Force X is attacking inferior Force Y.
Force Y mingles with Civilians Y.
What exactly is the despicableness of the human shield tactic in this military situation?
(1) Is it because Force X now has no choice but to kill innocent civilians - a despicable course of action - in order to achieve its military objectives?
(2) or is it because Force X now ought not to take the course of action which involves killing too many innocent civilians and has to take more risks with its own combatants (a despicable dilemma set up by Force Y's actions) in order to achieve its military objectives?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFInteresting question.
Force X is attacking inferior Force Y.
Force Y mingles with Civilians Y.
What exactly is the despicableness of the human shield tactic in this military situation?
(1) Is it because Force X now has no choice but to kill innocent civilians - a despicable course of action - in order to achieve its military objectives?
(2) or is it because ...[text shortened]... a despicable dilemma set up by Force Y's actions) in order to achieve its military objectives?
If any civilians are killed, then it is despicable. Period.
But in this scenario X is superior. And they, who is superior, have the obligation also to be morally superior. And that means he has the obligation to not kill any innocents. If not, they are inferior morally, despite the fact that they are military superior. Who cheers low moral? Noone.
They who are morally superior, even if they say so themselves, should solve the problem peacefully at the first place. Not by weapons, but with other means. If they succeed in this, they are both military superior - and - morally superior.
Example: I am robbed by a former friend. Do I kill him? No, because I have no low moral. I try to reason with him. If that doesn't work, and I am sure that he is the one to blame, I go to the authorities, who, by the laws, help me.
In a conflict between two countries, FN is the one they should go to, the security council.
What is the meaning of winning a war if you at the same time act like criminals?
Originally posted by BeyerI'm not sure it is so simple really. But I'll accept that you actually believe that for the sake of argument. In the cotext of this OP, do you mean "it's simple really, kill civilians or be killed"? I don't see how striking a 'balance' - deciding how many innocents will be killed, in order that soldiers' lives can be saved - can be regarded as "simple". Really.
It's simple really, kill or be killed.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 29278
Originally posted by FMFEasy - sitting in my comfy chair I can expel sounds from many places! The fact that these kinds of choices are presented to young men is the problem.
I'm not sure it is so simple really. But I'll accept that you actually believe that for the sake of argument. In the cotext of this OP, do you mean "it's simple really, kill [b]civilians or be killed"? I don't see how striking a 'balance' - deciding how many innocents will be killed, in order that soldiers' lives can be saved - can be regarded as "simple". Really.[/b]
Originally posted by FMFIt depends on whether or not ForceX faces extinction if it does not wipe ForceY as it stands.
Force X is attacking inferior Force Y.
Force Y mingles with Civilians Y.
What exactly is the despicableness of the human shield tactic in this military situation?
(1) Is it because Force X now has no choice but to kill innocent civilians - a despicable course of action - in order to achieve its military objectives?
(2) or is it because ...[text shortened]... a despicable dilemma set up by Force Y's actions) in order to achieve its military objectives?
Originally posted by TerrierJackI wasn't talking about the heat of battle. Sorry I did not make that clear. I am talking about calculated decsions by senior military commanders.
Easy - sitting in my comfy chair I can expel sounds from many places! The fact that these kinds of choices are presented to young men is the problem.
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusWell Force X does not face extinction. This was implied quite clearly by "Force X is attacking inferior Force Y" in the OP.
It depends on whether or not ForceX faces extinction if it does not wipe ForceY as it stands.
So, how about it then?
Originally posted by FMFfor the sake of argument, assume that Force X has a legitimate reason for attacking Force Y - let's say Force Y is threatening to kill a portion of X's population and subject the rest of them to slavery. And let's assume that all peaceful efforts to resolve the dispute have failed.
Force X is attacking inferior Force Y.
Force Y mingles with Civilians Y.
What exactly is the despicableness of the human shield tactic in this military situation?
(1) Is it because Force X now has no choice but to kill innocent civilians - a despicable course of action - in order to achieve its military objectives?
(2) or is it because ...[text shortened]... a despicable dilemma set up by Force Y's actions) in order to achieve its military objectives?
Does Force X's fear of killing civilians mean that it cannot now do anything to prevent it's own population from a terrible slaughter?
Originally posted by FMFif Force X's moral standards means that it is now unable to use it's force because of Force Y's tactics - then Force Y is no longer the "inferior force" - indeed, Force X now has zero force.
Well Force X does [b]not face extinction. This was implied quite clearly by "Force X is attacking inferior Force Y" in the OP.
So, how about it then?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesIf Force Y have the power, and will, to kill X's population, then they are both morally inferior and military superior. Don't change the conditions that ware given in the first posting.
for the sake of argument, assume that Force X has a legitimate reason for attacking Force Y - let's say Force Y is threatening to kill a portion of X's population and subject the rest of them to slavery. And let's assume that all peaceful efforts to resolve the dispute have failed.
Does Force X's fear of killing civilians mean that it cannot now do anything to prevent it's own population from a terrible slaughter?
Force X has never a legitimate reason to kill innocents.
Originally posted by FMFIt's because it has now needless endangered the Civilians Y. X attacking the embedded military targets may or may not be justified, depending on the circumstances; but in either case, Force Y has now endangered Civilians Y by making them part of the battle that they otherwise would not have been a part of.
Force X is attacking inferior Force Y.
Force Y mingles with Civilians Y.
What exactly is the despicableness of the human shield tactic in this military situation?
(1) Is it because Force X now has no choice but to kill innocent civilians - a despicable course of action - in order to achieve its military objectives?
(2) or is it because ...[text shortened]... a despicable dilemma set up by Force Y's actions) in order to achieve its military objectives?
Originally posted by sh76So endangering civilians is more despicable than actually killing them?
It's because it has now needless endangered the Civilians Y. X attacking the embedded military targets may or may not be justified, depending on the circumstances; but in either case, Force Y has now endangered Civilians Y by making them part of the battle that they otherwise would not have been a part of.
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasI am assuming that Force X has some legitimate reason to attack Force Y. This would mean that Force Y is threatening X in some way. So Force Y would be superior at least as long as Force X chose not to act.
If Force Y have the power, and will, to kill X's population, then they are both morally inferior and military superior. Don't change the conditions that ware given in the first posting.
Force X has never a legitimate reason to kill innocents.
If Force Y is COMPLETELY inferior, then how could they possibly be a threat? The only thing Force Y would be able to do is issue empty threats that Force X would ignore. Force Y would eventually disperse by itself without causing any damage.