Current Events > Ethical dilemma: you are a general in charge of fighting and ending a war.

(+) Yeah! (+)

My gut reaction is to spare all the civilians, but is it ethical to let more of your men die knowing they will die? Are soldier lives inherently disposable?

Interesting thought experiment.

What prompted this thread btw is the atomic bombings of Japan. Some people claim the nukes saved tons of american lives, but my concern was about the civilians. Some people argue that conventional warfare would've saved way more civilian lives. But tons of American soldiers would've died at the same time.

So I was wondering how people would resolve this dilemma.

Without context, I really couldn't say. Soldiers that enlist typically at least know they signed up to potentially get killed, at least.

your soldiers are also civilians of your own country, and as a general you've got a mandate not to waste their lives. honestly though you've likely fucked up hard if your choice is either to sacrifice 500 extra soldiers or murder 500 random civilians.

monkmith posted...

your soldiers are also civilians of your own country

gonna be a pedant before everyone else jumps on it: soldiers are not civilians, by definition. I'd bet you probably meant citizen though.

My men signed up for this war, those civilians didn't(Not in a literal 'They wanted this war to happen' sense).

If the cause is just, and I consider protecting the lives of civilians to be so, then I think I'd be willing to make that decision.

Not that it would be easy. Their lives still have value.

Can't really answer without more context on how these casualties occur

monkmith posted...

your soldiers are also civilians of your own country, and as a general you've got a mandate not to waste their lives. honestly though you've likely fucked up hard if your choice is either to sacrifice 500 extra soldiers or murder 500 random civilians.

"Civilian" specifically means not a member of the armed forces. They might be CITIZENS of the country but by no definition are they civilians.

The premise of this scenario is a bit messed up though. Civilian lives should be protected against targeted strikes regardless if they are "on the side of the enemy" or not. Some exceptions might be made if they are working at legitimate targets, such as manufacturing plants for munitions and weapons.

Otherwise it is inherently unethical and immoral (and counter to international law) to just target innocent populations.

So without further context it is more ethical to lose the 1500 soldiers than to target any civilians without any sort of justifiable cause.

Also in the long-term makes relations between the two sides more amenable. Countries tend to hold grudges when you just kill their citizens for no reason

What prompted this thread btw is the atomic bombings of Japan. Some people claim the nukes saved tons of american lives, but my concern was about the civilians. Some people argue that conventional warfare would've saved way more civilian lives. But tons of American soldiers would've died at the same time.

So I was wondering how people would resolve this dilemma.

Once peace occurs, no civilians killed would be better for relations to recover.

Jagus posted...

What prompted this thread btw is the atomic bombings of Japan. Some people claim the nukes saved tons of american lives, but my concern was about the civilians. Some people argue that conventional warfare would've saved way more civilian lives. But tons of American soldiers would've died at the same time.

So I was wondering how people would resolve this dilemma.

I think the use of nukes in general is going to be an automatic "No" for a lot of people.

You'll set the atmosphere on fire Frank!

Under what time frame will this conflict be concluded?

What territory shall be ceded or gained?

What form of government shall the defeated aggressor adopt?

Shall that aggressor government and its officers/officials face justice for war crimes?

Etc etc etc

There are no winners here. Only losers.

The best thing to do is to prevent the war from starting.

I think the 0 civilians dead option is the more ethical option, and I would like to think that is what I would take, but without being in that situation I can't say for sure what I would do.

Also, this is assuming no additional variables which could affect the situation.

rick_alverado posted...

Also, this is assuming no additional variables which could affect the situation.

There are always variables.

Eg. Britain could have made peace with the Nazis after the fall of France.

Wouldn't have lost our own territory and saved much blood and treasure on our part, still a shit idea though.

This simplistic shit is, as always, for simpletons.

Ouch,
Mussurana posted...

There are always variables.

Eg. Britain could have made peace with the Nazis after the fall of France.

Wouldn't have lost our own territory and saved much blood and treasure on our part, still a shit idea though.

This simplistic shit is, as always, for simpletons.

Ouch. I just wanted to have an interesting discussion.

Jagus posted...

Ouch,

Ouch. I just wanted to have an interesting discussion.

Sorry, it wasn't personal.

But these things are never so clear cut, it's always messy with a thousand competing interests and variables.

