Military manufacturing and recruitment centres are typically regarded as valid military targets, even though the people working there are not military personell.
And what about the taxpayers and every other person who keeps the backbone of the war machine running? from accounts to doctors, all these people are enabling the society to wage war.
Civilians not involved in critical military infrastructure are typically not regarded as valid military targets. Thanks for asking :)
Are police of the enemy considered civilian or military?
In general no, but it can depend. Some countries blur the line between police and military, that's when it can get foggy. If a country has a strictly civilian police force that does not take part in combat or training operations with the military, they are typically not valid targets. Just like any other armed civilian not taking part in combat is not a valid target.
I'd say it also depends on if the police open fire on the other force when they get near then their official roll goes out the window they chose to get involved
Exactly, thats why I specified
(...) that does not take part in combat (...)
Just like any other armed civilian not taking part in combat (...)
Only by those who can afford otherwise.
During total war you see those attitudes dissolve.
During a total war any reasonable military will prioritise destroying their enemies capacity to wage war. That typically includes prioritising munition spending on military targets.
Bombing a civilian city centre can be demoralising, but history shows that it primarily serves to harden your enemies resolve, because you are explicitly showing that you are willing to harm the civilian friends and families of those fighting or otherwise supporting the war effort.
The bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki is a prominent counter-example of this though, where the weapons used were so completely terrifying that they helped convince Japanese leadership that their entire nation could be wiped out if they didn't capitulate. Still: there are strong arguments to suggest Japan would have capitulated anyway. Note that even though other bombing campaigns killed more people than the nukes, they didn't cause a capitulation.
That attitude is a one way street to genocide. I recommend you rethink it.
No, genocide is a one way ticket to genocide.
Killing an enemy who is trying to kill you first is not.
Military manufacturing and recruitment centres are typically regarded as valid military targets, even though the people working there are not military personell.
And what about the taxpayers and every other person who keeps the backbone of the war machine running? from accounts to doctors, all these people are enabling the society to wage war.
Civilians not involved in critical military infrastructure are typically not regarded as valid military targets. Thanks for asking :)
Are police of the enemy considered civilian or military?
In general no, but it can depend. Some countries blur the line between police and military, that's when it can get foggy. If a country has a strictly civilian police force that does not take part in combat or training operations with the military, they are typically not valid targets. Just like any other armed civilian not taking part in combat is not a valid target.
I'd say it also depends on if the police open fire on the other force when they get near then their official roll goes out the window they chose to get involved
Exactly, thats why I specified
Only by those who can afford otherwise.
During total war you see those attitudes dissolve.
During a total war any reasonable military will prioritise destroying their enemies capacity to wage war. That typically includes prioritising munition spending on military targets.
Bombing a civilian city centre can be demoralising, but history shows that it primarily serves to harden your enemies resolve, because you are explicitly showing that you are willing to harm the civilian friends and families of those fighting or otherwise supporting the war effort.
The bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki is a prominent counter-example of this though, where the weapons used were so completely terrifying that they helped convince Japanese leadership that their entire nation could be wiped out if they didn't capitulate. Still: there are strong arguments to suggest Japan would have capitulated anyway. Note that even though other bombing campaigns killed more people than the nukes, they didn't cause a capitulation.
That attitude is a one way street to genocide. I recommend you rethink it.
No, genocide is a one way ticket to genocide.
Killing an enemy who is trying to kill you first is not.