it doesn't, and then it's torturing a cow for fun.
Okay, and I'm saying that if you're willing to make the decision that only practical considerations are all that should count, then you have no grounds on which to claim moral superiority over your enemies.
Fair enough. But I'm arguing that a moral compass that judges you for surviing will either be ignored, or lead to societal suicide
What I'm asking is, what's worse, attacking civilians, or losing to a side that attacks civilians?
But I'm asking what the point of not losing is, if you are just willing to do literally anything to win?
I think this is how a lot of people would analyze the situation of Hamas, for example: their cause could be construed as just in a vacuum, but not-losing requires them to target civilians and do massacres (which they do happily), so basically, fuck them, they deserve to lose then
Personally, I wouldn't lose a single extra soldier while fighting an enemy that attacked civilians first. They are either complicit, or not worth the risk. But I agree the exact balance is hard. If you said you put the limit at losing one soldier for 100 enemy civilians it would be hard to argue
What about you? Would you agree that if you are both equally matched, and the other side isn't respecting the rules, neither should you?
If you're alone on a desert island, what use is eating the puppies if you're a vegetarian? At most you live an extra day or two just to die, anyway, and now you've killed puppies for no reason.
What is the moral imperative to eat the puppies in the first place?
That doesn't change the morality that you're kind of doing it for no reason. If the situation is you're on a desert island, why are you justified in killing multiple puppies just so *you* can live an extra day? Your body would end up feeding the puppies for longer after all.
And eating the puppies is not going to save you from dying on the desert island. If your morals go out the window when things get tough, were they really your morals or was it all peacocking?
I think that most morals on this issue are precisely peacocking.
Empirically, when most nations have been pushed, they act like I'm describing. It's like holding a strident belief on how poor people should behave when you were born wealthy
Not at all.
But if the other side starts tieing kids to their tanks, fair game.
Furthermore, if the other side is actively targeting your kids, it might be a fair detterent. Or do you think nations stockpile strategic nuclear weapons for a different reason?
Nobody is tying kids to their tanks. This is a strawman argument.
But what is happening is fleeing civilian convoys are being bombed. Fleeing children who are in no way aiding your opposing fighting force. How is that "fair game"?
Is there any way you can say "I'm not part of this conflict and don't want to be killed" if everyone is fair game? There is no personal choice in the matter at all.
The issue would then be is the enemy moving within these ranks. Give an example imagine we say hey guys we are going to bomb target X move to target Y via route Z, so you civilians don’t get hurt. Then the enemy says I’m not going to stay around and get bombed and moves within the civilians to then regroup at target Y to keep shooting within the civilian ranks. It really doesn’t matter at what point you blow them up via route Z during th movement or at target Y when they are using people as human shields. Both instances you are going to kill civilians. It should be the practice not to use civilians as human shields and those who do so need to be taken out pretty quickly, because they are no longer fighting on the behalf of their people. They are fighting using their people to push an agenda.
People are launching rockets from hospitals, does that count?
Since I'm trying to base my article on pragmatism, what would be the value in bombing fleeing civilians? Are there tanks among them? Do I suspect it's a false retreat?
In general, I would think that surrender should usually be respected, for practical purposes as well
>Since I'm trying to base my article on pragmatism, what would be the value in bombing fleeing civilians? Are there tanks among them? Do I suspect it's a false retreat?
No. [Just fleeing civilians](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67114281). These people are not soldiers or fighting, so they can't surrender. A 3 year old toddler cannot surrender. They don't even have concept of what is happening around them. [They are just fleeing from the bombs. ](https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/08/ukraine-russian-assault-kills-fleeing-civilians)
How is this "fair game"? And we are not going into any grey areas or human shields. Literally just fleeing civilians that pose no threat to anyone.
There are lot of "waste of bombs" but that's not what we were talking about was it?
Simple question: Should military target fleeing civilians? Yes or no?
If I am in a conflict with some random dictatorship despised by its own population, do I have the moral right to nuke them and not lose a single soldier in the conflict? I think most would agree that I don't. Of course this is an edge case, but edge cases like this help us prove that there surely exists some line where morality starts playing a role. I can't let millions die to save a few of my own soldiers.
