- :up:

The pacifist can claim that all bombing is wrong, but no one is rationally justified in claiming that the night bomber and the day bomber are moral equals. — Leontiskos

They both intend to destroy designated targets. They know their weapons kill. They know that collateral civilian damage (schools, weddings, etc) invariably occurs in bombing raids. Not only are the bomber crews moral equals, the same ones do both, as decided by commanding officers. Infantry does it across a ditch with guns, or up close, with bayonets.
It seems that everyone accepts without question the moral blamelessness of killing soldiers and munitions workers (even if they don't work night shift, they're housed nearby, with or without their families.) Soldiers are just as human as civilians and civilians can be terrorists, spies or resistance fighters without uniform. Some combatants a kick out of killing; some do it as a duty; some go mad and do it out of that irrational, uncontrollable hatred some human develop for their victims. You see it among chicken-wranglers, too.
If babies get killed - well, like the helicopter pilot said, "Well it's their fault for bringing kids in to a battle," The babies don't go into the war zone; the war comes to them. There is no very high moral ground in the profession of killing.

They both intend to destroy designated targets. It is well enough known that collateral civilian damage (schools, weddings, etc) invariably occurs in bombing raids. Not only they moral equals, the same pilot is ordered to do both, as decided by his commanding officers. Infantry does it across a ditch with guns, or up close, with bayonets. It seems that everyone accepts the moral blamelessness of killing soldiers and munitions workers - even if they don't work night shift, they're housed nearby. Soldiers are just as human as civilians and civilians can be terrorists as people in uniform. Some get a kick out of killing; some do it as a duty; some go mad and do it out of that irrational, uncontrollable hatred some human develop for their victims. You see it among chicken-wranglers, too. If the babies get killed - well, like the helicopter pilot said, "Well it's their fault for bringing kids in to a battle," The babies don't go into the war zone; the war comes to them. — Vera Mont

To be frank, you should know that as a rule I am not going to respond to you, and this post exemplifies the reason why. With limited time, I am forced to limit my energies to the users that I deem more cogent. Hopefully this information is useful to you and helps adjust your expectations.

Hopefully this information is useful to you and helps adjust your expectations. — Leontiskos

And I'm suitably grateful.

Perhaps I was not clear. The main item that I was trying to adjust was this:

a strike on armaments factories — BitconnectCarlos

This gives side B a reason for their actions, whereas there was no reason given for A's actions. So to make A & B equivalent either we remove that reason OR we give A a possible reason as well.

We usually have this difficulty of seeing someone or especially a country as both perpetrators and victims. For many, for some reason, it is very troubling when someone points out warcrimes or other dubious actions in an otherwise justified military action. This is because those who are typically pushing their own agenda will try to diminish the justification by pointing out the negative aspects. Yet the reality is what it is. — ssu

:100:

(A field synagogue on the front during the Continuation War in Syväri, actually very close to the German positions, who then were our brothers in arms. 4 Finnish-Jewish soldiers were given the Iron Cross, none of the accepted it.) — ssu

That is fascinating. I did not know that 4 Finnish Jews were offered the iron cross by Germany but rejected it. You learn something new everyday.

I place greater moral blame upon those who unnecessarily kill without justification, but I consider self preservation and preservation of one's own people a valid justification.

So, if bombers can destroy a military target from the safety of the sky, they can properly weigh their objective (the eliminatation of the target) against their personal risk of injury against the loss of their enemies' life. That is, it is proper to place one's own safety above one's enemy and it is one's duty to protect one's own people. That is what militaries do. A bomber is therefore not ethically bound to put boots on the ground and go in with an axe in order to achieve his objective even if the result would be to reduce the deaths of opposing civilians if it will (1) place the bomber-turned-axe-wielder at greater personal risk than he'd be in a plane or (2) reduce the efficancy of his campaign to protect his own citizens. I'm assuming the longer the enemy target exists, the more danger is posed.

That is, if the bomber can make his home more safe and not expose himself to great risk, he ethically should bomb and not axe folks.

Supposing one does choose to go at it with an axe, perhaps because an axe is all he has, it would be unethical to axe murder any person unnecessary to achieve their objective in eliminating a target. To the extent a civilian interferes in the axeman's objective, he might rightfully be axed, but then that interferer is hardly just a civilian, but he's now a combatant. An axe wielder in this scenario is particularly unethical if (1) he axes a civilian not in the furtherance of a military objective or (2) his axing has no reasonable way of doing anything militarily, but it is instead just an attempt to evoke terror on the part of the enemy citizenry.

What then might someone do who has only rocks and sticks against an enemy with precision missles? There's not much he can do, but that he's weak doesn't change his moral obligations. If it did, we might just say he can morally butcher, rape, and drag off old ladies as hostages.

Is the pilot and the group of armed men morally equivalent? — BitconnectCarlos

Anything is equivalent if you have reason enough to legitimise it in your own head. Hence, the futility of adding weight to judgement from afar.

More often than not if we were in their shoes we would almost certainly behave in a similar manner. This is regardless of the comforting lie we tell ourselves about our moral superiority.

Except you a monster then you have an iota of a chance you can placate yourself to act in a less monstrous fashion when life comes to taunt, poke, prod and provoke you (which it will!).

There is no very high moral ground in the profession of killing. — Vera Mont

And yet the act of humaneness is especially needed the most in a war. The killing fields is especially where you shouldn't forget basic humanity, even if you have a task to do.

(A Navy corpsman helps an Iraqi soldier wounded by American gunfire in 2003.)

Yes, that happens, too; more easily (with no punishment) if the enemy soldier is your prisoner.

The world is on fire, literally and figuratively. Collectively, we humans are hopelessly prone to the politics of scale and differences, both real and perceived, especially those involving color, nationality, race and religion.

It's plausible that if the world’s population was somehow reduced to just a few city blocks of seemingly similar residents, there’d eventually be some form of notable inter-neighborhood hostilities.
Still, from within ourselves we, as individuals, can resist flawed yet normalized human/societal nature thus behavior.

Still, from within ourselves we, as individuals, can resist flawed yet normalized human/societal nature thus behavior. Perhaps relevant to this are the words of sociologist Stanley Milgram [of Obedience Experiments fame/infamy]: “It may be that we are puppets — puppets controlled by the strings of society. But at least we are puppets with perception, with awareness. And perhaps our awareness is the first step to our liberation.”