collatoral damage then and now?

a life

I didn't imply that the U.S. did, none of the situations I listed were indeed intentional for the U.S. post WW2. A drop in the bucket, in morbid terms yes. But what is the value of a human life exactly then? These things regardless happen. The U.S. has used very nasty substances that led and is currently leading still in the destruction of life or severe damaging of such even today.

HOWEVER by no means is this isolated to the U.S. operating in wars only. Other nations have done this and are doing it as well. This is not a American military practice, but moreover a phenomenon of armed conflict, in particular modern armed conflict.

As for your mentioned statements on the nature of the Second World War, it was the last total war for America, defined by the complete arranging of entire countries' social structures for the forwarding of a war effort until the destruction of her enemy. This scale led to the increased levels of human loss of life from all sides during such a conflict, being the stakes as they were.

Depending on your sense of the value of a human life (something that can spur hundreds of debates about in itself.) You can either justify or damn the actions of any case, whether it be the bombing of Dresden, or the Reprisal of the Soviets in the taking of Berlin against the local population.

Or even go as far as saying the mass murders of the Nazis against Eastern Europeans as an aide in the war to encourage the Soviets to fight harder to end the war more quickly.

One's disgusting outlooks may seem sound to another.

This type of thinking can be although not the only factor, attributed to cases of civilians being killed in armed conflict.

Yes, and I agree, the U.S. does not sport this intentionally as a method of either warfare or statesmen ship. But other countries have and do.

However I don't see how in our case any moral high ground can be achieved in this type of situation as even today JDAMs fall through the roofs of hospitals in error, and Hellfires blow up not only the car with the target by the bus of civilians behind it.

This will always be a factor in warfare. Different cultures and social outlooks on it can determine how much of a occurrence it will be.

I'm pretty much in agreement with this posting. In essence the life of even a single innocent civilian is a tragedy. However the tragedy multiplies as the number of innocents killed does. I believe your statements basically states this. This could lead to an extremely long statement but I believe the short version sums it up.
 
Last edited:
Small family owned Japanese fishing boats were sunk in the Pacific.
All of the Navies sank each others fishing boats when opportunity arose in WWII

I'm pretty much in agreement with this posting. In essence the life of even a single innocent civilian is a tragedy. However the tragedy multiplies as the number of innocents killed does. I believe your statements basically states this. This could lead to an extremely long statement but I believe the short version sums it up.
A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.-Joseph Stalin
 
2)in certain cases the intentional killing of civilians is lawful.

I agree. Civilians working in factories were considered legitimate targets by Bomber Harris of RAF Bomber Command, but then again he considered all civilians legitimate targets.

3)the only who during the war were intentionally killing civilians without lawful reasons were the Germans .Even the Soviets abstained from doing this .

Not quite, the Japanese murdered civilians willy nilly, the murdering bastards considered it as a national sport.

Thousands died in China and Singapore among other places.
 
Bomber Harris basically believed in terror bombing "the only good German was a dead German". He got upset when Eisenhauer decided to use all bombers for D-day related strategic bombing in preparation for the invasion of France.

BritinAfrica is on target the Japanese killed ~10 million innocent civilians in China, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaya, etc. Much like the Germans they used extensive slave labor and much like the Germans the survival rate of forced laborers was very low. They also often went on killing sprees after victories just killing civilians and POW's out of hand. They like the Germans were very much racist believing the conquered peoples and POW's to be lower than dirt. They tortured allied prisoners whom were later executed and performed medical experiment on a large scale in China. In fact an allied airman was tortured about the number of A-Bombs that the US had and he had no idea but under torture he said 100. This contributed considerable to the Japanese decision to surrender.
 
Last edited:
The strategic bombing of Harris was no terror bombing .What Harris attacked were legitimate military targets. Harris was angry when he (and Spaatz) received the order to COLLABORATE on Overlord,because he did not want to collaborate : he wanted to win the war on its own .
 
Bomber Harris basically believed in terror bombing "the only good German was a dead German". He got upset when Eisenhauer decided to use all bombers for D-day related strategic bombing in preparation for the invasion of France.

BritinAfrica is on target the Japanese killed ~10 million innocent civilians in China, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaya, etc. Much like the Germans they used extensive slave labor and much like the Germans the survival rate of forced laborers was very low. They also often went on killing sprees after victories just killing civilians and POW's out of hand. They like the Germans were very much racist believing the conquered peoples and POW's to be lower than dirt. They tortured allied prisoners whom were later executed and performed medical experiment on a large scale in China. In fact an allied airman was tortured about the number of A-Bombs that the US had and he had no idea but under torture he said 100. This contributed considerable to the Japanese decision to surrender.
Yes,but even here there was a difference with the Germans :the Japanese did not pick a certain group (as were doing the Germans) who should be exterminated.
 