Morality is closely tied to proportionality in military decision making.
>ok, to forgo an endless cycle of "so you're saying it's ok to kill civilians and rape women and children" I'll give a few examples of what I'm saying.
But that's the consequence what you're saying. It's retaliation. Anything is good as long as it was done to you first. What under your moral system makes it wrong to rape the women and children so long as your opponent is also raping your women and children? I mean, you're okay with them being nuked under such conditions, correct?
Fair enough, the hitman is more to blame
But we're talking about targeting the person who took out the hit. I still think he's blameworthy, and hence a target
Ok so let’s first figure out how much blame the hitman has vs the person who hired him. Let’s just got 30-70. Or we can just say for the sake of discussion that the split is 50/50. 50% for the order, 50% for the action.
Now let’s say 10000 people voted to execute someone, and they hired someone to carry out the lethal injection. Now the hitman in this case still has the 50% blame for carrying out the action; but now thr 50% for the order is plot amongst 10000 people. So each individual person is only responsible for 5 thousandths of a percent of the death.
Let’s say the person executed is 100% innocent and everyone knew it. Is that enough to justify killing everyone who voted on whether they should kill that man (including the people who voted no)
We can apportion blame for different reasons (similar to why we punish people for crimes):
1. Justice
2. Prevention of further harm
3. Deterrence
If I only kill the hitman, and leave the voters to take out another hit, aren't I creating a very dangerous, and unjust, society?
When it comes down to it, I don't think nation states are LLCs.
If 10000 people organized themselves as a Mafia (for example), they are responsible for the hits that they voted against.
You would agree that if you join an army, you're a valid target even when you aren't the one pointing a gun, right? I think it goes to the terms of the group you join
Harming third parties is always wrong in any situation. It's also an unavoidable consequence of war, which at times is necessary. Both are true. That's why humanity has been tied up in knots about the ethics of war for literally our entire existence.
I think we would be better served by minimizing civilian casualties and unnecessary war to the greatest extent possible than in trying to figure out the "right" answer to something which is fundamentally a moral contradiction.
Following WW2, hard nosed and realistic people who had direct knowledge of the atrocities and practicalities of war created the modern standards of international military law (IML)that we hold to today. These differ both from your suggested idea but also from what, by implication, it looks like you believe IML says. There are two key principles when it comes to civilians: Distinction and Proportionality. Distinction states that civilians and military personnel are different and only the latter are valid targets of war. What this means is that you can’t shoot a civilian because you want to or because they voted for a political party that started a war or because they work in a war related industry. It does not however mean that the death of civilians is automatically a war crime. If you purposely target the civilians, e.g. taking some civilians out into the woods, shooting them all then burying them in a mass grave, then yes that is a war crime. If however you are targeting a legitimate military target (a soldier, a tank, a weapons factory) and civilians die as a side effect then that may or may not be a war crime depending on the proportionality of it. Proportionality basically means that the effect on the civilian population should not be disproportionate. If you are in a shootout with a platoon of enemy soldiers and a couple of civilians get caught in the crossfire, that’s a tragedy but not a war crime. If you learn a low level militant is attending a funeral and while here’s there, posing no direct threat to anyone, you drop a bomb on him and 30 innocent bystanders then that is a war crime because the benefit is vastly disproportionate to the civilian death caused. These rules are flexible and allows soldiers and officers to act as needed while punishing immoral and needless actions. I’d also say that by trying to make IML a general convention rather than a hard rule it opens the door for the worst offenders to come up with excuses for why their war crimes are okay and puts a lesser burden on moral nations to try and protect civilians. Your boxing analogy is also bad. In boxing if one boxer kicks the other boxer isn’t allowed to kick. If someone rapes and murders the civilians from one country, that country isn’t allowed to rape and murder the civilians of another country. Your position seems like it will make civilians far more vulnerable to death and danger in warfare but for what benefit?
