Something to think about
“Based on data on armed conflicts between 2004 and
2007, the Geneva Declaration Secretariat suggests that, ‘a reasonable average
estimate would be a ratio of four indirect deaths to one direct death in
contemporary conflicts.”
From Saba Bazargan, “Noncombatant immunity and
war-profiteering”, in Seth Lazar and Helen Frowe (eds.), The Oxford Handbook
of Ethics of War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018; pp. 358-362. The
quotation is from p. 376.
Why should it be
different for the present conflicts in the world?
Thursday, December 28, 2023
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I don't know if collateral damage has been tracked or researched during a succession of conflicts, skirmishes and all-out wars. It probably has, and, overall death tolls in wartime, including non-combatants of all sorts can only have increased with the ability to kill ever-increasing numbers, in devastating ways.
Hello Paul. This is not about collateral damage, which actually is a direct consequence of a violent attack. You must rather think of, for instance, people who cannot go to hospital when they are ill for whatever cause, because the hospital has been bombed; people who die when they flee for possible violence because they are too weak to walk; people who die of hunger because the infrastructure has been destroyed, etc. See what is happening now in Gaza.
Well, whether right or wrong, when I think of collateral damage in a conflict, I think of any and all things associable with that struggle. A *natural disaster*, earthquake; hurricane, etc. I treat differently, insofar as injury and loss of life are not man-made---not intentionally, anyway. Others may to choose to disagree with distinction(s) I make. Disagreement is normal. When it escalates to conflict, it might also qualify as normal. My definition of collateral here treats it in the broadest sense which, admittedly, is not the traditional one. I'll leave this at that.
It's okay, and the term as such (which was not used in my quote) is not so important. What matters are the facts. If, say as till now in the present Israel-Hamas War, 20,000 people are directly killed, this means that all together 100,000 people will have died in the long (or not so long) run, if the calculation is right. as a consequence of the actions that killed those 20,000 people.
Post a Comment