Justifiable collateral killing of civilians?

[Knask]

Let's say a general in a nation at war is going home after a long day at the office. In rush hour traffic, he's crossing a bridge. Would it be justifiable to blow up the bridge, even if it would cause hundreds of civilian casualties, in order to take out this legitimate military target? What would be a proportional measure?

An army major is travelling to a meeting with some civilian politicians. He has decided to use public transportation in order to get there. Can bombing the bus / train / subway he's taking be justified?

A military drone operator has gone home after a long day, and is eating dinner with his family. He lives in a four-story building, along with three other families. Is it justifiable to blow up / bomb the entire building?

Would all of the military men be to blame for using human shields? Is it dangerous for civilians to be anywhere close to people in uniform?

What if we weren't talking about military personnel, but civilian contractors? Are such noncombatant personnel justifiable targets too, or are they to be considered as human shields? Or is there a thrird option?

I'm confused as to where the line is drawn these days. I don't have the answers myself, so I would like to be schooled by you.

[Bears Armed]

There's never been a clear line.

[Alyakia]

Let's say a general in a nation at war is going home after a long day at the office. In rush hour traffic, he's crossing a bridge. Would it be justifiable to blow up the bridge, even if it would cause hundreds of civilian casualties, in order to take out this legitimate military target? What would be a proportional measure?

An army major is travelling to a meeting with some civilian politicians. He has decided to use public transportation in order to get there. Can bombing the bus / train / subway he's taking be justified?

A military drone operator has gone home after a long day, and is eating dinner with his family. He lives in a four-story building, along with three other families. Is it justifiable to blow up / bomb the entire building?

Would all of the military men be to blame for using human shields? Is it dangerous for civilians to be anywhere close to people in uniform?

What if we weren't talking about military personnel, but civilian contractors? Are such noncombatant personnel justifiable targets too, or are they to be considered as human shields? Or is there a thrird option?

I'm confused as to where the line is drawn these days. I don't have the answers myself, so I would like to be schooled by you.

according to israel yes, yes and yes. which i assume is where you got this idea from.

[Torisakia]

If the people trying to kill the military officials are already in the nation, and assuming that they know that these military officials will be around civilians, that's a dead giveaway that they're planning to kill civilians in one way or another.

[Bears Armed]

If the people trying to kill the military officials are already in the nation, and assuming that they know that these military officials will be around civilians, that's a dead giveaway that they're planning to kill civilians in one way or another.

But are we only talking about bombs planted by people actually present "on the ground"? I was thinking more in terms of air-strikes, where some degree of 'collateral damage' has been considered acceptable [to varying extents] for decades...

[Kaztropol]

The distinction between legal military targets, and illegal civilian targets, is very blurred, and was never clear.

An aircraft factory, for example. These are staffed almost entirely by civilians. In ww2, such factories were routinely attacked.

In more recent conflicts, things like armaments factories staffed by civilians were not targets, because the war was over before production of war material was a relevant factor - a factory that builds 50 tanks a year is simply not a worthwhile target, if the country has 1000 tanks, which were all put out of action in a 4-week campaign.

In other recent conflicts, hospitals and schools are considered targets, as are farms and villages, because the civilians are considered to be directly supporting the other side, by their simple existence.

[Adab]

Well, it's a fuzzy line - never a clear one. It's always good for us to avoid collateral damage, to avoid the loss of innocent lives just because they happen to be so close to the target (if I really have to do a mission like this, I'd use a rifle or a pistol rather than a bomb or an RPG, just to make it safer for the civilians), but I guess there are times in which the circumstances just won't allow that.

[Nadkor]

Let's say a general in a nation at war is going home after a long day at the office. In rush hour traffic, he's crossing a bridge. Would it be justifiable to blow up the bridge, even if it would cause hundreds of civilian casualties, in order to take out this legitimate military target?

Probably not.

What would be a proportional measure?

Targeting him in a way that wouldn't result in hundreds of civilian casualties.

An army major is travelling to a meeting with some civilian politicians. He has decided to use public transportation in order to get there. Can bombing the bus / train / subway he's taking be justified?

Probably not.

A military drone operator has gone home after a long day, and is eating dinner with his family. He lives in a four-story building, along with three other families. Is it justifiable to blow up / bomb the entire building?

Nope.

Would all of the military men be to blame for using human shields?

If they were using human shields? Yes.

Is it dangerous for civilians to be anywhere close to people in uniform?

Probably not.

What if we weren't talking about military personnel, but civilian contractors? Are such noncombatant personnel justifiable targets too

No.

or are they to be considered as human shields? Or is there a thrird option?

Why do we need a third option? We know that, as civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities, they aren't legitimate targets at all.

I'm confused as to where the line is drawn these days. I don't have the answers myself, so I would like to be schooled by you.

The line, in law, is relatively clear. The confusion arises from the fact that many people disregard it.

[Soselo]

Killing is always wrong for everyone.

[Nadkor]

The distinction between legal military targets, and illegal civilian targets, is very blurred

No, it's not.

[Soselo]

Let's say a general in a nation at war is going home after a long day at the office. In rush hour traffic, he's crossing a bridge. Would it be justifiable to blow up the bridge, even if it would cause hundreds of civilian casualties, in order to take out this legitimate military target?

No, killing is not justifiable.

What would be a proportional measure?

There's none.

