|
|
|
|
|
by InclinedPlane
5245 days ago
|
|
Let's take an example from history. You have a country like Britain during WWII. It is a democracy, it has elected a government which has chosen to make war against Germany. There is widespread public support for the government and for the choice of making war against Germany. More so, the civilian economy is in high gear supporting the war effort (supplying food, clothing, arms, ammunition, vehicles, etc.) I can understand being apprehensive about violence against non-combatants, but in the above situation what exactly is the justification for excluding attacking civilians? |
|
So on the efficacy front, it didn't make sense, and on the honor front it's on some pretty shaky ground. Of course, it happened, so there's that.