"Innocent" civilians

[didymus]

Jimmy Akin has been has been having a discussion on his blog about the use of the atomic bombs on Japan to end WW2.

That’s not what I want to discuss. Once commenter pointer that many (most?) of the civilians killed not “innocent”. They were necessarily supporting Japan’s war efforts politically and working in defense industry and thus deserved to bombed.

Qy: is it valid to define “civilian” out of existence to justify area or carpet bombing? The fire bombing of Tokyo? This basically reached its peak during WW2. The Allies couldn’t bomb factories with any accuracy but “breaking the popular will” became the goal.

Maybe the first large-scale of this principle is Sherman’s shelling of Atlanta and March to the Sea. Besides wreaking havoc on rebel infrastructure the March was a message to civlians, “Your gov’t can’t protect you, your cause is hopeless”.

Are military missions intended effect civilian morale or politcal support for the war legitimate? That seems like a slippery slope.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

While collateral damage IS a reality in war, and really cannot be avoided, I do not think it is just to say that civilians are are combatants just because they support the war effort, and maybe work in production or logistics.

 

[Phemie]

While collateral damage IS a reality in war, and really cannot be avoided, I do not think it is just to say that civilians are are combatants just because they support the war effort, and maybe work in production or logistics.

Particularly since they are being patriotic and may not have all the information they require to validly decide not to support their own country’s war efforts.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

Particularly since they are being patriotic and may not have all the information they require to validly decide not to support their own country’s war efforts.

Exactly. Citizens should not be directly punished for the choices their leaders make. They aren’t fighting the war.