An army major is travelling to a meeting with some civilian politicians. He has decided to use public transportation in order to get there. Can bombing the bus / train / subway he's taking be justified?

No, killing anyone is not ever justifiable.

A military drone operator has gone home after a long day, and is eating dinner with his family. He lives in a four-story building, along with three other families. Is it justifiable to blow up / bomb the entire building?

No.

Would all of the military men be to blame for using human shields? Is it dangerous for civilians to be anywhere close to people in uniform?

It's dangerous for there to be people in uniform regardless of where civilians happen to be.

What if we weren't talking about military personnel, but civilian contractors? Are such noncombatant personnel justifiable targets too, or are they to be considered as human shields? Or is there a thrird option?

There's no justifiable target of any sort of killing.

I'm confused as to where the line is drawn these days. I don't have the answers myself, so I would like to be schooled by you.

You've been schooled.

[Tubbsalot]

Killing is always wrong for everyone.

I'd ask if you were a Jain, but I doubt you have such a good reason behind that black/white assertion.

I'm confused as to where the line is drawn these days. I don't have the answers myself, so I would like to be schooled by you.

Does it matter what other people think? Or is this (as Alyakia's noted) some sort of delayed commentary on Israel?

[Gauthier]

Race has a habit of being a factor.

[Allentyr]

Killing is always wrong for everyone.

That is incredibly naive.

[United States Kingdom]

Killing is always wrong for everyone.

Killing can also be used as self defense such as in the case of World War II

[United States Kingdom]

Race has a habit of being a factor.

That is true.

[Risottia]

Let's say a general in a nation at war is going home after a long day at the office. In rush hour traffic, he's crossing a bridge. Would it be justifiable to blow up the bridge, even if it would cause hundreds of civilian casualties, in order to take out this legitimate military target?

No. There are other ways of targeting the general which include a lesser risk for the nearby civilians.

An army major is travelling to a meeting with some civilian politicians. He has decided to use public transportation in order to get there. Can bombing the bus / train / subway he's taking be justified?

Same as above.

A military drone operator has gone home after a long day, and is eating dinner with his family. He lives in a four-story building, along with three other families. Is it justifiable to blow up / bomb the entire building?

Same as above.

Would all of the military men be to blame for using human shields?

Yes. But those listed above aren't human shields.

Is it dangerous for civilians to be anywhere close to people in uniform?

During a war, yes.

[Sklavinia]

Intentionally killing civilians is never justifiable. If it's an accident, that's a whole other story.

[Herskerstad]

Taking the bridge scenario, depends on the general and the nation he is representing. Would it be worth it for France to bomb the hell out of a giant hospital charity event, featuring 2000 of the most compassionate people in the world and 4000 children, if certain individuals named Eric von Manstein and Guderian happened to drop by in mid-late 1939?

I will let this picture speak for itself.

[Opplandia]

I would say in all discribed situations would a single bullet do the Job, if not then at least a few; so collateral damage would be inacceptable under these circumstances.

[Adab]

Taking the bridge scenario, depends on the general and the nation he is representing. Would it be worth it for France to bomb the hell out of a giant hospital charity event, featuring 2000 of the most compassionate people in the world and 4000 children, if certain individuals named Eric von Manstein and Guderian happened to drop by in mid-late 1939?

I will let this picture speak for itself.

(Image)

So, basically you're suggesting that France bomb the charity event anyway?

[SaintB]

Thre is no such thing as justifiable killing of noncombatants.

[United States Kingdom]

Thre is no such thing as justifiable killing of noncombatants.

So if Nazi Germany were producing airplanes in factories and the civilians were in those factories you wouldn't attack them?

[Tubbsalot]

Thre is no such thing as justifiable killing of noncombatants.

Sure there is. You can bomb Megahitler and some innocent dude, or Megahitler will kill everyone in the universe as he completes his ascension to a higher plane. Justified.

[Herskerstad]

Taking the bridge scenario, depends on the general and the nation he is representing. Would it be worth it for France to bomb the hell out of a giant hospital charity event, featuring 2000 of the most compassionate people in the world and 4000 children, if certain individuals named Eric von Manstein and Guderian happened to drop by in mid-late 1939?

I will let this picture speak for itself.

(Image)

So, basically you're suggesting that France bomb the charity event anyway?

If they are engaged in WWII and get a chance to take out the greatest theoretician the enemy has, along with the greatest field martial?

Absolutely, without those two figures the sickle movement would never have occurred, concentration of tanks would likely not have been made independent, and allied numerical superiority would likely have made for a far more successful, preventing an occupation that lead several hundreds of thousand civilians dead.

However, if we are talking about say....... Bosnia declaring war on Serbia? Of course not, the logistics of the matter would make it more than likely unfruitful to say the least. Not to mention the competence of the generals in question would likely be no-where close.

It really depends on the scope in question, the war, the nations and the target, however, say the rebels in Libya would happen to be nicest, western-progressive people rather than Islamist, would it be worth striking Gaddafi when his vehicle was climbed by children and other civilian during the earlier portions of the war? Well, short of the backlash in western media that would be inevitable and sabotage just about any administration within two miles of the paperwork that authorized such an event and otherwise destroy the war effort through debate, but on a pure, on the ground military setting? Yup, and on an overall moral setting? Even more certainly yes. As a larger amount of people would have died due to the organization he would grant, and potentially be the sole factor that would keep any semi-organized defense.