Seriously. I'm insulted.
By killing a lot of enemy civilians, countries hope to coerce surrender from the other side, depending on what the attacking country wants to
accomplish. As civilians, we are hostages to other countries, and human shields to our homes.
Has anyone else noticed exactly how wars and threats of war work? Every war always started with one country or people threatening to kill the people
of the other nation and take over. The name of the war game is to kill as many citizens as you can, or threaten to, to win. The more you kill, the
better and faster you win. Doesn't matter of the other countries civilians you're killing aren't the ones who pissed you off.
It's always the innocent bystanders who are drawn into conflicts. Now that many countries have nuclear weapons, they use them to 'secure
themselves' by threatening to kill the innocent people of the attacking government who have nothing to do with the political banter. I'm insulted at
constantly being used as a human shield or a bulls-eye. Nations attempt to kill greater numbers of non-combatants and kill them at a higher rate
during wars, the longer the duration of war, the more casualties. And if it’s not a war, it’s a ‘cold war’ situation where
Whenever some kind of war happens, it's always the people thrown out into the fray to die and defend those who started a war, or against another
country doing the same to their people. Or whenever you hear someone say “We should just nuke the @$%* out of Iraq!“. Does anyone ever consider
that they are implying that to 'defeat' a government or it's leaders (that may or may not make living difficult), a country should just kill a high
amount of civilians of the opponent nation to coerce them into obeying. How is this unlike looking at civilians as human targets? How is that not
If you want to understand killing of civilians in war, you should be focused on the specific characteristics of the wars that states find
themselves in. This violence is an instrumental tactic leaders use to achieve certain goals. Leaders target these groups because they see in cold
calculated terms that doing so will help them win the war at the lowest cost. By killing enemy civilians in large numbers, they will coerce surrender
from the other side. Even if the military forces are capable of fighting in the field, they may give up if civilians have suffered. Second, because
civilians are ultimately responsible for producing weapons, food, and other services required to continue the war, in certain kinds of wars, targeting
civilian populations will be effective. By targets civilians you are actually affecting the outcome on the battlefield.
I want nothing to do with war. However, it seems like with all of the political and military tensions today, if one leader, I don’t know, goes
psycho and pushes that big red button and blows up [insert favorite destruction target here], killing thousands because of something our idiot leader
did, how is that just? I know the world isn't very fair, but it feels to me we can solve our problems without holding guns to the faces of the people
who are just trying to live.
Can't these power hungry world leaders figure out another way to settle differences besides throwing bombs at each other or civilians to block the
bombs? How about, if you don't like [insert government here], why not just kill THOSE people if you must, instead of their civilians?
Anyone else get what I’m saying here?
Until next time,