• Deceptichum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      No.

      This is war for survival, anyone who contributes to the Russian war machine is acceptable.

      • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Military manufacturing and recruitment centres are typically regarded as valid military targets, even though the people working there are not military personell.

        • Deceptichum@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          And what about the taxpayers and every other person who keeps the backbone of the war machine running? from accounts to doctors, all these people are enabling the society to wage war.

              • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year 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.

                • Chimp@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year 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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year 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.

            • Deceptichum@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No, genocide is a one way ticket to genocide.

              Killing an enemy who is trying to kill you first is not.