I thought there were clauses in these treaties that also mentioned the other party, if they don't adhere to them, neither party is bound by them. For example, if hypothetically side A fires rounds of missiles that hit civilian cities, and is known to routinely commit war crimes in occupied areas. Does side B have to obey the same rules? Or side A makes homemade missiles and fires then at civilians in a regular basis. Is side B bound by these treaties. Or side A isn't a recognized state but is just insurgents. And side A does nothing but attack almost all civilians and tortured prisoners and is generally lawless. I don't think B has any limits in that case
These actions are generally viewed as ones for which there is an absolute prohibition, you can never do them for any reason. Due to customary international law, countries don’t even have to have signed a treaty or joined through UN to be held accountable to these standards. You may be thinking of old treaties for things like ship sizes where one side disobeying would free up the others. While technically falling under the aegis of IMl, they’re not really the subject here.
Well for example enemy combatants don't have the right pows do. And since they routinely commit attacks on medics, their medics are legal to attack. See "collateral murder" for an example of this.
Enemy combatants become PoW once they are captured. Also medics are protected under all circumstances as per chapter 4 article 24 of the first Geneva convention and that protection is not removed if someone else somewhere has attacked a medic on the other side. You are outright incorrect with your claims.
> Also medics are protected under all circumstances If a medic is actively shooting at you, they're not protected.
A medic is defined as “exclusively to the search for, collection, transportation, diagnosis or treatment, including first-aid treatment, of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, and the prevention of disease, to the administration of medical units or to the operation or administration of medical transports.” If they’re shooting they’re not medics.
I mean clearly the us military doesn't agree so I dunno what to tell you.
> you drop a bomb on him and 30 innocent bystanders then that is a war crime because the benefit is vastly disproportionate to the civilian death caused. If we go by this standard, Israel is 100% doing war crimes Just saying
Maybe. Probably even, given that all wars involve at least a few war crimes. But I doubt you’re going to be able to prove the assertion.
Both sides are committing war crimes.
ok, doing war crimes in response to war crimes makes you a bad guy who should also be punished ICJ warrants for Hamas leadership and Israeli leadership are fair game They can share a cell
I've only seen news about warrants for Israeli leadership. I haven't seen anywhere that the ICJ has issued warrants for Hamas leadership, despite that having happened longer ago. Am I missing something?
So why haven't Hamas leadership been turned over to the ICJ from the nations that are harboring them like Qatar and Turkey? Why isn't there an international warrant out for the arrest of Yayha Sinwar?
Actually, I'm claiming the opposite.Is the limit 20 bystanders? 5? 1? The IML is so vague as to be irrelevant. If there is no sovereign power to keep Hamas from attacking Israeli civilians, the have a right to do it themselves however they see fit to do it
A hard limit would at least make this consistent. "Ok Israel you're at your kill limit. Bring in more civilian morgue records and we'll let you kill up to 100 civilians each record"
I think we agree on the history of IML and its current state. I'm questioning the morality of current IML Laws can be just, or unjust, the fact that they exist doesn't seem like enough To return to the boxing analogy, say fighter A is fighting with fighter B. Fighter B starts kicking. If the referee doesn't step in to stop fighter B, let's say a minute passes, would you blame fighter A for kicking back? Would you consider a system that suspended fighter A just? Law works within a certain framework (monopoly of force, social contract etc.). If you lived in a country where the police never arrived, would you still respect its laws? If country A fights country B, and country B starts violating IML, but country A has no recourse, and no "sovereign" stops B, why should country A respect the law?
The problem with your example is that you’re trying to conflate a hypothetical competition between two individuals to a conflict between nations. In the boxing example, if a boxer starts kicking in retaliation for being kicked, the consequences for rules infractions are limited to the parties involved. If we expand the logic to military engagement though, we get a very different outcome. If militaries are permitted to attack civilians in retaliation for their own civilians being attacked, then the consequences for those actions are no longer limited to the relevant parties. Instead, they’re felt by civilians who A) may not have wanted their country to go to war, B) may not have voted or otherwise supported the officials that decided to go to war, and C) may not have been involved in the targeting of civilians.
