• Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yeah, we’re all contributing to some extent so “civilian” is meaningless if you go too far. But whatever the cutoff is, it should start from the top down. The receptionist at the weapons plant is a lot less culpable for the war effort than the CEO. But I’d also say if the receptionist got offed in a missile strike it wouldn’t be a deplorable civilian casualty. They knew where they were working and that their business is death.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      The difference is that the receptionist isn’t being targeted, the factory is. I think that holds true for the CEO also. If they’re collateral damage it isn’t a warcrime, if they’re specifically targeted it is.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Fair enough, though there are some employees whose death would meaningfully impact arms production, like a star engineer or a tech with hard to replace skills. A CEO’s death would also likely meaningfully impact arms production.

        And frankly, I think anyone directly involved in making weapons that are killing your people is fair game. The army also has receptionists who don’t participate in combat operations, but they know what they’re involved in.