Collateral damage, how much is okay?

[andyandy]

In recent years we have seen an evolution in modern warfare. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, we have war waged in which one side has complete air supremacy and a vast technological armoury of drones, missiles and bombs. One of the key considerations for any military commander has to be how to minimise their own casualties, but with complete air supremacy also comes the ability to wage operations with close to zero military casualties. So, the question is how much collateral damage is acceptable, and how should it be balanced with military loss?

A hypothetical example:

there are some enemy combatants in a building in a built up area. Option one is to bomb the building. The result is 10 dead enemy combatants and 10 dead civilians. Option two is to send in ground troops. The result is 10 dead enemy combatants, one civilian casualty and one military death.

Blessed with omnisciencent foresight which option would you choose?

Would it matter if the 10 dead civilians were men, women, or children? If you chose option one, what ratio of civilian deaths would make you choose option two? 20, 50, 100, or more?

(Please can we keep the thread focused on the generalities of collateral damage rather than allowing it to descend into a political discussion on the actualities of specific military campaigns. If you want to discuss Israel/Palestine I'm sure you can find another thread to keep you happy )

and as another request can we try to avoid fighting the hypothetical? The example stands as given with any additional information stripped out. If you don't like it don't participate

[andyandy]

Just to start the poll off, I voted that the rough metric should be no more than five civilian deaths in order to save one military death. If you are waging war with someone I think that you have a responsibility to minimise civilian deaths even if that is at the expense of higher military casualties. So, what did you think?

[quixotecoyote]

Other: a sliding scale based on the circumstances of war.

If it's a mission of mercy where you're trying to be the glorious liberator bringing freedom to the oppressed masses, then no more than 5:1.

If it's a struggle for survival against an invading force bent on genocide and atrocity, then nuke 'em all and go home.

[Bluefire]

(All of this assumes that the cause for the war is just of course)

Depends :
- Is the sitation one where the civilian population is essentially hostage to an enemy regime and you free those in addition to crushing the enemy forces? Then you might bargain like this and take higher military risks at some accepted level (hard to really motivate an arbitrary number here but I guess you would be about right).

- Is the situation such that the enemy is almost wholly supported by its civilian population, such that the war is essentially against their people? Then one of my soldiers is worth more than 1000 of their civilians. This is the idea of "total war".

[TraneWreck]

I don't know how you can come up with an equation like that. I think it depends on what you're doing.

For example, I would tolerate a great deal more collateral damage in WWII than I would in Iraq because one was necessary, the other voluntary.

And everything becomes even more complex when military folks are at constant risk from the civilian base itself, as we've seen in both Vietnam and Iraq. You may not like the idea of killing civilians, but when a bunch of 19 year kids are trying to decide if the guy on the bike has a bomb strapped to him, you're going to have forgive a few mishaps (I don't mean that to sound as dismissive of civilian death as it does).

To me the issue is inseparable from the specifics surrounding the military engagement.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I voted other. I hope you'll not accuse me of fighting the hypothetical, but there are factors omitted which must be considered, chief among them the importance of victory and the number of total troops you have to expend.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

I voted other. I hope you'll not accuse me of fighting the hypothetical, but there are factors omitted which must be considered, chief among them the importance of victory and the number of total troops you have to expend.

There's been some interesting replies already, perhaps correctly pointing out that more informationis needed to answer the question fully. If people want to embellish the hypothetical (with information such as whether it is a "total" war for example), and then give their civilian collatoral ratios for that scenario, that might be a more productive vehicle for debate.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by andyandy

There's been some interesting replies already, perhaps correctly pointing out that more informationis needed to answer the question fully. If people want to embellish the hypothetical (with information such as whether it is a "total" war for example), and then give their civilian collatoral ratios for that scenario, that might be a more productive vehicle for debate.

If your goal is to kill everyone and take the land for yourself, kill all the civilians and be done with it.