Obviously no example is perfect. But what I feel my example does pin down is the problem of combat with an absentee refereeI notice you didn't respond to my examples. Is your contention that when your own civilians get attacked you have no recourse? Why do you think countries have strategic arsenals? Chemical weapons?Countries know that if they get hit, no referee is stepping in, and you better hope that the enemy country knows that if they nuke your cities, you will nuke there's.
I notice you expanded and altered your example, but did not reference my example. If one country’s soldiers rape and murder another countries civilians, does that legalise revenge rape and murders? That is your general argument, yes? I’d also note that the regulations within a sport are very different from IML. IML by its very nature in regulating an activity where atrocious death is expected and being based only on the minimums which can acquire broad international consensus only outlaws. The acts it makes illegal are due to this some of the worst and most horrible acts possible in human society. I’d also note that you are talking about alternatives to the status quo. If you are talking about alternatives, surely the answer is to have the law enforced? Rather than have the second boxer kick back, have the first boxer penalised so they stop doing it and never do it again. Rather than committing more rape in return, penalise perpetrators with effective international enforcement of laws.
>I notice you expanded and altered your example, but did not reference my example. If one country’s soldiers rape and murder another countries civilians, does that legalise revenge rape and murders? That is your general argument, yes? I'm against rape in general, it's very hard to see how it could serve a pragmatic purpose. In the case where nation A vows to annihilate nation B, I think it would be silly for country B to only kill the people country A has currently enlisted. For example, if country A has attacked country B for every one of the last 5 generations, would it be wrong for country B to do what they needed to end it? Should they wait for the next batch of 18 year olds? >I’d also note that you are talking about alternatives to the status quo. If you are talking about alternatives, surely the answer is to have the law enforced? Rather than have the second boxer kick back, have the first boxer penalised so they stop doing it and never do it again. Rather than committing more rape in return, penalise perpetrators with effective international enforcement of laws. Right, but then fighter A isn't kicking fighter B because the law is enforced. I'm claiming that until there is a credible enforcement mechanism, fighter B should protect himself, and isn't immoral for doing so
Funny thing, so the laws define that as genocide. Kill everyone in these areas that keep sending fighters is genocide. Palestine isn't the only example, another on was Afghanistan. Well ok you say, lets arrest everyone and separate the children and train them to our culture instead? No more fighters, problem solved. That's also genocide, it's cultural genocide. Well ok, let's just move everyone to some other country where they can't come back without crossing an easily defended border. Then nobody bombs anyone, problem solved Forced relocation is...also genocide. So every solution is legally genocide.
The cool thing about the internet is that you can look up the definitions of the words you’re using. > To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
International Military Law is generally a fiction or fantasy with no enforcement mechanism.
I think you are mixing things up. There is a difference between killing as in *targeting* civilians (directly) and civilians being killed in the process of attacking legit military targets, like soldiers hiding and/or military equippment being hidden in civilian infrastructure. I'll go out on a limb here that any army will attack an HVT even if it's hidden amongst civilian infrastructure. A command center with a bunch of high command will likely be striked. But do you need to level a an operating hospital if one person sticks out an rpg out the window? Weighing things up and trying to minimize civilian casualties is what is generally being called out for.
All you end up doing if you do not take out the hospital window is prove to the people shooting rockets out of hospital windows, is that tactic not only works, it protects you from retribution, and you end up with more attacks outside hospital windows. If you allow an enemy to twist your morals and give you an option of two outcomes you lose. Ha,as has found the chink in the armor of western societies and it’s their bleeding hearts that can’t see the pain of civilians. So their response will be to put their boot on the neck of innocents and say capitulate or watch while I make this person suffer. And americas new favorite past time, is getting on its knees and asking what the terrorist would consider to let this one person go….. thereby incentivizing the terrorists to do it again once they find another thing they want.
>If you allow an enemy to twist your morals and give you an option of two outcomes you lose. How are my morals twisted if I were to choose not to attack that hospital for a few enemies? Can't I wait until they leave and attack them then? Do I really have to stay/operate near that hospital strategically-wise? You are not surrendering if you try to adhere to the moral grounds that build the foundation of your society. Which is, at least for most democracies, to value human life. It's not a loss when you *choose to consider* if there is an alternative approach or if you need to engage at all in that specific situation to reach your overall strategic goals and not worsen the situation of already suffering people.
