Poll: Civilians or Soldiers?

[crop52]

Assuming I can still win the war after suffering those casualties, kill the enemy bombers and let them bring reinforcements.

If I'm likely to lose the war if they bring reinforcements, then the village has to go.

 

[Rawne1980]

As a civvie from a heavily militarized family, I have to ask.
Wasn't the last example - the Terrs in the Civilian groups - the very reason Flashbangs and concussion grenades were invented?
Not having a go, literally just asking, was it the reason for them?

You are perfectly right, they were designed for crowd control like that.

The only problem we had was it wasn't just a small concentrated area, we're talking town centres full of folk. We can't grenade the whole area.

I'm not saying we shot at everyone, most of the time the IRA were not looking to start a mass shootout in a civilian area they were looking for us to start it to drop more bad press on us.

The biggest problem we had in Ireland is we didn't have a clue who the fuck the enemy was. It wasn't as obvious as it is in movies. They were just normal folks who could be right infront of you and we wouldn't be none the wiser until we had a pistol in our face. They didn't walk around with "i'm in the IRA" t-shirts on.

The press was the IRA's biggest weapon. The more they landed us in the shit in the public eye the more backing they had to get us out of their country.

I don't know all the political reasons as to us being there in the first place but i'll say that the Irish are the toughest bastards i've ever been in a fight with. And by fuck do they fight dirty when they need to. All the respect in the world to the people who lived through it and the families of those that didn't on both sides.

 

[mad825]

In a World War no-one is innocent, there are no civilians.

My attack would be based on what would do the most damage and what would have the most impact on their operations against my enemies, the so called "civilians" would be on my list.

Would you mind burning to death alongside your loved ones, screaming all the way, while following that ideology? There are no civilians, after all, so it would be wrong for you to have any hard feelings over it.

It wouldn't be wrong as such reaction would be human but no wars are ever fair neither do the players play fair so it would understandable for atrocities to occur.

If you are expecting your foe to play nice then you are going to lose.

 

[King of Wei]

Now that is a tough choice. The strategic advantage of the bombing would be very important, but would probably put a major dent in PR and soldier moral. Assuming this side cared about such things, I'd save the civilians and try to minimize soldier casualties as much as possible.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I would. My reason is below, but I'm just going ot say right now its not going to be popular or make anyone feel good. you'll probably be pissed, and rightly so, so dont read it if you get easily offended, or quote me after reading to tell me how horrible it is.

I would. I'm at awar, and I'm a total war type of person. I wouldnt just bomb that city, I'd film it and send it to the enemy army. Then I'd take the burned bodies, tie them to my tanks and ride my tanks forward, so the first thing my enemy saw was the charred remains of their fellow countrymen/women, hoping that at least one soldier is related or knows them so that they would be so disturbed they'd never want to fight again.

Of course my strategy for war also includes sewing salts into the land, having aerial bombing runs from all four corners, followed by tanks driving across, and then my soldiers mopping up whatever is left.

... Though why we cant just fly to where the enemy is and launch some nerve gas or something and do a direct assault I dont know. Id prefer not to waste the potential slave labor that would rape the lands for resources during and after my conquest.

 

[somonels]

Isn't the deliberate killing of civilians a war crime anyway? And as such you wouldn't be ordered to bomb the town regardless?

Because, like, eeveryone fights wars "by the book."

By your logic, we should screw obeying the law. If you want something, steal it. After all, eeeeveryone else obeys the law.

Yes. Everyone can and should break the law if they believe it to be worthwhile, especially ones that govern the rules for killing others.

 

[blaqknoise]

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.

I answered the question before the edit was made, bro...

My answer still stands.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

When you decide to fight a war you fight an entire nation not just its soldiers.
I'd bomb the village.

 

[Pyro Paul]

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.

During world war 2 many european towns where built as central transit hubs. 3-7 roads going in and out of the town. the terrain around the towns where usually low lands and/or flood plains. during rains often the only traversable terrain for heavy vehicals where the roads going into and out of the towns.

creating large craters in either through bombs or placed demolitions on these roads often was a key strategy in impeeding an enemy advance making it difficult for armor to traverse.

