Are there untouchable places in war?

[BigLutz]

At the beginning of the 21st Century and at the end of the 20th, it became more and more apparent that the focus of the world's conflict would be in the Middle East, just as Russia and Asia were the focus of the conflict in the beginning and middle parts of the 20th Century. As the first major conflicts with outside powers began in the 21st Century in the Middle East a new question about war has arisen.

Are there places that are absolutely off limits.

One of the first times this was really asked I believe was at the beginning of the Iraqi War. President Bush and his Generals made it absolutely clear that Mosques and other holy places would not be attacked. The result of this led the Insurgents and others to use these as safe havens, where they could stockpile and carry out attacks with out fear of reprisal.

For many in the military it was hard and frustrating to get accustomed to this strategy as in past wars a total war effort went out to fight the enemy no matter where it was.

In Israel this strategy has gone on for a even longer time, Hamas and others would use schools, hospitals, mosques and others as a staging ground for strikes into Israel. Knowing that reprisals would provide the best propaganda and shock through out the Arab world for their cause.

So I guess the question I pose for debate, and I am sure that some will chime in here. Are there safe places, or untouchable places in war? If a enemy uses a school or hospital or mosque or even a Residential Neighborhood to carry out attacks. Should reprisal be off limits in respect of the Human Shields and Cultural Respect that those places carry. Or should a military follow the enemy no matter where it is hiding?

 

[Ethan]

That's...actually a pretty good question.

My answer is no. However what I do believe, is that there "Avoid at all costs" places. Ofcourse no self respecting soldier, or human being for that matter wants to purposefully destroy places of culture and heritage. People just need to realize that in times of war, things change. In war people are dying. That's the name of the game. When lives are being sacrificed to complete a certian objective, certian lines have to be crossed. Now I think that any military should avoid bombing or damaging places of culture at all costs, but if militants such as terrorists for example, are using mosques as outposts to directly threaten the soldiers in the field, and the they can't find any other way to deal with them, then they should be obliged to bomb the crap out of them in all honesty.

A short summary:

If you don't need to, don't. If you do, do.

 

[Jaguar297]

I must agree with Babylon, if it's war, then people would want to either

1. Defend their country
or
2. They want to take over your country
or
3. They want to kill

There isn't much to say, unless you found a nice dark corner in the battle field
that maybe can hide you, for a year or eight.

 

[Strants]

Propaganda is the most dangerous weapon in war, especially to a guerilla force. In the American Revolutionary war, Paul Revere's print sparked outrage, through it's depiction of innocent Bostonians running for their lives, while British Redcoats fire upon, apparently under orders from their commander. Like all good propaganda, it leaves out details, such as the fact that Bostonians were throwing ice, snowballs, rocks, and sticks at the British soldiers.

Something similar could easily be done by anyone, given the right event. The fact that militants are using areas such as schools, and religious buildings implies that they are part of a guerilla force, and distinguishing them from bystanders may be difficult. And even if militants and civilians can be identified, there is not guarantee that a shot won't hit the wrong group. And if it does, the event will be used to recruit more fighter, not to mention that, there are many ways that an uncooperative local population can make an army's stay harder and more costly. Quelling these rebellions could just lead to more propaganda. This, obviously, is not a good situation to be in. It may be safer in the long run to leave militants in such locations alone, at least until you have a good relationship with the population, and even then it's risky.

 

[mrhiyuck]

It depends, as it usually does.

If you use areas like that to hide continuously, obviously the enemy isn't going to wait respectfully for you to leave the area and kill you outside there. If you abuse the civilian areas then respect for the other side will wear out after a while.

It's the country's own choice really, whether they want to put civilians and their culture in danger.

 

[houndourm]

No. The purpose of war is to take over or kill the enemy. But on some occasions it is to win rights.

 

[HoennMaster]

How times have changed. In World War II they purposely targeted famous locations. Honestly, what needs to be done to secure peace. That's how I see it.

 

[Penguinist Trainer]

I don't believe there should be any safe zones. I believe that if you are fighting, you have the right to protect your own life. I believe the primary goal should be to win with the minimum amount of casualties no matter where the location is.

For example, if our troops were following a bunch of militants that retreated into a temple, school, hospital, why should we have to turn our backs on them so they can gun us down? This isn't freeze tag, there are no safe zones in a time of war.

There is such a thing as an acceptable loss, which is why the goal should be to keep civilian casualties minimal. I know that our cultures are very different and they are highly religious, but if an enemy is stockpiling weapons in there, every single weapon in the enemies' possession could result in more casualties of war.

Nobody really wants war in their backyard.

 

[treespyro]

Never is, Maybe Switzerland and the Vatican

But seriously, They would bomb or fight anywhere to win, Win at all costs, But in past wars it was to get famous locations or bases, but now I would think that they would target the financial district of that country to cripple it

 

[ImJessieTR]

If everyone agreed to the rules, I say, "Sure, why not?" However, we're not playing a formal war game. It's too much of a strategic risk to let certain local icons go free. However, missiles aren't the only things in our arsenal. Use non-lethal attacks (sound, irritating or sedative gas, microwaves, etc) on the important buildings to spare local feelings, but attack all the same. That way you haven't killed civilian shields and they won't have as much motivation to turn on us. Playing the Freudian game of "Who's got the biggest missile" hasn't been helping as quickly as it should, according to strategic neanderthals. We need someone with a high-enough IQ to get as close to having our cake and eating it too as we can.

 

[Kazekage]

It depends on the seriousness of the place.

I mean they can't bomb the ****ing Vatican Church or Golden Temple.............

 

[ImJessieTR]

The only strategic advantage behind not blowing up, say, the Vatican and such, is that doing so would only anger the public, whom you need to win over psychologically if not physically. There's really no other reason to avoid doing it.