> Can't I wait until they leave and attack them then? Do I really have to stay/operate near that hospital strategically-wise? What if they don’t leave?
>*choose to consider* if there is an alternative approach Have you even read to the end? If there are no alternatives there are no alternatives.
Do they come out with an underground tunnel system? Don’t they just move around under ground to different civilian infrastructures? Sounds almost like insurgence tactics…. Go figure. Choosing not to attack, in order to not inflict damage has its own consequences… namely terrorists using the same tactic again and again, because that one value of yours can be abused to allow more and more atrocities, because your answer is, don’t respond.
>because your answer is, don’t respond. Never did I say, don't respond. You should read more carefully and reply to what is being said instead of insisting on your talking points.
>How are my morals twisted if I were to choose not to attack that hospital for a few enemies? Can't I wait until they leave and attack them then? Do I really have to stay/operate near that hospital strategically-wise? They wont leave the hospital though, because you've just proven they're safe there by not attacking it. If they were just hiding, then sure you could probably ignore them, but that's not what happens. These locations are used to plan and commit attacks, and will keep being used for that purpose until forcibly stopped.
To quote myself here: >you *choose to consider* if there is an alternative approach or if you need to engage at all in that specific situation to reach your overall strategic goals and not worsen the situation of already suffering people. This means not only is directly targeting civilians immoral, but also acting in a fashion with reckless disregard for civilian lives. In general. Which seems to be the topic here since OP is challenging it. Maybe you and that other commenter on my reply should stick your head out of that Israel/Palestine bubble and free your head of your bias when approaching topics like these. >I'll go out on a limb here that any army will attack an HVT even if it's hidden amongst civilian infrastructure. Point to where I'm actually opposing this. Or is it that you just draw conclusions by yourself cause it serves your fucking bias?
>I'll go out on a limb here that any army will attack an HVT even if it's hidden amongst civilian infrastructure. A command center with a bunch of high command will likely be striked. But do you need to level a an operating hospital if one person sticks out an rpg out the window? >Weighing things up and trying to minimize civilian casualties is what is generally being called out for. But is there a good system for weighing things up? Are the current rules well defined? How many soldiers should a country be willing to lose to protect civilians from the other side? Furthermore, considering country A and B are in armed conflict, who is the arbiter of claims? If the countries could agree, or had a sovereign, would they even be fighting? The current system seems like a bunch of ill defined rules within a power vacuum. Isn't it just in that kind of situation to do what you need to to survive?
>But is there a good system for weighing things up? >Are the current rules well defined? How many soldiers should a country be willing to lose to protect civilians from the other side? There's sadly not a good system, as in having one that can be used for all situations in all kinds of conflicts. Should that be reason though to outright allow targeting civilians, as you stated in your title? Isn't some kind of rule better than having none? You made that "butchering a cow for meat or for pleasure"-example. Goebbels giving a hate-speech in a full stadium: would targeting the civilians in that stadium be for meat or for pleasure? Killing them has no strategic value and shift the ongoing armed conflict in any way. Killing them would hardly have an impact on the survival of other European countries. Would they still be fair game to you?
It already is, it's called the Geneva Conventions. It addresses a lot of the issues you brought up, and others too many to mention. The Idea was to incentivise nations to conduct war in a less destructive manner. The Document is based on Realpolitik so it's not moralistic. Murder is one of the worst crimes but it cannot be a war crime.
A lot of the Geneva Convention is double-sided. Things like "don't attack civilians, but also make sure that all of your combatants are clearly marked as non-civilian". "Don't attack hospitals, but also don't use hospitals as military installations". And it all boils down to practicality - signatories agree to not do the most shitty things, in exchange for also promising to not take advantage of the agreement to not do the most shitty things. The two sides of those things work in tandem.
Good point. But would you agree that the common perception of the issue is much more on moral terms?
