• TWeaK
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think probably not, they’re still a civilian.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          We had civilians driving supply trucks for the US military in Iraq. I’d consider them legitimate military targets. “Civilian” is a pretty nebulous concept when you’re performing integral work supplying an enemy in wartime. If it’s legit to target a weapons factory of an enemy nation, it seems just as legit to target the guy running it. You can’t hack the rules of war by privatizing your military.

            • Makhno@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              Location, role in the company, I don’t know.

              CEO should be the first person you’re allowed to target. They’re paid the most, so they should take the risk

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Yeah, we’re all contributing to some extent so “civilian” is meaningless if you go too far. But whatever the cutoff is, it should start from the top down. The receptionist at the weapons plant is a lot less culpable for the war effort than the CEO. But I’d also say if the receptionist got offed in a missile strike it wouldn’t be a deplorable civilian casualty. They knew where they were working and that their business is death.

              • TWeaK
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                The difference is that the receptionist isn’t being targeted, the factory is. I think that holds true for the CEO also. If they’re collateral damage it isn’t a warcrime, if they’re specifically targeted it is.

                • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Fair enough, though there are some employees whose death would meaningfully impact arms production, like a star engineer or a tech with hard to replace skills. A CEO’s death would also likely meaningfully impact arms production.

                  And frankly, I think anyone directly involved in making weapons that are killing your people is fair game. The army also has receptionists who don’t participate in combat operations, but they know what they’re involved in.