112
submitted 11 months ago by Ulara@sopuli.xyz to c/ukraine@sopuli.xyz
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz 6 points 11 months ago

Civilians not involved in critical military infrastructure are typically not regarded as valid military targets. Thanks for asking :)

[-] PyroNeurosis@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Are police of the enemy considered civilian or military?

[-] CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz 3 points 11 months ago

In general no, but it can depend. Some countries blur the line between police and military, that's when it can get foggy. If a country has a strictly civilian police force that does not take part in combat or training operations with the military, they are typically not valid targets. Just like any other armed civilian not taking part in combat is not a valid target.

[-] TrustedChimp@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I'd say it also depends on if the police open fire on the other force when they get near then their official roll goes out the window they chose to get involved

[-] CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz 1 points 11 months ago

Exactly, thats why I specified

(...) that does not take part in combat (...)

Just like any other armed civilian not taking part in combat (...)

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social -2 points 11 months ago

Only by those who can afford otherwise.

During total war you see those attitudes dissolve.

[-] CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz 2 points 11 months ago

During a total war any reasonable military will prioritise destroying their enemies capacity to wage war. That typically includes prioritising munition spending on military targets.

Bombing a civilian city centre can be demoralising, but history shows that it primarily serves to harden your enemies resolve, because you are explicitly showing that you are willing to harm the civilian friends and families of those fighting or otherwise supporting the war effort.

The bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki is a prominent counter-example of this though, where the weapons used were so completely terrifying that they helped convince Japanese leadership that their entire nation could be wiped out if they didn't capitulate. Still: there are strong arguments to suggest Japan would have capitulated anyway. Note that even though other bombing campaigns killed more people than the nukes, they didn't cause a capitulation.

this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
112 points (99.1% liked)

Ukraine

8070 readers
585 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

*Sympathy for enemy combatants in any form is prohibited.

*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.


Donate to support Ukraine's Defense

Donate to support Humanitarian Aid


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS