PDA

View Full Version : Human Shields



OrnotBitwise
08-03-2006, 04:10 PM
Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz, the chief of staff of the Israeli military, apologized for the deaths.

However, he added that the attack occurred because Hezbollah uses "civilians as human shields and intentionally operates from within civilian villages and infrastructure" to launch rocket attacks on Israeli targets.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/08/03/israel-qana.html

Implicit in Israel's response to Hezbollah -- and explicit in our own government's stated policies -- is the notion that it's "unacceptable" to allow the presence of innocent civilians around an (alleged) terrorist position to prevent military attack on that position. What I don't understand is why it's unacceptable. Who says? Where is it written?

In my area, all police departments have now virtually ended the practice of pursuing criminals who flee in cars at high speed. This is because too many innocent bystanders were injured or killed in crashes resulting from these high speed chases. The benefit -- increased chance of apprehending felons quickly -- was found to be not worth the cost.

I submit that we ought to consider the possibility that the same principle applies here. Yeah, it's infuriating to the soldiers to not be able to launch their most destructive weaponry from a distance. That may, however, be the only sane policy.

IHateGovernment
08-03-2006, 04:26 PM
I have in the past suggested it should be against international law and considered a war crime to drop aerial munitions or fire artillery upon populated areas with a certain population density.

Dropping bombs in the middle of a city block is barbarous.

What Israel should do instead is primarily use ground units to destroy Hezbollahs rocket launchers.

OrnotBitwise
08-03-2006, 04:39 PM
I have in the past suggested it should be against international law and considered a war crime to drop aerial munitions or fire artillery upon populated areas with a certain population density.

Dropping bombs in the middle of a city block is barbarous.

What Israel should do instead is primarily use ground units to destroy Hezbollahs rocket launchers.
I agree. We should adhere to the same policy too.

The argument against that, of course, is that it increases our -- or Israel's -- likelyhood of taking casualties. My position is that this insufficiently persuasive. As you say, the alternative is just too appalling.

OrnotBitwise
08-03-2006, 05:30 PM
As an illustration of this point, I offer this image:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0608/popup.beirut/content.1.html

maineman
08-03-2006, 05:42 PM
people in glass houses should not throw stones.

take a look at before and after photographs of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden.

We have no standing on this subject to lecture Israel about dropping bombs on population centers.

OrnotBitwise
08-03-2006, 05:55 PM
people in glass houses should not throw stones.

take a look at before and after photographs of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden.

We have no standing on this subject to lecture Israel about dropping bombs on population centers.
But we're not the only ones doing the lecturing and we have some practical leverage with them that others may not have. Like threatening to destroy their economy but cutting off aid.

Besides, I'm more concerned about our policies than theirs.

maineman
08-03-2006, 07:42 PM
you think that Israel is committing crimes against humanity by attacking Beirut neighborhoods known to house Hezbollah headquarters? Why was Truman never brought to the Hague after dropping two nukes on japanese population centers?

IHateGovernment
08-04-2006, 08:30 AM
Maine, world opinion as far as aerial bombing was not as condemning in those time. Since then the world has matured a bit more and now sees such things as wrong. Are you suggesting that because something was excused 60 years ago it should be now as well?

Damocles
08-04-2006, 08:54 AM
Maine, world opinion as far as aerial bombing was not as condemning in those time. Since then the world has matured a bit more and now sees such things as wrong. Are you suggesting that because something was excused 60 years ago it should be now as well?
I think the world would have condemned it equally back then if their technology was up to it. We now have the ability to drop a bomb into a 2 ft square hole and blow up a building... People expect there to be less civilian casualties because of this. Had our technology been like that of WWII there was no direction for bombs but gravity and when we gave permission to go to war we would know this.

It is the level of expectation that has been raised, not the world's social values.

Cypress
08-04-2006, 09:03 AM
I think the world would have condemned it equally back then if their technology was up to it. We now have the ability to drop a bomb into a 2 ft square hole and blow up a building... People expect there to be less civilian casualties because of this. Had our technology been like that of WWII there was no direction for bombs but gravity and when we gave permission to go to war we would know this.

It is the level of expectation that has been raised, not the world's social values.

It wasn't lack of technology, that caused the allies to bomb this shit out of german and japanese cities. Wholesale destruction WAS the goal. Even if they had smart weapons, the startegy would still have been to wreak mass destruction

The calculation was made, that Japan and Germany couldn't be brought to their knees and forced to an unconditional surrender, without making those countries feel so much pain, that an unconditional surrender was preferable to outright destruction.

Damocles
08-04-2006, 09:06 AM
It wasn't lack of technology, that caused the allies to bomb this shit out of german and japanese cities. Wholesale destruction WAS the goal. Even if they had smart weapons, the startegy would still have been to wreak mass destruction

The calculation was made, that Japan and Germany couldn't be brought to their knees and forced to an unconditional surrender, without making those countries feel so much pain, that an unconditional surrender was preferable to outright destruction.
Once again, it was technology though. The Germans were doing the same. Had we the technology to only blow up what we wished there would have been an entirely different view of how to wage war from the very beginning.

This idea that the human psyche has grown up so much is ridiculous as we watch Darfur and other places, yet those people would complain if the US killed civilians... It is the expectation that has risen, not the human social mind.

