Poll: Civilians or Soldiers?
- Thread starter Xealeon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If the enemy has to go through the village, then they're in the combat zone. They will be marched through eventually by one side or the other, and therefore they should get out. Top that off with the fact that I'm ordered to do it, so on the moral factor I'm really only a tool used by the higher-ups, and therefore have little actual responsibility in the action*. I bomb the civilians, hoping my actions end up saving lives on my side, and thereby saving the lives of our own civilians.
*That is why following orders is so important in the first place; soldiers are ordered to do some horrible things for the good of their country and the war effort. By giving the soldiers an actual choice, you thrust responsibility on them for committing those actions. By making following orders compulsory to the point of ridiculousness, the blame for the order goes up the chain of command to the officer ordering it. This doesn't always work, and any decent person will still feel guilty, but they didn't make the decision themselves, and if the higher-ups thing it saves lives in the long run, then it's worth it. Even if it's not, since you can put the blame on those giving the orders, it spares the soldier from becoming even more traumatized than they might become anyway.
*That is why following orders is so important in the first place; soldiers are ordered to do some horrible things for the good of their country and the war effort. By giving the soldiers an actual choice, you thrust responsibility on them for committing those actions. By making following orders compulsory to the point of ridiculousness, the blame for the order goes up the chain of command to the officer ordering it. This doesn't always work, and any decent person will still feel guilty, but they didn't make the decision themselves, and if the higher-ups thing it saves lives in the long run, then it's worth it. Even if it's not, since you can put the blame on those giving the orders, it spares the soldier from becoming even more traumatized than they might become anyway.
Why not make a more realistic post concerning the past of our world, take the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example.
Lets pretend you have only one choice here, drop the atom bombs, which will kill thousand upon thousands of civilians, reduce the surrounding area in dangerous territory for years to come to save some Soldier lives or keep on attacking those, who you basically bullied into joining the war and attacking you in the first place, just to satisfy your hunger for war.
So anyway back to the question at hand, if that were the only options I would weight the "usefullness" of the soldiers agaisnt the civilians, sorry if that sounds harsh, but seeing how people honestly would kill innocents, whose only fault was to life there, to save some sorry assholes, who will probably die the next day anyway, than I see something seriously wrong here.
If those soldiers aren't crucial to the war or won't be able to end the war without much more bloodshed than go ahead, let them die. They came into this war and they made a mistake, thus they need to flee, let them go down in a heros death, but as soon as you trade a civilian life for just one soldier life you are walking a slippery slope.
Because who says this will breaks anyones moral..you know what will happen, retaliation, if you start to kill civilians than say good bye to all your POW's, because they will be executed as well as sparking new breath into those who you unjustified attacked.
Lets pretend you have only one choice here, drop the atom bombs, which will kill thousand upon thousands of civilians, reduce the surrounding area in dangerous territory for years to come to save some Soldier lives or keep on attacking those, who you basically bullied into joining the war and attacking you in the first place, just to satisfy your hunger for war.
So anyway back to the question at hand, if that were the only options I would weight the "usefullness" of the soldiers agaisnt the civilians, sorry if that sounds harsh, but seeing how people honestly would kill innocents, whose only fault was to life there, to save some sorry assholes, who will probably die the next day anyway, than I see something seriously wrong here.
If those soldiers aren't crucial to the war or won't be able to end the war without much more bloodshed than go ahead, let them die. They came into this war and they made a mistake, thus they need to flee, let them go down in a heros death, but as soon as you trade a civilian life for just one soldier life you are walking a slippery slope.
Because who says this will breaks anyones moral..you know what will happen, retaliation, if you start to kill civilians than say good bye to all your POW's, because they will be executed as well as sparking new breath into those who you unjustified attacked.
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,170
- 143
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
While I agree with your overall conclusion, you have evidently never known a young child properly if you really believe they aren't sentient.H31neken said:
OT: I would definitely let the soldiers die , it would be a heart-breaking choice but my most important held moral belief is the protection of innocent people, especially children, so there's no way I could justify killing them unless there was a huge upside that would certainly lead to many more lives being saved. Since that isn't the case here, I couldn't do that.
Okay, this isn't a simple question, so I'm going to go through it step by step.
Firstly, it is a war, and as the bomber, I probably believe in what we are fighting for. Secondly, as soldiers, they can probably save more lives by living then the lives I would save by not bombing the village. Thirdly, unless the precedent has already been set, bombing civilians sets a terrible example that the opposition may then follow, and the purpose of the army is to protect the civilians of the nation. Fourthly, our soldiers signed up for the war, and their civilians did not, but the soldiers signed up to defend their own home and nation, not the enemy's.
I think that the third is probably a bit out there, and the fourth puts equal points in each corner, so the first and second would make me, as the bomber, blow up the village. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'm presupposing a somewhat good cause for the war, so it is a 'for the greater good' moment.
As for whether I could emotionally deal with having killed so many civilians? That'd be my burden I suppose.
Firstly, it is a war, and as the bomber, I probably believe in what we are fighting for. Secondly, as soldiers, they can probably save more lives by living then the lives I would save by not bombing the village. Thirdly, unless the precedent has already been set, bombing civilians sets a terrible example that the opposition may then follow, and the purpose of the army is to protect the civilians of the nation. Fourthly, our soldiers signed up for the war, and their civilians did not, but the soldiers signed up to defend their own home and nation, not the enemy's.
I think that the third is probably a bit out there, and the fourth puts equal points in each corner, so the first and second would make me, as the bomber, blow up the village. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'm presupposing a somewhat good cause for the war, so it is a 'for the greater good' moment.
As for whether I could emotionally deal with having killed so many civilians? That'd be my burden I suppose.
Civilians hands down. Why risk the lives of your soldiers that cost thousands individually to train and equip to save possible future enemy combatants? Sorry if that seems blunt but if you are at war you need to go all in or go home.
Ah bollocks, sorry, what I meant to say was sapient, and not sentient.JoJoDeathunter said:
My bad.