Yes,but even here there was a difference with the Germans :the Japanese did not pick a certain group (as were doing the Germans) who should be exterminated.

Quite right, the Japanese didn't care who they raped, beat and murdered wherever they invaded.
 
Yes,but even here there was a difference with the Germans :the Japanese did not pick a certain group (as were doing the Germans) who should be exterminated.
The Jews get most of the PR, but Gypsies & Slavs were targeted as well. The Poles received the highest death % of any population in the War.

Quite right, the Japanese didn't care who they raped, beat and murdered wherever they invaded.
They did seem to have a preference for Chinese, both in China & places like Singapore, but did spread it around.

Medical experiments: Unlike the Nazis who were tried & many executed it seems most of the Japanese got away with it. I've heard many of the medical criminals went on to found the Green Cross company, a major Firm there.
 
Is there such a thing as an innocent civilian, in the UK every work one that was not in forces including women were allocated work in producing war materials. The only people excused were those women with young children.
 
That would be the subject of another discussion,but the fact is that in the European war,civilians were not intentionally targetted(the exception being Jews,Roma)because there was no possibility to target them intentionally :the air forces target systems were that primitive (and I am not sure that they are much better today) that it was impossible to order a squadron/geschwader to kill Jones,living in the Chamberlain street 10 Birmingham,while it was possible for an Einsatzgruppe to kill the Jews of BabiYar.
 
The second World War was the most destructive conflict in all human history characterized by the struggling of multiple ideologies for world dominance and survival. Some faltered others survived. Many point out to the deliberate killings of the Nazi's yet we don't really speak much on the interactions of the Nazis in learning from the Soviet NKVD on how to properly seek out dissidents and conduct mass murder as well as building proper concentration camps prior to the war's initiation.

Stalin Alone killed far more people in both war and Peace as Hitler, yet the Swastika sill holds more uneasiness when displayed to people today than the Iron and Sickle. Not many speak saying it a symbol of Evil despite the casualty count. As in this Case mainly due to the fact the Soviets won, Stalin could write his history, he was the victor and you know what they say about history books and the victors.

As for modern episodes of targeting civilians, the modern apparatus of media have both mitigated this as well as forwarded it. In the U.S. portion of the Vietnam conflict it brought to light every slightest mishap. The napalming of villages via bad intelligence, to the later to be seen horrendous affects of Agent Orange.

Today that same media trend seems reversed in certain forms. The use of Uranium in Iraq in munitions has led to crippling health problems especially in infants. This is a more recent disregard for civilian populations however it can be pointed out, although not in a defense , that it wasn't the intended goal. Dispite studies by the DOD to examine the health effects of these weapons. The aforementioned media attention being almost in a blackout now compared to civilian casualty reports from the beginning of that war in 2003.

By no means am I singling out the U.S. on this behavior, the Israelis just a few years ago attacked protestors in mass with White Phosphorus to dissuade possible militants from repeated attacks into Israel proper, dispute the arguments the same could have been achieved via other less indiscriminate means.

Just a few years prior in the Russian Georgian War footage of Su 25 bombing attacks on apartment flats shows disregard for the local civilian population there.

Modern Warfare is destructive, ulterior motives both political or economical are swift and efficient at pushing all moral ones aside. And thus from now until the end of civilization we shall always see innocents in the list of causalities.

I keep hearing people talking about the use of depleted uranium in Iraq and I just don't buy it. I was in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle during the invasion and we didn't have DU ammunition. Our 25mm Sabot had a tungsten core instead of DU. Maybe the tankers were using the DU in their 120s even though I'm pretty sure their sabot rounds had been replace by the tungsten core as well by then...If you've ever been to Iraq and just seen the filth they live in...that might be a better explanation as to why their children are being born deformed.

I think "collateral damage" is much less accepted these days than ever before. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been in a coma for the last 13 years. It just depends on who's doing the killing. The Soviets can go into Afghanistan for ten years and kill over a million of the Afghan civilians and no one blinks an eye. The US goes in and every time one of the 20,000 civilians who have been killed since we got there dies, their is international outcry.

Civilians are going to get killed in war. It is inevitable. If you don't want civilians to get killed then don't get into war, that's about the only solution.
 
.

I think "collateral damage" is much less accepted these days than ever before. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been in a coma for the last 13 years. It just depends on who's doing the killing. The Soviets can go into Afghanistan for ten years and kill over a million of the Afghan civilians and no one blinks an eye. The US goes in and every time one of the 20,000 civilians who have been killed since we got there dies, their is international outcry.

