How many civilian deaths are acceptable in the context of war?
None? Is it even possible for modern war to be carried out without civilian casualties? If no civilian causalities should be acceptable, then should war not be carried out by the State? Should the State just let terrorists run amok?
I know I am typing this from the safety of my home. No missiles or rockets flying overhead here. It makes me feel a little sick talking about something so serious in a rather casual setting, but this question I think needs to be discussed. This site’s members make a lot Israel threads. NBC says Israel has killed a lot of people in Lebanon in the past couple weeks. During WW2, the allies bombed the heck out of Japan and Germany. They “dehoused” them, i.e. purposefully targeted civilian neighborhoods. Are these scenarios acceptable, in your eyes?
If you view that some collateral damage is acceptable due to its inevitability, how much collateral damage is acceptable (in your view)? And would you still feel that way if it was your family killed in war as civilian casualties?
en.wikipedia.org
Military necessity, along with distinction, proportionality, humanity (sometimes called unnecessary suffering), and honor (sometimes called chivalry) are the five most commonly cited principles of international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict.
Military necessity is governed by several constraints: an attack or action must be intended to help in the defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a legitimate military objective,[17] and the harm caused to protected civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.[18]
Distinction is a principle under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, whereby belligerents must distinguish between combatants and protected civilians.[a][19]
Proportionality is a principle under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, whereby belligerents must make sure that the harm caused to protected civilians or civilian property is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected by an attack on a legitimate military objective.[18] However, as Robbie Sabel, Professor of international law at the Hebrew University, who has written on this topic, notes: “Anyone with experience in armed conflict knows that you want to hit the enemy’s forces harder than they hit you… if you are attacked with a rifle, there is no rule that stipulates that you can only shoot back with a rifle, but using a machine gun would not be fair, or that if you are attacked with only one tank you cannot shoot back with two.”[20]
Humanity is a principle based on the 1907 Hague Convention IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land restrictions against using arms, projectiles, or materials calculated to cause suffering or injury manifestly disproportionate to the military advantage realized by the use of the weapon for legitimate military purposes. In some countries, weapons are reviewed prior to their use in combat to determine if they comply with the law of war and are not designed to cause unnecessary suffering when used in their intended manner. This principle also prohibits using an otherwise lawful weapon in a manner that causes unnecessary suffering.[21]
Honour is a principle that demands a certain amount of fairness and mutual respect between adversaries. Parties to a conflict must accept that their right to adopt means of injuring each other is not unlimited, they must refrain from taking advantage of the adversary's adherence to the law by falsely claiming the law's protections, and they must recognize that they are members of a common profession that fights not out of personal hostility but on behalf of their respective States.[21]
One key aspect is that a declaration of war is required:
Section III of the Hague Convention of 1907 required hostilities to be preceded by a reasoned declaration of war or by an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war.
Some treaties, notably the United Nations Charter (1945) Article 2,[23] and other articles in the Charter, seek to curtail the right of member states to declare war; as does the older Kellogg–Briand Pact of 1928 for those nations who ratified it. See certified true copy of the text of the treaty in League of Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 94, p. 57 (No. 2137).
The Kellogg-Briand Pact and the UN Charter both prohibit aggressive war, or wars where the only objective is expansion of territory.
One irony that never really escaped notice is that the countries of the West had previously operated without any restraint at all in the aggressive expansionism of their empires and colonialist objectives, but once they reached the peak of their power, they suddenly switched gears and said "Okay, now everyone has to play nice!"
Many people still view the West's attitude on the subject as hypocritical and duplicitous. Our governments criticize and ostracize other nations for not obeying principles which our leaders do not faithfully practice themselves. This is the primary reason why the West often finds itself at odds with other nations and factions in the world today. We don't practice what we preach. While hypocrisy and double standards have become part and parcel of Western political thought and moral values, other nations of the world don't share such a peculiar and absurd viewpoint.
However, since the West has been operating from a position of strength for the past couple of centuries, we are the ones who decide what is right and wrong in the world, and it doesn't matter to us what other countries think.
So, to answer your question, "How many civilian deaths are acceptable in the context of war," the real answer is, whatever government says is acceptable. Our government and military will decide, and there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to question that or challenge it - since our government is in a position of strength.
