This shows the validity of the doctrine of double effect as in this situation, the action of killing civilians was outweighed by alternative option. In this example it would be prolonging the war, which would cause further combatant and non-combatant deaths, eventually revealing that intentional harm to civilians can be permissible. There are other examples in warfare where it can be argued that intentional targeting of civilians can be permissible, such as the example of the allied bombing campaign during World War II. The Free French Air Force participated in a number of bombing raids against occupied France, which resulted in the deaths of French civilians who worked and lived near the factories. Simultaneously, it was also suggested that small commando teams or French Resistance Fighters carry out raids on the targets, a tactic which would not endanger the civilian population. However, these raids would have been dangerous and offered little chance of success, so it was decided the bombing campaign would go ahead. While this occurred, it was necessary to take precautions to limit civilian casualties, such as utilising low altitude precision bombing tactics. 71 This example shows that in certain situations the targeting of civilians can be permissible, for example, in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the alternatives to the bombing operation would have resulted in far more casualties. Also, in the bombing campaign over occupied France, the Free French Air Force took precautions to limit civilian casualties. The objective of the operation to destroy factories supporting Nazi Germany and occupied France can also morally outweigh the targeting of civilian areas. In this scenario, Michael Walzer argues that the Germans would take shared responsibility for the civilian deaths as they:
71 Walzer, 2015.
40
Made with FlippingBook HTML5