.
The Russians got little TV news coverage in Afghanistan & probably wouldn't have cared anyway. Stories of atrocities there were mainly published in Soldier of fortune mag, not widely read. The US, Israel, ect do things the TV news is there & putting it on the front of the news.
 
The Jews get most of the PR, but Gypsies & Slavs were targeted as well. The Poles received the highest death % of any population in the War.

Gay people were also targeted by the Nazis. The Poles lost approx half of their country to the Russians. (this was "compensated" with German territory)

The Russians got little TV news coverage in Afghanistan & probably wouldn't have cared anyway. Stories of atrocities there were mainly published in Soldier of fortune mag, not widely read. The US, Israel, ect do things the TV news is there & putting it on the front of the news.

But what their adversaries do is not filmed, and when they place an error on page one, the rectification doesn't get the first page.
 
I keep hearing people talking about the use of depleted uranium in Iraq and I just don't buy it. I was in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle during the invasion and we didn't have DU ammunition. Our 25mm Sabot had a tungsten core instead of DU. Maybe the tankers were using the DU in their 120s even though I'm pretty sure their sabot rounds had been replace by the tungsten core as well by then...If you've ever been to Iraq and just seen the filth they live in...that might be a better explanation as to why their children are being born deformed.

I think "collateral damage" is much less accepted these days than ever before. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been in a coma for the last 13 years. It just depends on who's doing the killing. The Soviets can go into Afghanistan for ten years and kill over a million of the Afghan civilians and no one blinks an eye. The US goes in and every time one of the 20,000 civilians who have been killed since we got there dies, their is international outcry.

Civilians are going to get killed in war. It is inevitable. If you don't want civilians to get killed then don't get into war, that's about the only solution.

I think it's ridiculous the negative PR the press gives to the Americans military. We go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties often unlike the forces we oppose. Yet there are reports on the news - publicity crap accusing us of some greatly exaggerated events. When the enemy hides
in schools, Mosques and apartments it makes things dicey. As brinkth mentions their is no full proof solution in war. But the US does try to minimize civilian deaths which is not a goal for many warring parties. Take a look at this ISIS for example.
 
I think it's ridiculous the negative PR the press gives to the Americans military. We go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties often unlike the forces we oppose. Yet there are reports on the news - publicity crap accusing us of some greatly exaggerated events. When the enemy hides
in schools, Mosques and apartments it makes things dicey. As brinkth mentions their is no full proof solution in war. But the US does try to minimize civilian deaths which is not a goal for many warring parties. Take a look at this ISIS for example.


I agree loosely to an extent but not from the same angle. I admire how we take strides to keep civilian casualties to a low, a darker reality surrounds this however as it does put U.S. lives at risk in American warzones around the world.

However, unlike why the media today does this type of reporting, ( ever hear the old adage if it bleeds it reads?)

I feel this type of instances should be documented and pointed out to hold those who commit or allow any type of criminal behavior to be held accountable. It's important not to let our moral conscience drift and to start turning a blind eye because sometimes looking at countries that do allow this type of behavior on par our armed forces opens the door to allow this type of violence to be brought home.

Also it reinforces the task of good statesmanship to minimize (although our leaders do a horrible job at this) our foreign escapades and interventionism. You need public opinion if you wish to fight a effective war. Although I feel our current media outlets in America are totally garbage today, I do admit they slant every thing from Iranian Gunboat patrols, Russian Statements on Syria or elsewhere look like it's perpetration by demanding heathens jealous for our freedoms and we must rally and drink cheap beer and destroy them and agree with select members in Congress in support of another undeclared war...

Mr. JOC it's up to us, informed citizens not just to read the news but to think logically and decide what is the moral best interest for our country and it's people.

Moreover than it's leaders or their opinions.
 
Misc

I agree loosely to an extent but not from the same angle. I admire how we take strides to keep civilian casualties to a low, a darker reality surrounds this however as it does put U.S. lives at risk in American warzones around the world.

However, unlike why the media today does this type of reporting, ( ever hear the old adage if it bleeds it reads?)

I feel this type of instances should be documented and pointed out to hold those who commit or allow any type of criminal behavior to be held accountable. It's important not to let our moral conscience drift and to start turning a blind eye because sometimes looking at countries that do allow this type of behavior on par our armed forces opens the door to allow this type of violence to be brought home.

Also it reinforces the task of good statesmanship to minimize (although our leaders do a horrible job at this) our foreign escapades and interventionism. You need public opinion if you wish to fight a effective war. Although I feel our current media outlets in America are totally garbage today, I do admit they slant every thing from Iranian Gunboat patrols, Russian Statements on Syria or elsewhere look like it's perpetration by demanding heathens jealous for our freedoms and we must rally and drink cheap beer and destroy them and agree with select members in Congress in support of another undeclared war...