If your goal is to protect and feed a civilian population from local warlords, even one civilian casualty is unacceptable.

Your target also matters. The US would like kill 100 civilians and spend 100 soldiers to kill Bin laden but would not even consider killing 10 Taliban footmen as worth one civilian life.

Everything else is in between.

[dirtywick]

I think a government's responsibility is to it's own people first. Ideally, one side should try to keep it's own losses as close to zero as possible, and limiting any other casualties of any other entity are secondary to that. If they enemy isn't seperating the combatants (or combat support) from the civilians, it's really their failure and no nation should be obligated, or even expected, to do the enemy's job for them.

What ratio? I don't know, infinite I guess. If one isn't comfortable with the ratio of enemy to civilian deaths, then one should choose a different target.

Is that a little barbaric? Probably. But then again, I wouldn't want to be picked as the guy that has to die to protect the people who are supposed to be protected by the guy I'm going to go kill. That doesn't make any sense to me.

[pipelineaudio]

I'd like to point out that complete air superiority is a massive opportunity to LESSEN collateral damage as you are firing from a position of less pressure

If you are being shot at, the likelihood of misplaced shots goes up I would think

[GreNME]

Glass Parking Lot.

Had to be said.

^{No, I don't believe that at all}

[HereticHulk]

0:0

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by andyandy

there are some enemy combatants in a building in a built up area. Option one is to bomb the building. The result is 10 dead enemy combatants and 10 dead civilians. Option two is to send in ground troops. The result is 10 dead enemy combatants, one civilian casualty and one military death.

This is where you go wrong, with the assumption that going in with ground troops causes less collateral damage. I can't imagine this is the case, in fact I'd expect an assault by ground troops to cause much more collateral damage as the troops have to fight their way to the enemy block by block, or mile by mile whatever the case may be. Now instead of putting those 10 civilians in the collateral damage zone you have perhaps thousands in the zone as the combat zone now is a corridor instead of a spot.

[theprestige]

I subscribe in principle to the doctrine of Proportionality: The force used--and therefore the magnitude of collateral damage expected--should be proportional to the overall military advantage being sought.

I.e., you don't nuke a whole city, just to take out five guys holed up in a mosque with an RPG.

On the other hand, you might very well bombard an entire neighborhood for days on end, as part of a campaign to suppress and root out a substantial insurgent force that is dug in there.

[Soapy Sam]

Well, obviously it depends:-
Are the civilians white?
American?
Protestant?
Good looking?
Known to the media?
Known to me personally?

Are they:-
Employed?
Looking for work?
Capitalist?
Communist?
Socialist but a bit pinko?

Are they:-
Wearing a suit?
Wearing a shirt?
Wearing a djellaba?
Wearing a loincloth?
Wearing out?

Do they:-
Have oil?
Have money?
Have weapons of mass destruction?

und so weiter.

[billydkid]

If I understand correctly, in modern warfare 90% is typical for the amount of collateral damage we can expect. I'm thinking that's a little on the steep side.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by andyandy

Just to start the poll off, I voted that the rough metric should be no more than five civilian deaths in order to save one military death. If you are waging war with someone I think that you have a responsibility to minimise civilian deaths even if that is at the expense of higher military casualties. So, what did you think?

If I'm one of the military casualties, I'm afraid I can't see it your way. With no offence, I believe if regular troops found out they were being sacrificed not for their country but for political appearance they would not be becoming troops.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Well, obviously it depends:-
Are the civilians white?
American?
Protestant?
Good looking?
Known to the media?
Known to me personally?

Are they:-
Employed?
Looking for work?
Capitalist?
Communist?
Socialist but a bit pinko?

Are they:-
Wearing a suit?
Wearing a shirt?
Wearing a djellaba?
Wearing a loincloth?
Wearing out?

Do they:-
Have oil?
Have money?
Have weapons of mass destruction?

und so weiter.