Mussurana posted...

Eg. Britain could have made peace with the Nazis after the fall of France.

Wouldn't have lost our own territory and saved much blood and treasure on our part, still a shit idea though.

Neville Chamberlain?

I thought you died in 1940.

>.>

I know this is a thought experiment regarding WWII, but even recently, I've seen Israelis use the same logic to justify horrific acts.

Soldiers know that death is a real possibility. Civilians ought to be spared in pretty much any context.

hitokoriX posted...

I know this is a thought experiment regarding WWII, but even recently, I've seen Israelis use the same logic to justify horrific acts.

Soldiers know that death is a real possibility. Civilians ought to be spared in pretty much any context.

True. Does soldiers being drafted change that calculus in your opinion?

Jagus posted...

What prompted this thread btw is the atomic bombings of Japan. Some people claim the nukes saved tons of american lives, but my concern was about the civilians. Some people argue that conventional warfare would've saved way more civilian lives. But tons of American soldiers would've died at the same time.

So I was wondering how people would resolve this dilemma.

I've never seen that argument made. E.g., an invasion of Japan would have killed far more Japanese civilians than died in the atomic bomb attacks. 10x for sure, with an "upside" to 100x or more if the resistance was fanatical.

The lives of soldiers are inherently less valuable than those of civilians in wartime. They signed up to be exposed to harm and the civilians did not.

Jagus posted...

What prompted this thread btw is the atomic bombings of Japan. Some people claim the nukes saved tons of american lives, but my concern was about the civilians. Some people argue that conventional warfare would've saved way more civilian lives. But tons of American soldiers would've died at the same time.

So I was wondering how people would resolve this dilemma.

This does not apply to the end of WWII. The US had a complete naval blockade of Japan and could have just indefinitely starved them out. Japan had no tools to break it. They were holding out hope for the USSR to negotiate their surrender instead of the US and they surrendered almost immediately after the USSR declared war.

Jagus posted...

Some people argue that conventional warfare would've saved way more civilian lives.

no, i have never heard that argument.
one can argue whether the nukes were necessary or not, but it's pretty obvious that conventional warfare in the same sense as the march on Berlin would have been a slow grind that inevitably would kill way more people, including civilians

Garioshi posted...

The lives of soldiers are inherently less valuable than those of civilians in wartime. They signed up to be exposed to harm and the civilians did not.

Such a dumb argument

EpicMickeyDrew posted...

Such a dumb argument

It is literally their job to kill and be killed.

Garioshi posted...

It is literally their job to kill and be killed.

Is that you Donald?

Option A cut and dry to me. Us or them is the priority distinction, not civilian or soldier.

So you guys think the atom bombs led to fewer civilian deaths? Sorry if I misunderstood something, just delving into this topic for the first time.

im trying to see if the us had options that would have led to fewer civilian deaths than the atom bomb. Then Im trying to figure out the American soldier death toll of either option. Then Im trying to calculate what was most ethical. I dont know how to weight things though. Were WWII American soldiers drafted?

any help would be cool

As a general for your country you have a duty to your own country.

Garioshi posted...

This does not apply to the end of WWII. The US had a complete naval blockade of Japan and could have just indefinitely starved them out. Japan had no tools to break it. They were holding out hope for the USSR to negotiate their surrender instead of the US and they surrendered almost immediately after the USSR declared war. Let's say that this wasn't true: Nuclear weapons can't do anything that conventional bombing can't eventually achieve, and conventional bombing can actually be strategically targeted unlike nuclear weapons. Let's say that this isn't true and revealing the existence of a nuclear weapon was absolutely necessary to end the war: You don't have to use it to disintegrate hundreds of thousands of civilians. You can just demonstrate it to the Japanese leadership in neutral and uninhabited territory. You could also drop it over some uninhabited area in Japan where the extent of the destructive capabilities will still be extremely evident. Let's say THAT isn't true and you absolutely need to nuke a city: You don't need to nuke two. You simply cannot be well-informed on the topic and argue for Hiroshima and Nagasaki in good faith.

How do you contend with the fact that at least 90,000 (probably many more) were killed and one million displaced by conventional bombings in Tokyo on 10 March?