Mr. JOC it's up to us, informed citizens not just to read the news but to think logically and decide what is the moral best interest for our country and it's people.

Moreover than it's leaders or their opinions.

I'm not sure I follow all this but as for the military they are doing their job. If not I agree they should be held accountable. As for the politicians well that's another story. For instance some basic food and weapons without military force might have headed off this whole IS "or whatever they call themselves" thing in Syria. We held off and the place is a mess far worse than it ever was under Assad. Obama's having pulling the last troops out of Iraq "an unpopular war" lead to the virtual collapse as the Shite led government tried to take the helm.

I never claimed the policy makers were flawless. Far from it, they are subject to the whims of lobbyist and make policy changes that often seems flawed. We can vote but a lot of financial pressure comes to bear once these folks are in office.

Some of these news reports can be used to wipe your bum with as far as I'm concerned. They do present certain facts, but the facts are often quite slanted. Yes you are right if it bleeds it reads.
 
Last edited:
Well, wait till the next war. As they say, " You ain't seen nothin yet!" In fact in the next war, everyone reading this post is likely to be COLLATERAL DAMAGE. Good name for a band, eh.
 
. For instance some basic food and weapons without military force might have headed off this whole IS "or whatever they call themselves" thing in Syria. We held off and the place is a mess far worse than it ever was under Assad. Obama's having pulling the last troops out of Iraq "an unpopular war" lead to the virtual collapse as the Shite led government tried to take the helm.

.
Guess there wasn't any intel as to who to support, who was ISIS and who wasn't, who wouldn't end up being worse, just like what may end up happening in Libya where we didn't know who was who. Of course there's continuing rumors that "Benghazi" was tied to a CIA arms smuggling to Syria operation, so who knows.
The whole time during the Iraq War we heard from the media & Democrats that it was the "wrong War" & we shouldn't be involved there, but should have only been involved in Afghanistan, the "good war". That is until we pull out of Iraq & suddenly all talk of Afghanistan being the "good war' suddenly disappears & is replaced by "We need to get out of this unwinnable war.
 
I'm not sure I follow all this but as for the military they are doing their job. If not I agree they should be held accountable. As for the politicians well that's another story. For instance some basic food and weapons without military force might have headed off this whole IS "or whatever they call themselves" thing in Syria. We held off and the place is a mess far worse than it ever was under Assad. Obama's having pulling the last troops out of Iraq "an unpopular war" lead to the virtual collapse as the Shite led government tried to take the helm.

I never claimed the policy makers were flawless. Far from it, they are subject to the whims of lobbyist and make policy changes that often seems flawed. We can vote but a lot of financial pressure comes to bear once these folks are in office.

Some of these news reports can be used to wipe your bum with as far as I'm concerned. They do present certain facts, but the facts are often quite slanted. Yes you are right if it bleeds it reads.


An informed citizen takes available information, analyzes what speaks to them and then makes a conscience decision on where their opinion will stand based on what they see.

It's the best we can do... However I feel our media industry has gotten a little lost along the way, hence we get things such as "news in 60 seconds".

A knowledgeable and informed thinking citizen base will ideally eventually trickle up the ladder to statesmanship, and hopefully good policy making decisions.

Also many of these types of citizens find their way into the armed forces. It is here that critical thinking on behalf of national and world affairs can make a difference too. As many exit the military and circle back into not only society here but some run for office.

This in turn all can be a factor in our common moral conscience and how strongly we feel about collateral damage. Or how much we dismiss it.
 
reply

An informed citizen takes available information, analyzes what speaks to them and then makes a conscience decision on where their opinion will stand based on what they see.

It's the best we can do... However I feel our media industry has gotten a little lost along the way, hence we get things such as "news in 60 seconds".

A knowledgeable and informed thinking citizen base will ideally eventually trickle up the ladder to statesmanship, and hopefully good policy making decisions.

Also many of these types of citizens find their way into the armed forces. It is here that critical thinking on behalf of national and world affairs can make a difference too. As many exit the military and circle back into not only society here but some run for office.

This in turn all can be a factor in our common moral conscience and how strongly we feel about collateral damage. Or how much we dismiss it.



An informed citizen in a democracy can vote. This hopefully brings into office someone who represents his -her viewpoints to a degree. Remember a lot of decisions are not based on the grassroots viewpoints of the people who elected the official. As he - her gets entrenched into politics they are strongly influenced by lobbyist and financiers. However it is the best available system we have and does allow for a good degree of representation. A system such as this does tend to review it’s action making them much more accountable than an autocratic system. The US is #1, so anything we do makes the headlines. I know veterans of several of these later wars and they tell me it was nothing like the media portrays it like when it comes to US abuses, etc.
 
Back
Top