**NOTE:** This is **not** intended to be a politically biased question, only one where I want to be more informed about military tactics and the general guidelines surrounding combat. Thank you.
Is it actually possible for armies to reduce civilian casualties? Considering how effective weapons are (both missiles and chemical) and how dense civilian areas are, how do armies try to mitigate those casualties? What is the difference between an action that is considered a part of war or a war crime?
In: Technology
Do that and war just becomes war games. Preferable for sure but a lot more difficult to propagandize.
…if anyone tries to convince you that an army can’t reduce civilian casualties, then they have an agenda.
Peacekeeper troops for example often have a very strict engagement protocol (do not fire unless fired upon) and weapons with large blast effect or low accuracy (like for example artillery) are used very sparingly. KFOR (Kosovo peacekeeping force) for example were frequently targeted by snipers or mortars but during their deployment managed to not shoot children or journalists. Because they were professionals with a strict engagement protocol.
Meanwhile some nations (even during “peacekeeping operations”) go around blasting civilian neighbourhoods with artillery or attack helicopters.
Absolutely. With technological advances, weapons are getting more and more precision and with that, less and less collateral damage.
The civilian casualties you’re seeing on Israel war with Hamas and Hezbollah is the testament of how much better it is now at reducing civilian casualties. For the scales of the operations Israel conducted, civilian casualties are remarkably low, even by the inflated numbers provided by the terrorists. And don’t just listen to me, go look up civilian casualties with bombings and ground invasions during Vietnam war or the two World Wars and see for yourself how far technologies have helped reducing collateral damages. If we still have the same civilian casualties rates during WWII era, 20% of Palestinian in Gaza would have perished by now.
Ofcourse, this is not to say any innocent casualty rate is acceptable, one is already one too many, but it is a whole lot better than it used to be.
Can they reduce civilian casualties: to a point. They can target military bases and such facilities and avoid residential areas. That works when fighting against another country’s military. When it comes to terrorists who operate and make certain they locate their operations solely in residential areas to use the civilians as shields, whether willing or not, it becomes harder.
Armies can adopt “rules of engagement” that reduce the overall number of civilian casualties. For example in Afghanistan under Obama, the US only used airpower to attack forces that were “proximate” to US or allied forces. In other words only drop bombs on positions where someone is firing at you (or sneaking into position to do so). That doesn’t cut casualties to zero because sometimes those people are firing at you from a house containing civilians and the law of armed conflict doesn’t prevent forces under attack from firing back. In 2017 the US relaxed this rule, and according to some sources civilian casualties soared
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55225827](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55225827)
It is also possible for militaries to provide safe corridors for civilians to evacuate and limit the kinds of ordnance used in crowded neighborhoods.
Yes they can. The first, and most basic step, are the rules of engagement. This is a strict guideline of conditions that need to be met before any lethal action can be taken. For example just because you know that an “enemy” is in a certain place it doesn’t mean you can drop a big bomb and call it a day. What if the enemy is inside a building full of innocent people? The rules of engagement basically lay out when you’re allowed to shoot someone and under what conditions and when you’re not allowed to. After that there are several cases where direct authorisation is required before action is taken. Before an airstrike or a missile is launched you need direct authorisation by someone higher up the chain who determines whether it is necessary and what the impact to civilians may be. Risk analysis is a big part and largely what may determine whether a precision strike weapon will be used or something that will just level an entire city block. Lastly, militaries can warn civilians about upcoming attacks and direct them to safe areas.
That’s all well and good in theory, but unfortunately in practice they’re much harder to actually apply effectively, and unfortunately a lot of the time people don’t simply care to. There is nothing easy about war and unfortunately cruelty is a big part of it. A lot of the times you’re pushed in a situation with no “right” solution, or people simply strike with extreme prejudice because they do not care about the effects of their actions and do not consider the people on the other side as humans, whether they’re combatants or innocent civilians.
Yes. A great example of this was a few weeks ago. Israel killed the political leader of Hamas while he was in Iran. If you look at the pictures the only thing destroyed is the apartment he was in and the rest of the building is intact. No civilians wounded or killed. However these weapons are very expensive so armies use cheap less accurate weapons that have a larger blast radius.
Latest Answers