The numbers are comparable to the number killed directly in Nagasaki and lower estimates of those killed in Hiroshima.

I'm not trying to say that the use of atomic weapons was justified, but it was comparable in effect to other attacks at the time, just much more efficient when you compare amount of forces required to use them.

Just don't see a lot of talk about the destruction of Tokyo when people talk about the atomic weapons.

Also all war is fucked up, just putting it out there.

Jagus posted...

So you guys think the atom bombs led to fewer civilian deaths? Sorry if I misunderstood something, just delving into this topic for the first time.

if the options are nukes or full scale invasion march on Tokyo, then yes.
well, i guess it depends, do they still count as civilians if they've been force drafted to hold a sharp stick?

Jagus posted...

So you guys think the atom bombs led to fewer civilian deaths? Sorry if I misunderstood something, just delving into this topic for the first time.

im trying to see if the us had options that would have led to fewer civilian deaths than the atom bomb. Then Im trying to figure out the American soldier death toll of either option. Then Im trying to calculate what was most ethical. I dont know how to weight things though. Were WWII American soldiers drafted?

any help would be cool

About 2/3 of the US military in WW2 had been drafted.

The thing with alternatives and options is that we don't know how they would have played out. It's possible Japan would have surrendered before casualties got so high. The fact that they trained kids to be kamikaze pilots indicates that maybe they wouldn't have.

I agree that a demonstration of the atomic bomb in a neutral area or used exclusively against military forces would have been more ethical in forcing Japan to consider its position in the war.

From what I've heard that might not have been as effective though as the Japanese government didn't even believe the atomic bomb was a thing immediately after it was used. So if the US did use it, say on a squadron of ships, the reports about the destruction might not have carried the same weight.

Idk there are a lot of "what ifs" at play

At first glance, I'd say the one with no civilians dead because the soldiers knew the risks when they signed up.

If its drafted however, hoo boy thats a thinker.

I'd aim to have as few civilian casualties as possible, so option B.

Realistically, it wouldn't be an even trade like that though. It would more likely come down to some kind of scorched earth plan that doesn't put your soldiers at risk at all (like dropping a nuke), or a more direct attack that causes less civilian causalities, but means you're soldiers have to be on the front lines and risk death.

Garioshi posted...

It is literally their job to kill and be killed.

What if they were conscripted?

Hexenherz posted...

How do you contend with the fact that at least 90,000 (probably many more) were killed and one million displaced by conventional bombings in Tokyo on 10 March?

The numbers are comparable to the number killed directly in Nagasaki and lower estimates of those killed in Hiroshima.

You can still murder civilians with conventional bombings and those bombings are still atrocities and a waste of munitions that could be better spent on military targets. I'm not saying that 0 is the only acceptable amount of dead civilians, but a move that primarily kills civilians is unacceptable.

Jagus posted...

So you guys think the atom bombs led to fewer civilian deaths? Sorry if I misunderstood something, just delving into this topic for the first time.

im trying to see if the us had options that would have led to fewer civilian deaths than the atom bomb. Then Im trying to figure out the American soldier death toll of either option. Then Im trying to calculate what was most ethical. I dont know how to weight things though. Were WWII American soldiers drafted?

any help would be cool

No one can be entirely certain in these matters.

In direct answer to one of your questions, yes US servicemen were drafted.

As others have noted, conventional bombing had already exacted a higher death toll than the atomic bombs did without prompting unconditional surrender.

The high level of resistance to the Okinawa invasion might also be considered, including the mass suicide of some of the civilian population on the instructions of the Japanese government.

Perhaps an earlier agreement might have been possible, but if it had left the same military imperialists in charge, what would truly have changed?

Not to say the decisions made were necessarily the best, but there were reasons for them.

EpicMickeyDrew posted...

What if they were conscripted?

I'm still choosing conscripts over civilians, sorry. They're still soldiers who have presumably been combat-trained.

Garioshi posted...

You can still murder civilians with conventional bombings and those bombings are still atrocities and a waste of munitions that could be better spent on military targets. I'm not saying that 0 is the only acceptable amount of dead civilians, but a move that primarily kills civilians is unacceptable.

It's worth noting that all of the major powers in WWII made attacks on civilian targets that would be seen as indiscriminate today.

Garioshi posted...

