Is it possible to win a war without killing civilians?

I am NOT condoning the killing of innocent civilians.





I also do not condone war in general.





What if during WWII, Allied forces had been completely prohibeted from harming civilians or any civilian targets? The enemy simply would have taken off their uniforms and put on civilian clothes and left their bases. Then how do you fight? You can't. If you can't kill civilians you have to wait until they fire first, when it's already too late.





If you can't kill civilians the enemy simply uses them as a shield. They will make it so that to harm them you must harm civilians as well.





The killing of civilians is an unfortuante and tragic neccesity. This is what makes war so terrible.|||Well, you've done a very good job of answering your own question.





Now you also know what type of war is being fought in Afganistan and Iraq. Terrorists don't have uniforms. They don't belong to a "military". They are, therefore, by definition, civilians.





Our boys and girls can only do their best. May they all come home safe and sound.|||It is a question of justice.





I oppose war 100%, but its not always avoidable.





To start with, your "what if?" point about WWII is badly flawed. Tens of millions of civilians were killed. The Germans and Japanese were fighting wars of invasion which eventually turned to wars of defense, (and its questionable whether their civilians were all that innocent). The instances of targeting civilians as a war strategy by these invaders were numerous, from the London blitz to Nangking.





However the USA has not been involved in a necessary and just war since WWII with the exception of Kosovo (a war fought and won by Commander-in-Chief Clinton under the auspices of NATO, specifically to stop the mass killing of civilians).





In war, You have what is called "collateral damage", civilians caught in the line of fire. It is a reality of war.





But in this day and age those (Iraqis Vietnamese etc.) fighting against a foreign invader with superior military power (USA) find hiding among the indigenous population, of which they are part, is an effective survival, and eventual winning, strategy. I generally feel they have a right to their country and to defend it.





The question is: What is the USA doing there?





And these days, you also have civilians as the specific targets of war like Kosovo. This is quite common since Hitler who dreamed up "final solution" philosophy, and man has developed fantastic convenient firepower weaponry. the question is: Why ISN'T the USA %26amp; UN there?





There's lots of excuses why civilians die in war...but none of them are good enough reason for me.|||I agree that casualties of war will unfortunately include civilians. As long as a military operation does its best to avoid killing civilians, they cover thier butts.


That being said, combat is far more stressful than those who have never partook in it can imagine. If you read some stories that came out of any war, this one included, do me a favor and think what you would do if you were 19 and in the middle of constant combat. Are you sure you wouldn't crack?|||I agree|||Scotty for the sake of simplification it's all in the "Heat of Battle" there is collateral causalities.Now lets get into the mindset of your enemy,first and foremost he is willing to die at all cost to win his war.He/she will use any method to get the job done like wearing woman's garb to gain the edge or driving an ambulance loaded with TNT right up to the solders and detonate. Because we fight by "Rules" and they don't is a great disadvantage to us and this is where civilians are caught in the middle. Because the Army is trained to kill and destroy puts us in a great quandary that has no good ending. I pray that our troops return soon,GOD bless 'em all!


Warchild!|||Hi,





Of course it is possible (just start one against the French, and you won't have to fire a shot) but extremely unlikely.





Modern warfare, which seems to be everywhere, including the United States, Britain, Spain, most of the middle east, the far east and so on seems to be waged by fanatics, who do not wear uniforms and wage 'war' by attacking civilians: The World Trade Centre, the London Underground, the Madrid train bombs, and the countries these attackers come from, Iraq, Isreal, Palastine and so on.





Whatever the rights and wrongs of war, many countries have people who are willing to die to cause injury and death to others they hate...after all, before the attack on the World Trade Centre, who could have imagined that any attackers against America would have been willing to die for the chance to attack? Any American or European mission to do a similar thing would have needed to include an escape plan for the participants.





We now know that is not necessarily the case.





It is far more difficult to guard against 'suicide bombers' than it is against an army facing you. The only sure way is to kill everyone who approaches and that is hardly the aim of any army. It would, too, turn the rest of the world against whoever took action like that.





So (initial joke aside) it is probably not possible today to attack or defend against all civilian casualties and still wage war.





Such a depressing subject, eh?





Cheers,





BobSpain|||How?


When living human kind were having communication problems with misinterpretation, miscommunication, communication failures and communication break-down out there.


Were hungry and thirsty living in misery trying to survive out there with the mess going on.


Maybe by organising them to fight in the boxing ring.


Those who get ko will leave for home.


Then the civilians will not get hurt out there.


What do you think?|||Operation Desert Storm is a good example of a 'war' with low civilian casualties. So it is possible. But the parameters have to be right. The two entities in conflict would have to be away from population centers, like the open desert, and use mostly precision guided weapons to only hit military targets. I think that the killing of mass civilian targets as a strategic move was pretty much confined to the Second World War. The only other time we might see it outside of that confict would be a nuclear war, but there's no winning that so it's kind of pointless to kill that many civilians.|||How many civilians were in the World Trade Center when it was attacked?|||i agree, so lets just drop a fusey already|||How come we never see the honorable heads of state settle the whole matter over a good game of chess?


Or Risk, or Axis and Allies, or just a game of world Monopoly?


Winners never cheat. Cheaters never win. Death by firing squad to the loser. (loser's option to go directly to jail).


The killing of heads of state would be an unfortunate and tragic neccessity. This is what makes war so tolerable. N'est pas?|||I do not believe you can fight a war without killing some incesent people, with that said i think there could be ways around killing them. One way i think would work is by zoning off an area of iraq, going threw and cleanning out all the weapons, bombs, anything you can make a bomb with, ect. Then set up police stations, have a fresh meal, and drinking water. Then i think you could start to allow people to go to that zoned area after going through a series of checkpoints to find weapons. If we could do this i think that more people around the world see that we are not trying to take over the country we are trying to help there country. And heaven forbid the Iraq people themselves might start helping us.





Just my thoughts dont know if it would work but we should try i think.|||That time has long past. There was a time when opposing armies would line up on the field of battle and start fighting.|||Is it possible to "win" someone else's civil war? How exactly do you go about doing that?


......|||I'm not sure why some are talking about civilians being colateral damage. It is generally accepted that to win a war you terrorise the civilian population to demoralise them. Carpet bombing was widely used in WWII by both sides, including the use of incendiaries to cause fires.


Dresden was destroyed as a warning to the Germans, to scare them into surrendering, or at least make them fight not so well. The city at the time of bombing had little strategic value and was full of refugees. Dresden was not alone either, and the primary reason behind the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to say 'we can kill all of you if we want, so surrender' and they did.


Targeting civilians in war is a common thing to do, it's just that in Europe, they stopped doing it so much after the Renaissance, but rediscovered it from the American civil war and then the british created the concept of concentration camps. Round up the women and children and put them into a disease ridden pen and wait for the men out fighting to surrender.


Historically civilians have not been used as shields, but they have been used as hostages.|||It sounds like you answered your own question.|||HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH good one


now time for the knock knock joke huh??




















still laughing


i mean at least no for AMERICA , some *honorable*(=bastards) soldiers wanna have fun there %26gt;%26gt;%26gt; by killing civilians cuz they can't find the bad so guys they satisfy them selves by civilians.|||I don't think it is possible to win a war without bloodshed of innocent! History has proven this, over and over! Recent history too...Vietnam!!





I agree that the tragedy of this is just fact! Plus, all the families which are displaced! War is not pretty and it is not a game!