Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Once again I remind people of the US's policy in Gulf War I of bombing power stations, water treatment plants and other such *CIVILIAN* facilities under the guise of them being redefined as "military targets".
|
Whilst such facilities may have civilian workers, they remain a military target - and quite rightly. How else can the military be expected to impact an offence on a country unless they take out a large proportion of the utilities that are in place to support the running of that country? Should phone systems really remain in place when they can be taken out, thus leaving the lines of 'normal communication' open? Surely this doesn't help to break communication between the regimes, which is what was needed in order for them to fall. Should electricity still be in common supply? Without electricity, a lot can be gained from a military perspective. Such attacks are not simply so that civilians can be killed! It's all about tactics. So, there's no electricity in a region - "where's all that light coming from?" - "well, it must be the opposition. "
A military traget is not *always* property that belongs to or is operated by the enemy. Military targets are are identified as being important to the military cause and are neccessary in order for the troops to fulfill the requirements that their governments, and overall their compatriots, expect of them
Civillian casualties are never nice but if it's a better means of assisting the longevity of life amongst *our* troops, and thus increasing the means of effectiveness available to them, then surely it's not such a bad thing?
