[libertyhouse]

Can somebody please confirm the percentage of bystanders allowed to be killed when fighting war in a moral fashion? I'm assuming no war/technology is perfect, and nobody can reasonably expect it to be so. I'm also assuming most readers here are OK with our Government fighting a moral war. What percentage is morally acceptable to the readers here?

[ALittleLight]

The government didn't even bother to declare war, so we're off the rails before we even look at the question of "moral war".

[libertyhouse]

Assuming some future declared moral war, what would be an acceptable percentage of collateral casualties?

[zarzavat]

The problem in this instance is that the percentage is very high on one side and very low on the other, meaning there's little incentive to avoid civilian casualties. Considering that the risk faced by American civilians is approximately zero, the risk to those civilians in other countries that America is at war with should be zero likewise.

[libertyhouse]

This doesn't really answer the question though. What is a reasonable percentage that would be acceptable to most readers here? If it helps we can assume equity in terms of ability to inflict casualties on bystanders by participating combatants?

[abalone]

You’re assuming the innocents killed were bystanders, not targets.

[libertyhouse]

Yes - the question assumes that innocents are not intentionally targeted.

[stjohnswarts]

I would guess there is no limit due to guilt by association.

[libertyhouse]

I understand you are responding in a flippant manner, but in warfare many innocents are inevitably killed, and it would be best to have a common understanding of an agreeable percentage in order to support decision/policy making, and to determine the merits of this particular case.