A missile strike is a legitimate casus belli. If you’re not a pacifist, that means it justifies force to achieve a military objective, which necessarily justifies killing civilians.
Whether that’s “countless” or a few depends on the objective.
In general, civilian-combatant casualty ratios range from 1:1 to 5:1. They tend to be higher in urban settings like Gaza. The Chechen wars were closer to 7-10:1
The US estimates 15,000 combatants have been killed in Gaza. If so, we would consider 15,000 to 75,000 civilian deaths to be normal at this point.
Distinction without difference, it’s a casus belli either way.
Of course there’s a difference. An invasion is about seizing territory.
An attack is a casus belli even without seizing territory.
For example, if Putin launched missiles at Warsaw or DC, he would start a war. It makes no difference if any territory is taken.
I see, and that will justify killing countless Russian children in your opinion?
A missile strike is a legitimate casus belli. If you’re not a pacifist, that means it justifies force to achieve a military objective, which necessarily justifies killing civilians.
Whether that’s “countless” or a few depends on the objective.
Yes, I get that you think that as long as it fits the military goal, killing any amount of children is justified.
And I’m telling you that position is disgusting and abhorrent.
There is no military goal that justifies killing “any amount” of civilians. All of them have limits, which are based on military capabilities.
Okay, what is the limit of children the IDF should be able to kill before it is no longer justified? Give me a number.
In general, civilian-combatant casualty ratios range from 1:1 to 5:1. They tend to be higher in urban settings like Gaza. The Chechen wars were closer to 7-10:1
The US estimates 15,000 combatants have been killed in Gaza. If so, we would consider 15,000 to 75,000 civilian deaths to be normal at this point.