I'm still choosing conscripts over civilians, sorry. They're still soldiers who have presumably been combat-trained.

Whats your point here? A conscript is a civilian who didnt get any say in becoming a soldier. Or just because someone has had combat training their lives are worth less?

Also youre not choosing between 500 soldiers and civilians, youre choosing between 500 of your own men vs 500 of the enemy.

Garioshi posted...

I'm still choosing conscripts over civilians, sorry. They're still soldiers who have presumably been combat-trained.

Yes like those professionally trained and equipped Russian conscripts in Ukraine.

Note: Fuck Russia and fuck Putin. But its an example of what happens when you just force people off the street and throw them into a Battlefield with "training".

Theres definitely an argument to be made for either option, but if Im being put in the shoes of a General, then ethically my duty is to the soldiers under my command, so the option that results in less fatalities to my troops is the ethical choice

Sephirothe posted...

Theres definitely an argument to be made for either option, but if Im being put in the shoes of a General, then ethically my duty is to the soldiers under my command, so the option that results in less fatalities to my troops is the ethical choice

How do you decide that is your *ethical* duty? There are many facets of ethics. And stating that your sole responsibility is to keeping your own troops alive is an example of blind loyalty without consideration for longer term consequences to the political and diplomatic ramifications between the two sides and within your own country.

I care more about my people than unknowns, so I'm taking as few losses as possible.

using WWII as an example, iirc, many soldiers were conscripted. so, imagine being forced to fight on top of your commander giving up your life for someone on the other side.

couldn't be me.

@Umbreon posted...

My men signed up for this war, those civilians didn't(Not in a literal 'They wanted this war to happen' sense).

Lets say its WW2, you have 500 men who have signed up to fight the nazis, you have 500 civilians who have voted, supported and are in the nazi party. Who are you killing?

Garioshi posted...

This does not apply to the end of WWII. The US had a complete naval blockade of Japan and could have just indefinitely starved them out. Japan had no tools to break it. They were holding out hope for the USSR to negotiate their surrender instead of the US and they surrendered almost immediately after the USSR declared war. Let's say that this wasn't true: Nuclear weapons can't do anything that conventional bombing can't eventually achieve, and conventional bombing can actually be strategically targeted unlike nuclear weapons. Let's say that this isn't true and revealing the existence of a nuclear weapon was absolutely necessary to end the war: You don't have to use it to disintegrate hundreds of thousands of civilians. You can just demonstrate it to the Japanese leadership in neutral and uninhabited territory. You could also drop it over some uninhabited area in Japan where the extent of the destructive capabilities will still be extremely evident. Let's say THAT isn't true and you absolutely need to nuke a city: You don't need to nuke two. You simply cannot be well-informed on the topic and argue for Hiroshima and Nagasaki in good faith.

What happens to the civilians in the territories Japan holds during this, exactly? There's a rather important part of the conversation being missed

EpicMickeyDrew posted...

@

Lets say its WW2, you have 500 men who have signed up to fight the nazis, you have 500 civilians who have voted, supported and are in the nazi party. Who are you killing?

How do you know all those civilians voted for the Nazis or freely support the Nazis? Actual membership was like 10% of the German population of the time. And there are going to be people who are going to "support the party" if only it means survival for themselves and their families. I don't think most Germans even knew of the atrocities being committed by their government in their name.

Fuck Nazis, sure, but this kind of reasoning feels like why there's so much dehumanization of Palestinians in the modern conflicts, because people can't separate normal ass innocent people from the actions of state/quasi-state actors committing wrong.

Hexenherz posted...

How do you know all those civilians voted for the Nazis or freely support the Nazis? Actual membership was like 10% of the German population of the time. And there are going to be people who are going to "support the party" if only it means survival for themselves and their families. I don't think most Germans even knew of the atrocities being committed by their government in their name.

Fuck Nazis, sure, but this kind of reasoning feels like why there's so much dehumanization of Palestinians in the modern conflicts, because people can't separate normal ass innocent people from the actions of state/quasi-state actors committing wrong.

Ok 500 people who actively signed up to fight the nazis vs 500 people who were at the very least complacent

EPR-radar posted...

It's worth noting that all of the major powers in WWII made attacks on civilian targets that would be seen as indiscriminate today.

And?