Only the last of those matters> If they have and are not on your side, strike hard and completely before they can. Learned that lesson when US did not take out Russian abilities before the Russians got atomics.

[cj.23]

No civilian deaths are acceptable. I know this makes me terribly outmoded in a modern society, but hey sorry, have you read the Geneva Convention? http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

cj x

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by billydkid

If I understand correctly, in modern warfare 90% is typical for the amount of collateral damage we can expect. I'm thinking that's a little on the steep side.

That's insane.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Are the civilians evil heathens, or Christian/Muslim/White/etc.?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by cj.23

No civilian deaths are acceptable. cj x

That isn't what the Geneva Convention says.

"Lord, please spare us the tedium of badly worded reductionism."

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by andyandy

Collateral damage, how much is okay?

Depends upon the political aim.

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

That isn't what the Geneva Convention says.

"Lord, please spare us the tedium of badly worded reductionism."

DR

I think my statement is correct, but i could be wrong. Here are some relevant quotes...

Originally Posted by Geneva Convention

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

I always assumed, though I could be wrong, that violence to the life and person precluded firing on civilians intentionally as unlawful? I thought that was indicated by the YS Dept of Defense definition of collateral damage -

Quote:

"Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack. (Joint Publication 3-60)"

I believe the Geneva Convention allows this as well - but doe snot render targeting of civilians acceptable. So technically, as we are being asked in the poll to calculate the ratio that is acceptable, we would be breaking international law if we did so.

If however we conducted an exercise with a view to absolutely minimizing civilian casualties, aiming for zero, but some occurred, we would not. SO technically the only legal answer for acceptable deaths in operational planning is zero?

Is this incorrect? If i am not mistaken that is how it works?

cj x

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by WildCat

This is where you go wrong, with the assumption that going in with ground troops causes less collateral damage. I can't imagine this is the case, in fact I'd expect an assault by ground troops to cause much more collateral damage as the troops have to fight their way to the enemy block by block, or mile by mile whatever the case may be. Now instead of putting those 10 civilians in the collateral damage zone you have perhaps thousands in the zone as the combat zone now is a corridor instead of a spot.

That's true if the target building happens to be in enemy territory surrounded by enemies who can and will fight you. But that's not necessarily the case. The people you want to get could be a small minority whom the rest of the populace has no interest in or even dislikes and would want you to get rid of for them. The city could be divided by local conflicts into distinct neighborhoods, where the threat level depends on the route you take. The city could be full of people who hate you but will still simply flee or hide from you instead of attacking, or would try to attack but just don't have the hardware to be a serious threat.

Originally Posted by cj.23

No civilian deaths are acceptable. I know this makes me terribly outmoded in a modern society...

You've got the chronology backward. Prioritizing the minimization of collateral damage is a relatively recent cultural movement, and more easily accepting higher amounts of collateral damage was more common the farther into the past you look. (Of course, age or youth of an idea doesn't dictate how good the idea is...)

[Arkayik]

Civilians or non-combatants?

Depends on whether I'm the military or the civilian.

What is the cost of a life?

It is an horrific question, but thanks for asking. It is something the citizen of any militarised country ought to be able to at least say they've thought about... Ideally one would say none, but show me an ideal world....

There are lots of answers, and - unfortunately - plenty of after-action reports on which to base statistical analysis. I suppose a follow up question is what can you tell about a society based on the metric they use to answer the question...

Ultimately, is there a correct answer?

Cheers,

Arkayik

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by fuelair

If I'm one of the military casualties, I'm afraid I can't see it your way. With no offence, I believe if regular troops found out they were being sacrificed not for their country but for political appearance they would not be becoming troops.

If you volunteer to be a soldier, you volunteer to die for the goals of your politician masters. Arguably more importantly you also volunteer to kill people for those goals. As a voluntary participant in the killing you're fair game in a way that civilians who have not volunteered to participate are not.

