An officer allows the firing of a missile to a place where there are many civilians. Is that criminal?

Question

The missile is aimed at a vehicle full of ennemy combattants, but it is in the middle of a residential area and the probability that there will be civilian deaths is high. The officer is perfectly aware of this, nevertheless still gives a green light.

Answer 1

Take out the enemy, missiles correctly aimed are accurate and will strike the intended target

Answer 2

If there is absolutely no other possible way to get the enemy than to fire a missile at him, and all other possible means are exhausted, or not logical in the situation. Then it is perfectly legal to attack and risk the civilian casualties.

An officer with some more logic would probably put a recon and observation helicopter or a UAV unmanned aerial vehicle in the sky to track where the enemy is going. Followed by ground troops to move in on his location, with probably close air support on standby for if a heavier strike is necessary.

US Forces are taught to use the minimum force necessary to neutralize a target, so again it all depends on the situation, the time, the value of the target, and so on. Combat isn't simply point and shoot like so many civilians seem to think. If you've never been in the situation of combat at any level then you have no idea what goes on in the head when it comes to the decission to fire on a target. Sometimes you just do what you have to do.

Answer 3

It is not criminal. If a bank robber is fleeing the police and hits and kills an innocent bystander, it is not the fault of the police. It is the fault of the bank robber. Another term for enemy combatant is enemy soldier. It is the job of the army to kill enemy soldiers. When the USA was defending itself, England, and Europe in WW2, Many civilians were killed. That was terrible but it wasn't England or the USA's fault. It was Hitler and Nazi Germany's fault. The same is true now. It is the extremist Muslim terrorists.who started this war. I can't even imagine how terrible it must be to live in a war zone. I hope and pray that when all this is over, every one will be able to live in peace and harmony.

Answer 4

How about guy kills a teller while robbing a bank, cops chasing them, crooks run over a family in teh crosswalk.... does the cop deserve to go to prison?

absolutely not!!!!! When you drop precision guided bombs they hit within 35 feet of the aim point with a couple hundred pounds of explosives. Something like that is going to level at least the four houses around where you're aiming. That's innocent people inside having dinner, doing the dishes, putting their kids to bed. We try hard not to kill innocent people UNNECCESSARILY, but this is a war & if accomplishing the mission is more important than my life then it is more important then an innocent bystander. I feel bad about it, but the fastest way to end a war is to make it as horrible & damaging as humanly possible so you can finish the mission quickly. Pussy footing around complaining about every casualty makes it last ten times longer & kill exponentially more innocents, not to mentiona good chance of losing instead of winning.

Answer 5

The correct answer to this is:
"It Depends."

First off - the people he is shooting at are themselves committing a war crime by using those civilians as hostages to protect themselves from attack.

But the most important rule that you need to apply here is the principle of proportionality. Will the expected benefits from the attack be enough to justify the expected cost in civilian lives? (For example - if by this attack you can prevent two car-bomb attacks, you have just saved the lives of an expected 50 Iraqi civilians. Killing 5-6 civilians means that in the long run - you have saved lives.)

Answer 6

Yes, unfortunately combat conducted in Iraq is in the Urban Areas. You can not chose where to fight the enemy.

What's probably going through the Officer's mind, is that the priority is the safety of his own men. I would not want to explain to the parents of a fallen soldier that he died because failed to react to the threat.

Of course civilian consideration is always taken into account in all Military Operations, it is just unfortunate that the enemy chooses the most civilian concentrated areas to attack the military.

Believe me, the majority of US Army personnel are always aware of the civilian population, and there are rules of engagement to follow when operating in theather.

Answer 7

It's called "Collateral damage". Civilians will/do die/are wounded during combat. The individual that gives the "green light" has to weigh the choices given. Will the target remove him/herself from the residential area? Will we have another shot? How much collateral damage is to be expected? All these questions, and more, have to be answered before the "green light" is given. Is it criminal? Depends on your point of view. Should they die, or should our service people die because the target got away?

Answer 8

Was it illegal for Osama Bin Laden to run 2 planes into the twin towers where there were no military combatants and only civilians? We are dealing with an entirely different breed of human here. 10 insurgents dead and 2 civilians go down with them, sounds like a good trade off to me. Ask this question next time they cut American reporters heads off with a knife.

Answer 9

As sad as it is the hard cold truth about war is that there are always innocents that get killed. It's not something that anyone's proud of but it happens and Im guessing that it's a had to have been there to understand it type of situation. If the order was gave then Im sure the reasoning was there as well. Sorry if that sounds cold but it is reality. War is never a happy thing.

Answer 10

It is against the Geneva Conventions for fighters to take refuge in residential areas. Which they do all the time. In a war casualties are inevitable, we should do all we can to minimize it but we cant be the only ones who are playing by the rules.