Is it “OK to drop a one-ton bomb in the middle of a neighborhood” if you’re at war and that’s where enemy forces are located?

Mary McGowan Davis, who headed the U.N. commission that investigated last summer’s Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza, tells Ha’aretz (paywall):  “We wanted to make a strong stand that the whole use of explosive weapons in densely populated neighborhoods is problematic and that the policy needs to change…. Because it is not OK to drop a one-ton bomb in the middle of a neighborhood.”

Of course, one shouldn’t gratuitously drop a one-ton bomb or any bomb in the middle of a neighborhood. But Davis’s critique doesn’t seem limited to gratuitous bombings, but includes the bombing of military targets located in civilian neighborhoods.
If the rule was “you may never bomb  [use “explosive weapons”] in a residential neighborhood if civilian casualties may result, regardless of the value of the military target,” it’s pretty obvious what would happen — enemy forces would simply plant themselves in residential neighborhoods knowing they would be immune from attack.
So, for example, Hamas could launch all the missiles it wanted at Israel from the middle of Gaza City, and use apartment buildings, schools, etc. as staging grounds and headquarters, and Israel would be helpless to respond.

Indeed, Hezbollah seems to be banking on international pressure forcing Israel into exactly such helplessness when conflict next erupts, by moving “most of its military infrastructure into the Shiite villages of southern Lebanon and around their perimeters.” Israel or any civilized country should take reasonable measures to minimize noncombatant casualties, and indeed Israel managed to limit civilian casualties last summer despite operating in heavily populated neighborhoods in Gaza, in part because many missions were called off when the potential civilian toll was considered.

But surely it can’t be the rule that if you’re at war and there are high-value military targets in a civilian neighborhood, you are absolutely forbidden from using “explosive weapons” against them. (And it’s not like the alternative, sending in ground forces to fight house-to-house, is likely to result in fewer overall civilian casualties than precision bombing campaigns.) Has any country actually adopted such a policy? Would the public of any country stand for its leaders adopting such a policy, exposing the country’s own population to attack while their own military stands down?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/23/is-it-ok-to-drop-a-one-ton-bomb-in-the-middle-of-a-neighborhood-if-youre-at-war-and-thats-where-enemy-forces-are-located/

A 'ONE TONNE' Bomb  ???

I'd nominate the Morris Marina and Triumph Stag motor cars as a "One tonne bombs"..

And the Ford Edsel and Leyland P76 as "Two ton bombs".

BOTH should make a sizable impact if dropped onto suburban battlegrounds from a few thousand feet..

That is not the question being asked in regards to conflicts and if in the future armed groups can hide behind civilians to attack others free from any attempts to take them out? If the rules of engagement change it could have devastating consequences.

my goodness how we have become so civilised.. we make rules for how to kill each other...

pretty amazing are rules for war just a way to beat your opponent in to looking bad...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:my goodness how we have become so civilised.. we make rules for how to kill each other...

pretty amazing are rules for war just a way to beat your opponent in to looking bad...

I would say thank goodness that some nations do sign up to rules in war.
It could of course be as bad as some rules found in some books like Herem.

Cuchulain wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:my goodness how we have become so civilised.. we make rules for how to kill each other...

pretty amazing are rules for war just a way to beat your opponent in to looking bad...

I would say thank goodness that some nations do sign up to rules in war.
It could of course be as bad as some rules found in some books like Herem.

there should never be any wars or needs for rules for those wars...

if people weren't so arrogant and pigheaded we would learn to get along...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:



I would say thank goodness that some nations do sign up to rules in war.
It could of course be as bad as some rules found in some books like Herem.

there should never be any wars or needs for rules for those wars...

if people weren't so arrogant and pigheaded we would learn to get along...

Indeed there should be no need for wars, but humanity has not evolved to that level yet. Until it does we certainly need rules to minimize the cost of life, because there are some out there that are intent on war. Sadly we have had countless centuries of people fighting over which mythical deity they believe in is to them the right one. That is the problem with monotheistic religions. It portrays one as right and everything else as wrong and in the Abrahamic faith it condemns them to punishment. Leaves open to many avenues for conflict.

Cuchulain wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

there should never be any wars or needs for rules for those wars...

if people weren't so arrogant and pigheaded we would learn to get along...

Indeed there should be no need for wars, but humanity has not evolved to that level yet. Until it does we certainly need rules to minimize the cost of life, because there are some out there that are intent on war. Sadly we have had countless centuries of people fighting over which mythical deity they believe in is to them the right one. That is the problem with monotheistic religions. It portrays one as right and everything else as wrong and in the Abrahamic faith it condemns them to punishment. Leaves open to many avenues for conflict.

It's nothing to do with evolution, it is everything to do with vanity of men, if in the next war we put the leaders of those nations in the front row it would be the last war...

religion has not created wars it has been an excuse to go to war used by men with other motives....

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Indeed there should be no need for wars, but humanity has not evolved to that level yet. Until it does we certainly need rules to minimize the cost of life, because there are some out there that are intent on war. Sadly we have had countless centuries of people fighting over which mythical deity they believe in is to them the right one. That is the problem with monotheistic religions. It portrays one as right and everything else as wrong and in the Abrahamic faith it condemns them to punishment. Leaves open to many avenues for conflict.

It's nothing to do with evolution, it is everything to do with vanity of men, if in the next war we put the leaders of those nations in the front row it would be the last war...

religion has not created wars it has been an excuse to go to war used by men with other motives....

It has everything to do with evolving to a higher state of consciousness where there is no hate anymore. When people learn to stop hating, stop being greedy, stop wanting what they cannot have, etc. When people learn to share and love then wars will stop. I never say religions cause wars, I stated its doctrines open avenues for reasons for conflicts.