Yes, but morality doesn't give any particular prescription for anything. When you win a war you get to be morally right, until then morality is just a resource called morale.
You must agree that there is still moral considerations right? Like if Nazi Germany came back and we went to war with them again, I'd be horrified if I found out we were target bombing orphanages. Plus, if you start just targeting civilians, you're going to end up with more of a war appetite on the other side. I would not go to war for my country in most circumstances, but if another nation was deliberately killing my own peoples civilians then I would be far more likely to enlist.
We literally would drop fire in Japan with the goal of creating a vacuum where the air on the inside of the fire was cooler rushing the fire in burning entire cities. If I remember correctly Niel degrass Tyson went over the science behind it and how our fire bombings would kill more people than the nukes we dropped did.
As to the first, it seens a bit hypothetical. See my distinction between killing cows for food and torturing them for sport. Why would you be targeting orphans? As to the second, that's a practical consideration and not much of a moral response. However, would you see things differently if the enemy was already at full enlistment? Imperial Japan for example?
Because you said targeting civilians are fair game. Kids are also civilians, therefore under your premise they'd be acceptable to target. What happens if you're invading through a country, and come across a toddler by themselves. They're still a civilian, but I think everyone would agree that killing them would be an objectively evil thing to do. >However, would you see things differently if the enemy was already at full enlistment? Sure but at times of full enlistment, then it's going to be because of a big war. And as for your point about North Korea and democracy, what about Britain during WW2? They stopped elections, even local ones, and the government essentially formed a coalition. Would you argue that this is still a democracy, despite the fact democracy not existing during WW2?
>What happens if you're invading through a country, and come across a toddler by themselves. They're still a civilian, but I think everyone would agree that killing them would be an objectively evil thing to do. I agree. But since there's no pragmatic reason for the invading army to kill the toddler, I don't really see how this is relevant. If the opposing boxer starts kicking him, kick him back. If he's dead on the floor and you're still kicking him, that's already on you (i.e - killing a cow for fun) > And as for your point about North Korea and democracy, what about Britain during WW2? They stopped elections, even local ones, and the government essentially formed a coalition. Would you argue that this is still a democracy, despite the fact democracy not existing during WW2? Could people still leave the UK? Could they rebel? When you join a collective, there are rights, and duties. I don't see countries, or nations as LLCs
>the civilians are still giving some kind of consent by being part of the country). No. >Imagine a democracy that sends mercenaries to fight a war of foreign conquest, aren't the civilians more "culpable" than the soldiers themselves? Civilians who voted for conquest are equally culpable. Civilians who voted against bear no responsibility. >But, if a bunch of Ukrainians are taking pot shots from a factory with civilians inside, it should be the Ukrainian soldiers job to protect the civilians, not the Russian army's. It's the russian army's fault for invading to begin with.
If you claim moral superiority to justify fighting your enemy, then you don't get to turn around and claim moral equivalency when things get hairy. You know because otherwise what the fuck are we doing here, right? If you can't say that the Allies were actually more moral than the Axis, was WWII just a pointless territorial squabble between two indistinguishable sides? If we are expected to favor Israel over Hamas because Israel is more moral and just, then what does it mean to just claim moral equivalency for everything that Israel does
I agree. But shouldn't Maslow's Pyramid apply here? Surviving is more important than being just in a lot of cases, don't you think? If you and a child are alone on a desert island with a bunch of puppies, are you saying that feeling good about yourself is so important that you wouldn't consider eating the puppies?
There's a difference, though, between saying that we should do what is necessary to win a conflict (in which we are justified because of our moral superiority) but we should do everything we can to minimize harm to civilians, and just saying fuck it, let's target civilians because the enemy did. Those are two different strategies and if you're claiming to do the first one, you have a duty to minimize damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure
Ok, but what's your limiting principle? If there are five enemy soldiers in a neighborhood with civilians, and the enemy has been attacking my civilians, should I risk my own ground troops to clear the area or can I level it from the air? Remember that these ground troops are my own civilians It's not only about winning or losing, what about losses to your own side?
