Poll: Civilians or Soldiers?

[Xealeon]

So I was reading Catch 22 and one part of it got me thinking. The scenario is this: a bomber squadron during WWII is ordered to bomb a civilian village in order to create a road block to help keep some of their allied soldiers alive. The village is far away from the combat zone and has no strategic value other than as a potential bombing target, there are no enemy soldiers there, the chance of any of the people there dying are almost none unless the bombing goes through. However, if the village is not bombed then the enemy will receive reinforcements who will likely kill many soldiers.

So my question is this, if you had to pick between killing civilians from an opposing nation or allowing soldiers from your nation to die (for arguments sake let's say that for every civilian you kill you save 1 soldier through some bizarre series of events) which would you pick?

READ THIS PART

*EDIT* Just FYI, the top paragraph is the situation that occured in Catch 22, that is not specifically the scenario I am using, it is not necessarily taking place during WWII, the killers are not necessarily in bombers. You can apply any scenario you want, the basic idea is would you rather have civilians of an opposing nation or soldiers of your nation die.

 

[Hagi]

Neither party deserves it but the soldiers are much better equipped to handle it.

There's no child soldiers, or god forbid babies. The soldier's families know that it could happen. The soldiers themselves know it can happen.

Overall I think soldiers are more prepared for death then random civilians, especially as random civilians are likely to include children.

 

[Azaez]

I'm in the military, and to be honest i would rather the village, civilian deaths are part of war sadly, some die by accident, and others for strategic purposes such as this. If you were fighting and knew that this could save your life you would go for it, is it messed up? Yes very but it happens and can't be avoided.


Edit: And don't get all mad that this is my view claiming im some heartless ass.

 

[Jacco]

snip

Civilians should never, ever be targets of war under any circumstances.

That being said, it would come down to sheer numbers. Would the 10 or 15 civilians you kill keep you from losing the war? Even after the battle where one soldier dies to one civilian, did the enemy get in a good position to start raining down mortars on a nearby allied base? More people will die in that circumstance.

 

[No_Remainders]

snip

I'd like to refer you to this post right here...

snip

Civilians should never, ever be targets of war under any circumstances.

Yeah, pretty much that. I'd let the soldiers die in an instant. Civilians should not suffer just to save a few soldiers, because it's just not fair. They don't deserve to be part of the war, the soldiers (in all likelihood) chose to sign up for the army, and therefore knew they would be going.

 

[Brandon237]

I'm in the military, and to be honest i would rather the village, civilian deaths are part of war sadly, some die by accident, and others for strategic purposes such as this. If you were fighting and knew that this could save your life you would go for it, is it messed up? Yes very but it happens and can't be avoided.


Edit: And don't get all mad that this is my view claiming im some heartless ass.

First, not claiming you are heartless, just that your view doesn't make sense.

Soldier deaths are also part of war, but they sign up for it, or at the very least are in an age bracket that makes the chance of them having a family to look after very low. The civilians are a whole different story. They in no way volunteered for this, they do not know it is coming, families will be torn apart, the number of orphaned children and broken homes and loss of property would be horrific. Unless the soldiers were very tactically important, as in their unit was in the perfect spot to make a huge difference in the war, the civilians should, in my opinion, live.

Also, soldiers and a country's whole military, is there to protect its civilians, for soldiers to kill civilians, especially on a 1 for 1 basis, is just... illogical. To potentially kill woman and children, as well as fathers in settled homes, to protect the same number of people who signed up for this? I don't agree with that logic.

 

[blaqknoise]

The soldiers knew what could happen when signing up for the military, and they are much better equipped obviously. They are able to fight back.

Soldiers asked to be part of the war, civilians did not. Plus, if you bombed the city, you would be killing children.

 

[Jonluw]

Depends on how evil the army I'm fighting is, I guess.

I'd say civilians though, I guess. Horrible thing to do, but for the greater good.

 

[Smokej]

i served in the army and i'm pretty certain that nearly all soldiers would choose to save their own comrades over unknown civilians here

btw this kind of scenario isn't going to happen in the asynchronous warfare we have today so until a big conventional war breaks out we don't have to worry about the moral dilemma of this scenario

 

[SouthpawFencer]

I don't see how bombing a village would in any way create a remotely effective roadblock. It's difficult to answer these types of questions when the scenario is so implausible as to border on the ridiculous.

How about a much simpler one, and one that could actually happen in today's conflicts?

A Special Ops unit on its way to rescue some allied POWs - whom the enemy intends to execute in a few hours - is stumbled upon by enemy civilians. If the civilians survive, they'll give away the presence of the team, and POWs will be executed before they can be rescued. Should the team kill the civilians in order to prevent the rescue mission from failing?

 

[azzair]

I would bomb the town.
Yes, I know that it would make me seem heartless, maybe even evil. But if I were to volunteer to fight in an army, it would be because I believe in that army and the goal it wants to achieve. Being a foot-soldier, or bomber in this case, I can do nothing but trust that they know what they are doing and will only take these measures if they absolutely needed too.
Sometimes sacrifice needs to be done, no matter how big it is.
If, however, I was given this order a lot, I would probably second guess the morality of my commanders and might choose to disobey orders.

 

[madwarper]

Soldiers asked to be part of the war, civilians did not.

Read the OP. WW2 = Conscription. Not every soldier wanted to be part of the war.

OT: I'd save my comrades in arms over the supposed civilians.
If the civilians didn't want to be part of the war, they should have been smart enough to get out of Dodge.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Kill the Civilians.

A). My brohimes in the army come before people I don't know.

B). I'm in a bomber so its not as bad.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

I'd bomb the village, I'm

 

[King Toasty]

If you're in the military, you'd have to bomb it. Follow orders, or everything falls apart.

Looking at it from a moral standpoint? Don't. Civilian deaths should be avoided at most costs.

 

[Dark marauder]

Didn't this already happen I believe the US chose the civilians to die

OT: The soldiers should die they signed up to a kill or be killed situation after all

Extra: Would any of you saying the civilians should die change your mind if it was a allied village

 

[alrekr]

Well seeing as this suggests the war is a total war; you play like fascist and you play to win.

So yer, bomb the village or better yet rig the village full of explosives and detonate them once the rival force gets there.

 

[Nickolai77]

To be honest, i think the situation could have been better imagined.

Firstly i've never heard of bombing towns to form "roadblocks" in warfare. You could quite easily disrupt road communication by bombing the roads themselves- or, even better and as armies have long since done- destroy the bridges. Plus, if you level a town then why can't the enemy simply go around it rather than through it? At best you going to only delay them by a couple of hours.