German retreating forces would some times lay large clusters of TNT and Composition B into the raised roads making it near impassable to vehicals in order to help impeed the advancing allied armor. Many a time forcing them to go through the grassy, wet, and more open terrain making them targets for the long range 88's on the Tiger tanks.


outside that, the point is still some what true.
Many central community centers are usually densely packed structures surrounded by often flat open terrain. the town itself becomse something of a impromptu fort for the defenders while attackers expose themselves advancing across open ground. Many towns where leveled by the Airforce and Army bombardments in multipule wars simply because of this one fact.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I am going to have to side with the civilians. Non-combatants should never be targets in war if it can be avoided. All soldiers are prepared to give their lives.

 

[Thedayrecker]

It never would happen.

The army would either just send soldiers to secure the town, or wait until the enemy started moving through it, and then bomb it.

I vote Logic

 

[ShindoL Shill]

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.

honestly, i would agree with you.

 

[Henkie36]

When nations are at war, casualties will be a result. There still are the Genevan Conventions to protect the civilians from the soldiers and the nations from destroying eachother, but the example that you are giving, civilians are colleteral damage. Pity we have to kill them, but it's either gonna be them, or it's gonna be us.

But I think this is a case of ''kill a few, save a lot''. Of course, this is the ''what if '' path of history.

 

[JUGGERNAUTBITCH]

soldiers. colatiral damage is one of the worst things you can do.

 

[SsilverR]

The civvies ... but not really

I'll evacuate the town then bomb the shit out of it ... roadblock done, civvies relocated and soldiers ready to fight.

 

[The Shade]

Obviously, the soldiers die. Civilians are never a viable target in war. Y'know, what with the whole Geneva Convention thing.

It worries me that that isn't the obvious choice for most of the people here.

 

[AlphaEcho]

Soldiers have the ability to fight back, civilians do not.

 

[Dragunai]

As a civvie from a heavily militarized family, I have to ask.
Wasn't the last example - the Terrs in the Civilian groups - the very reason Flashbangs and concussion grenades were invented?
Not having a go, literally just asking, was it the reason for them?

You are perfectly right, they were designed for crowd control like that.

The only problem we had was it wasn't just a small concentrated area, we're talking town centres full of folk. We can't grenade the whole area.

I'm not saying we shot at everyone, most of the time the IRA were not looking to start a mass shootout in a civilian area they were looking for us to start it to drop more bad press on us.

The biggest problem we had in Ireland is we didn't have a clue who the fuck the enemy was. It wasn't as obvious as it is in movies. They were just normal folks who could be right infront of you and we wouldn't be none the wiser until we had a pistol in our face. They didn't walk around with "i'm in the IRA" t-shirts on.

The press was the IRA's biggest weapon. The more they landed us in the shit in the public eye the more backing they had to get us out of their country.

I don't know all the political reasons as to us being there in the first place but i'll say that the Irish are the toughest bastards i've ever been in a fight with. And by fuck do they fight dirty when they need to. All the respect in the world to the people who lived through it and the families of those that didn't on both sides.

My dad is a massive Chris Ryan and Andy McNabb fan so he is always reading books about the S.A.S and most of them are based in I.R.A era N. Ireland so I have been clued up a bit on it, not enough to hold a lengthy convo mind but I know what you're talking about.

Problem is that the media around the world, specially in the UK and the USA, is always looking for the the next bleeding heart, the government / army / some group with a known face, is being oppressive or doing shit that they twist out of context to make more news papers sell.

Around 90% of the sensationalistic bullshit you get in news papers is fictional or been whitewashed by the paintbrush of the artistic license and tbh you get more fact in comic books than you do most US / UK newspapers.

Point here is that the I.R.A didn't need to work very hard to drop the fighting men of the S.A.S and so on in the crap. They just had to point the finger at some firefight that went down and even if the Terrs started it, the Soldiers got the blame.

Its why I am more likely to use a newspaper to clean my dogs crap up than I will read it.

 

[Actual]

The soldiers have signed up to die, their families have, at least in small part, prepared for the possibility that they might die.

The civilians should be spared.