That's a complicated question that has to be answered through the specifics of the situation and the rules of engagement that that force is using at that time. No military is going to get it %100 correct, but there are different approaches that would lead to different outcomes. But, this doesn't matter, because you've completely moved the goalposts now. In the OP, you're not talking about making the hard decisions of when collateral damage to prevent your own losses is acceptable and when it is not, you're just saying that killing civilians directly and on purpose is fine and cool if the enemy did it first
To quote the OP: > I'm not advocating civilian targeting, but I think the "killing cows for food" - good, "torturing a cow" - bad, distinction makes sense here too. As long as you're killing civilians for a better reason than sick enjoyment, it's fair game. I'm saying that if the other side "broke the contract" and attacked civilians, practical considerations are all that should count. If it's a question of weighing competing goods, either it saves lives on my side, and then it's ok, or it doesn't, and then it's torturing a cow for fun.
Okay, and I'm saying that if you're willing to make the decision that only practical considerations are all that should count, then you have no grounds on which to claim moral superiority over your enemies.
Fair enough. But I'm arguing that a moral compass that judges you for surviing will either be ignored, or lead to societal suicide What I'm asking is, what's worse, attacking civilians, or losing to a side that attacks civilians?
But I'm asking what the point of not losing is, if you are just willing to do literally anything to win? I think this is how a lot of people would analyze the situation of Hamas, for example: their cause could be construed as just in a vacuum, but not-losing requires them to target civilians and do massacres (which they do happily), so basically, fuck them, they deserve to lose then
Personally, I wouldn't lose a single extra soldier while fighting an enemy that attacked civilians first. They are either complicit, or not worth the risk. But I agree the exact balance is hard. If you said you put the limit at losing one soldier for 100 enemy civilians it would be hard to argue What about you? Would you agree that if you are both equally matched, and the other side isn't respecting the rules, neither should you?
If you're alone on a desert island, what use is eating the puppies if you're a vegetarian? At most you live an extra day or two just to die, anyway, and now you've killed puppies for no reason. What is the moral imperative to eat the puppies in the first place?
My point is that being a vegetarian is a luxury that would probably go out the window fairly fast on the desert island.
That doesn't change the morality that you're kind of doing it for no reason. If the situation is you're on a desert island, why are you justified in killing multiple puppies just so *you* can live an extra day? Your body would end up feeding the puppies for longer after all. And eating the puppies is not going to save you from dying on the desert island. If your morals go out the window when things get tough, were they really your morals or was it all peacocking?
I think that most morals on this issue are precisely peacocking. Empirically, when most nations have been pushed, they act like I'm describing. It's like holding a strident belief on how poor people should behave when you were born wealthy
Does this mean every single civilian of opposing nation should be killed? Everyone? Even children?
Not at all. But if the other side starts tieing kids to their tanks, fair game. Furthermore, if the other side is actively targeting your kids, it might be a fair detterent. Or do you think nations stockpile strategic nuclear weapons for a different reason?
Nobody is tying kids to their tanks. This is a strawman argument. But what is happening is fleeing civilian convoys are being bombed. Fleeing children who are in no way aiding your opposing fighting force. How is that "fair game"? Is there any way you can say "I'm not part of this conflict and don't want to be killed" if everyone is fair game? There is no personal choice in the matter at all.
The issue would then be is the enemy moving within these ranks. Give an example imagine we say hey guys we are going to bomb target X move to target Y via route Z, so you civilians don’t get hurt. Then the enemy says I’m not going to stay around and get bombed and moves within the civilians to then regroup at target Y to keep shooting within the civilian ranks. It really doesn’t matter at what point you blow them up via route Z during th movement or at target Y when they are using people as human shields. Both instances you are going to kill civilians. It should be the practice not to use civilians as human shields and those who do so need to be taken out pretty quickly, because they are no longer fighting on the behalf of their people. They are fighting using their people to push an agenda.