Cypress
08-04-2006, 09:08 AM
Once again, it was technology though. The Germans were doing the same. Had we the technology to only blow up what we wished there would have been an entirely different view of how to wage war from the very beginning.

This idea that the human psyche has grown up so much is ridiculous as we watch Darfur and other places, yet those people would complain if the US killed civilians... It is the expectation that has risen, not the human social mind.

What I'm saying, is that if you had given FDR and Churchill smart bombs, they still would have wreaked mass destruction on germany and japan.

Mass destruction was the calulated goal, to bring the war to a rapid and unconditional surrender - by wreaking so much pain on those countries they wouldn't even think about conditionally surrendering.

Damocles
08-04-2006, 09:11 AM
What I'm saying, is that if you had given FDR and Churchill smart bombs, they still would have wreaked mass destruction on germany and japan.

Mass destruction was the calulated goal, to bring the war to a rapid and unconditional surrender - by wreaking so much pain on those countries they wouldn't even think about conditionally surrendering.
I don't think they would have because the view of the war would have been different from the beginning. You compare their vision of the war based on the technology of the time.

They would have attacked superstructure and supplies thus wreaking far more damage psychologically as they were unable to feed and clothe their own population... No power, etc. Instead they had to work with what they had and drop bombs in the hopes that they would hit the target. It was expected that there would be unavoidable casualties, and at the end it was directly what they hoped to happen, they wanted the will of the people to be destroyed...

However with the different view they would have had from the beginning with the better technology you can only guess at what they would think, but I would bet it would be much like today.

Cypress
08-04-2006, 09:15 AM
I don't think they would have because the view of the war would have been different from the beginning. You compare their vision of the war based on the technology of the time.

They would have attacked superstructure and supplies thus wreaking far more damage psychologically as they were unable to feed and clothe their own population... No power, etc. Instead they had to work with what they had and drop bombs in the hopes that they would hit the target. It was expected that there would be unavoidable casualties, and at the end it was directly what they hoped to happen, they wanted the will of the people to be destroyed...

However with the different view they would have had from the beginning with the better technology you can only guess at what they would think, but I would bet it would be much like today.

simply destryoing a countries infrastructure is not neccessarily enough, to cause them so much pain that they will gladly do anything to surrender unconditionally and submit to an occupation to re-make their country.

North Vietnam: we dropped more bombs on them between 1965-72 than were dropped on germany during all of worldwar 2

Damocles
08-04-2006, 09:21 AM
simply destryoing a countries infrastructure is not neccessarily enough, to cause them so much pain that they will gladly do anything to surrender unconditionally and submit to an occupation to re-make their country.

North Vietnam: we dropped more bombs on them between 1965-72 than were dropped on germany during all of worldwar 2
Regardless, it would be the different view of tactics that would insure that this would be the way they would go... The expectations of the populace would be to see the least civilian casualties because they would know that it was possible.

To say that such would have had no impact on their thoughts and plans is disingenuous.

Islamists, right now, expect unconditional surrender, they will do what it takes, instead of just bombing them to submission (we could) we have carefully fought only those we know to be islamists by the way they attack us...

I'm telling you, having the technology changes the thought processes of the Military and especially the Political Leadership. That because of that change the war would have been fought entirely differently than it was had they had that technology.

OrnotBitwise
08-04-2006, 09:27 AM
you think that Israel is committing crimes against humanity by attacking Beirut neighborhoods known to house Hezbollah headquarters? Why was Truman never brought to the Hague after dropping two nukes on japanese population centers?
There are many who thought he should have been. WWII saw a general upsurge in attacks on civilian targets -- in the name of crippling the enemy's infrastructure and "ability to wage war" of course. The decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan was the final escalation of that trend. You will note that the world reacted with horror to those acts and the like has never been done again.

There is, however, one important distinction between those acts and Israel's. We were at war with Japan. Israel is, by their own claim, not at war with Lebanon.

OrnotBitwise
08-04-2006, 09:29 AM
simply destryoing a countries infrastructure is not neccessarily enough, to cause them so much pain that they will gladly do anything to surrender unconditionally and submit to an occupation to re-make their country.

North Vietnam: we dropped more bombs on them between 1965-72 than were dropped on germany during all of worldwar 2
The experiences of WWII and Vietnam have caused many military planners to abandon the doctrine of strategic bombing. The fact is that it doesn't work very well. That wasn't so apparent in WWII, however.

Cypress
08-04-2006, 09:42 AM
The experiences of WWII and Vietnam have caused many military planners to abandon the doctrine of strategic bombing. The fact is that it doesn't work very well. That wasn't so apparent in WWII, however.

depends on the goals ornot.

The US goal in vietnam wasn't to invade the north, subjugate it, and re-make it.

IN world war 2 that was the goal - because FDR and churchill knew they had to make germany and japan unconditionally submit, so that that last vestiges of naziism and imperialims could be exterminated and those countries remade

IHateGovernment
08-04-2006, 10:00 AM
It is both factors frankly. To support one and deny another is blind. The social conscious does change over time. If you don't agree look at how the world community views capital punishment. Obviously it wasn't totally do to technology available. Societies tend to become more liberal as time goes on this is inevitable.

Also technology does play a part in peoples expectations because having the technology to destroy enemy infrastructure without mass killing has lended credibility to the sentiment against the killing of civilians.

These factors depend upon each other but it isn't soley for either reason.