War and Unarmed Civilians

[Mock Turtle]

I voted No and I think one might have problems justifying this as to any promoted morality. But then when an enemy firstly does such then it might be necessary purely from the standpoint of winning any conflict - do unto others and such - as happened in so many wars.

 

[metis]

I voted "No", but then I don't believe in the use of violence anyway.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One aims at a target. Given a broad definition of noncombatant, targeting such a group is, either,

1. an act of terrorism aimed at demoralizing and destabilizing an enemy populace, or
2. an act of hideous indifference and/or revenge.

I voted no.

 

[Onasander]

Just War Theory is largely structured around the idea of keeping civilians outside of war.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Over the years, I have noticed a consistent trend in discussions about different wars: some people justify attacks on unarmed civilians, who or may not even be in favor of the war, as long as said civilians are from the "enemy state." I usually avoid comment sections below online articles, but I read through one a few days ago and saw multiple comments hoping for attacks on Russian civilians and strictly residential areas.

The Ukraine war is not the only war in which I have seen people wish for or support such things. Many years ago, one of the first things that sparked my skepticism toward fundamentalist strains of Islam was that I saw a lot of people justify or defend 9/11 and the London bombings of 2005 by saying that civilians, even if they were unarmed or might oppose war, in enemy states automatically became valid targets, or by saying that they deserved to be attacked because the majority of voters in their country put warmongers in office. I have gotten into arguments with people over that mindset many times over the years, but it has usually been without effect on their views.

I also see the same thing regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where some people consider all Israeli civilians to be valid targets and support Hamas' attacks on them, while others justify or express apathy toward the civilian deaths that have occurred in Palestinian territories during IDF operations.

Another example is support for the Vietnam War, despite events like the cover-up of the My Lai massacre and the numerous civilian deaths throughout the war, and support for the usage of nukes against Japan even though both situations resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. Support for the war on Ukraine despite the numerous war crimes and tens of thousands of deaths also falls within this category.

In your opinion, should unarmed civilians be seen as valid targets in a war, or should it be seen as an atrocity or a war crime to carry out strikes either intentionally targeting residential areas of civilians or not minding "collateral damage" to civilians despite being aware that they will be killed? Should an unarmed civilian from a perceived "enemy state"—be it Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, the US, the UK, or otherwise—be viewed as dispensable in a war?

I think of Ukraine as a prime example.

Better armed if the enemy is the type that is just going to kill you anyways.

 

[Augustus]

Just War Theory is largely structured around the idea of keeping civilians outside of war.

Although what is commonly considered "The Good War" for modern times, WW2, unarmed civilians were very much a target in "strategic bombing" campaigns.

In total war, the argument is that they are actively or implicitly participating in the war effort.