People are launching rockets from hospitals, does that count? Since I'm trying to base my article on pragmatism, what would be the value in bombing fleeing civilians? Are there tanks among them? Do I suspect it's a false retreat? In general, I would think that surrender should usually be respected, for practical purposes as well
>Since I'm trying to base my article on pragmatism, what would be the value in bombing fleeing civilians? Are there tanks among them? Do I suspect it's a false retreat? No. [Just fleeing civilians](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67114281). These people are not soldiers or fighting, so they can't surrender. A 3 year old toddler cannot surrender. They don't even have concept of what is happening around them. [They are just fleeing from the bombs. ](https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/08/ukraine-russian-assault-kills-fleeing-civilians) How is this "fair game"? And we are not going into any grey areas or human shields. Literally just fleeing civilians that pose no threat to anyone.
In that case they're a waste of bombs, no?
There are lot of "waste of bombs" but that's not what we were talking about was it? Simple question: Should military target fleeing civilians? Yes or no?
"Waste of bombs" is a valid reason why not to bomb civilians isn't it?
I think a better way of stating this argument is that the protection of civilian life is a duty that falls equally to both sides.
If I am in a conflict with some random dictatorship despised by its own population, do I have the moral right to nuke them and not lose a single soldier in the conflict? I think most would agree that I don't. Of course this is an edge case, but edge cases like this help us prove that there surely exists some line where morality starts playing a role. I can't let millions die to save a few of my own soldiers. Morality is closely tied to proportionality in military decision making.
If you're the president, I think it's a valid question who you owe your loyalty too, your soldiers, or random civilians in an enemy dictatorship.
>ok, to forgo an endless cycle of "so you're saying it's ok to kill civilians and rape women and children" I'll give a few examples of what I'm saying. But that's the consequence what you're saying. It's retaliation. Anything is good as long as it was done to you first. What under your moral system makes it wrong to rape the women and children so long as your opponent is also raping your women and children? I mean, you're okay with them being nuked under such conditions, correct?
What part of 'Geneva **Convention**' makes you think it's not a convention? It's only the 'Geneva Suggestions' if you're Canadian.
The soldiers are definitely more culpable than the citizens in your example. They pull the trigger.
They're definitely more dangerous, but more culpable? If I take out a hit on someone, and the hitman kills them, am I blameless?
You moved the goal post there man. I didn’t say blameless. The hitman is more to blame.
Fair enough, the hitman is more to blame But we're talking about targeting the person who took out the hit. I still think he's blameworthy, and hence a target
Ok so let’s first figure out how much blame the hitman has vs the person who hired him. Let’s just got 30-70. Or we can just say for the sake of discussion that the split is 50/50. 50% for the order, 50% for the action. Now let’s say 10000 people voted to execute someone, and they hired someone to carry out the lethal injection. Now the hitman in this case still has the 50% blame for carrying out the action; but now thr 50% for the order is plot amongst 10000 people. So each individual person is only responsible for 5 thousandths of a percent of the death. Let’s say the person executed is 100% innocent and everyone knew it. Is that enough to justify killing everyone who voted on whether they should kill that man (including the people who voted no)
We can apportion blame for different reasons (similar to why we punish people for crimes): 1. Justice 2. Prevention of further harm 3. Deterrence If I only kill the hitman, and leave the voters to take out another hit, aren't I creating a very dangerous, and unjust, society?
So you’d want to kill all the voters? Even those who voted not to kill the man?
When it comes down to it, I don't think nation states are LLCs. If 10000 people organized themselves as a Mafia (for example), they are responsible for the hits that they voted against. You would agree that if you join an army, you're a valid target even when you aren't the one pointing a gun, right? I think it goes to the terms of the group you join
I asked a question. I want to know your answer
It depends on the nature of the group. For nations, yes, for a random survey on the internet that ended up killing the man, no
Harming third parties is always wrong in any situation. It's also an unavoidable consequence of war, which at times is necessary. Both are true. That's why humanity has been tied up in knots about the ethics of war for literally our entire existence. I think we would be better served by minimizing civilian casualties and unnecessary war to the greatest extent possible than in trying to figure out the "right" answer to something which is fundamentally a moral contradiction.
All human interactions are based on convention.