As others have said, the details are important. If you're fighting a defensive war against a morally revolting state with a total war economy, and it's not clear that you are going to win, you should take the gloves off because the consequences of loss are so serious for both populations.

If you're claiming to be there for the benefit of the invaded civilian population, as is the case in Iraq, and there is a huge asymmetry in the technology and material available, as is the case in Iraq, then the only time it would be acceptable to sacrifice even a single civilian life to keep soldiers alive would be if those soldiers could save more lives elsewhere, or if the total death toll of the invasion could be shown to be likely to be less than the death toll of not invading in the first place. In the first case you should do whatever minimises the total loss of civilian life without regard for military casualties, in the second the lives of civilians and soldiers could be treated as being equally important.

If you're just invading out of political convenience (control of oil supplies, fantasies of reshaping local geopolitics, desire to create a convenient client state or whatever) then you've got no moral basis for being there in the first place, and killing local civilians to save the lives of invading troops is just adding the the vast immorality of the action.

Generally I'm not surprised that military or ex-military think that they are more important than mere civilians, so that it's okay to kill some civilians if it suits their convenience, but it's morally revolting whether or not it is surprising.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Generally I'm not surprised that military or ex-military think that they are more important than mere civilians, so that it's okay to kill some civilians if it suits their convenience, but it's morally revolting whether or not it is surprising.

Care to give examples?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Care to give examples?

I think you need to go back and read the text at the start of my post which is indented, coloured and prefaced by the text "originally posted by Fuelair".

Then you should go back one step further and read the post Fuelair was disagreeing with, which opined that it seemed reasonable to kill five innocent civilians to keep one soldier alive, but not any more than that.

Then if you can figure out any interpretation of Fuelair's post that doesn't imply that he thinks the lives of military folks are worth more than the lives of five or more innocent civilians get back to us.

[Euromutt]

A problem with the OP is that it assumes that air power is used instead of ground troops exclusively as a "force protection" measure. In Afghanistan, however, the reliance on air power is driven to a large extent by a lack of ground troops. I.e. the field commanders might send troops to take care of the hypothetical example, if they had any available, but they don't, so they whistle up an AC-130 instead, with all-too-frequent unpleasant results.

Originally Posted by cj.23

No civilian deaths are acceptable. I know this makes me terribly outmoded in a modern society, but hey sorry, have you read the Geneva Convention?

Yeah, I remember those from infantry NCO training school, and my three years with the ICTY.

The thing is, the purpose of international humanitarian law is not to force one side to fight with one hand tied behind its back when the other side isn't sticking to the rules. It's easy to say, in the hypothetical example given in the OP, that the attacking party should do everything in its power to minimize non-combatant casualties, but by doing so, you are overlooking the fact that the enemy combatants have already failed to do their part in avoiding casualties, simply by holing up in the built-up area in the first place. In this context, I refer you to Article 28 of the Convention (IV):

Quote:

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

From my perspective, when side A fails to adequately separate its combatants from the non-combatant population, it's not side B's fault if civilians get hit when they try to nail the side A's combatants.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by cj.23

No civilian deaths are acceptable. I know this makes me terribly outmoded in a modern society, but hey sorry, have you read the Geneva Convention? http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

cj x

Doesn't say that.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Delvo

That's true if the target building happens to be in enemy territory surrounded by enemies who can and will fight you. But that's not necessarily the case.

If that's not the case then you could just send in the police with a warrant. If the military is necessary it is because your scenario is not the case.

Going in with ground forces will always put more civilians at risk than dropping a bomb on the bad guy's lair.

eta: also, by going in with ground forces you risk the target of the operation fleeing before they arrive.

[Paul W]

None

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Paul W

None

So if you were FDR in 1941 you would have immediately granted the Japanese all they asked for after Pearl Harbor? After all by going to war you guarantee at least one civilian gets killed, completely unacceptable according to you, correct?

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I think you need to go back and read the text at the start of my post which is indented, coloured and prefaced by the text "originally posted by Fuelair".

Then you should go back one step further and read the post Fuelair was disagreeing with, which opined that it seemed reasonable to kill five innocent civilians to keep one soldier alive, but not any more than that.

Then if you can figure out any interpretation of Fuelair's post that doesn't imply that he thinks the lives of military folks are worth more than the lives of five or more innocent civilians get back to us.

So I can be clear and verify that Kevin does not misunderstand me: Yes, I believe NO US soldiers should be sacrificed to protect civilians (other than US or one's required for advancing US functions/technology) if that sacrifice is by way of undersupporting the US soldier due to concern over civilian (non US) harm/death. This is not the same thing as saying we should randomly or purposfully fire on civilians and should not be taken to mean that. There is a difference.

Acting otherwise gives enemy fighters who hide among civilians a gigantic advantage - which the Geneva Conventions recognize - thus the rule against that/allowing targeting areas with civilians in that circumstance.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by andyandy

A hypothetical example:

there are some enemy combatants in a building in a built up area. Option one is to bomb the building. The result is 10 dead enemy combatants and 10 dead civilians. Option two is to send in ground troops. The result is 10 dead enemy combatants, one civilian casualty and one military death.

Blessed with omnisciencent foresight which option would you choose?

Would it matter if the 10 dead civilians were men, women, or children? If you chose option one, what ratio of civilian deaths would make you choose option two? 20, 50, 100, or more?

Are the civilians our civilians or enemy civilians?

Would that matter?

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by fuelair

Doesn't say that.

I did not say it did. Have a look a couple of posts down where i explain the problem...

cj x

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Euromutt

A problem with the OP is that it assumes that air power is used instead of ground troops exclusively as a "force protection" measure. In Afghanistan, however, the reliance on air power is driven to a large extent by a lack of ground troops. I.e. the field commanders might send troops to take care of the hypothetical example, if they had any available, but they don't, so they whistle up an AC-130 instead, with all-too-frequent unpleasant results.

Yeah, I remember those from infantry NCO training school, and my three years with the ICTY.

The thing is, the purpose of international humanitarian law is not to force one side to fight with one hand tied behind its back when the other side isn't sticking to the rules. It's easy to say, in the hypothetical example given in the OP, that the attacking party should do everything in its power to minimize non-combatant casualties, but by doing so, you are overlooking the fact that the enemy combatants have already failed to do their part in avoiding casualties, simply by holing up in the built-up area in the first place. In this context, I refer you to Article 28 of the Convention (IV):From my perspective, when side A fails to adequately separate its combatants from the non-combatant population, it's not side B's fault if civilians get hit when they try to nail the side A's combatants.

Absolutely! And the clause you mention is extremely important, because it effectively makes building military installations under schools etc illegal...

cj x

[Beerina]

how many civilian deaths are acceptable for preventing a military death?


Isn't it good to know we've built up our military so much we can be so dominant that we can afford to worry about this?



Here's how to answer the question.

1. Join the Army or Marines -- NOT Air Force or Navy
2. Ask to be sent to Afghanistan or Iraq
3. Begin considering an answer to your question

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by Beerina

how many civilian deaths are acceptable for preventing a military death?


Isn't it good to know we've built up our military so much we can be so dominant that we can afford to worry about this?



Here's how to answer the question.

1. Join the Army or Marines -- NOT Air Force or Navy
2. Ask to be sent to Afghanistan or Iraq
3. Begin considering an answer to your question

I assume in keeping with this policy you will refrain from discussing polygamy until you become a polygamist, Judaism until you become a Jew, 4Chan until you become anonymous, New Humanism until you become a New Humanist, Canada until you become a Canadian, Congress until you become a congressperson, Italian judges until you become an Italian judge, Creationism until you become a Creationist, and any other similar topics beyond the first few pages of your posting history.