Author, Simon.
Published, May 6, 2009.

Perhaps those civilians killed in the bombing (described in Part 6) were workers from the factory who were working at the time. Some scholars claim that there is a difference between unintentionally killing civilians during a raid on a munitions factory and intentionally bombing a housing estate. Predelli starkly labels the former a ‘Strategic Bombing’, and the latter a ‘Terror Bombing’. Others think it is justifiable to kill ‘munitions workers’, as a distinction can be drawn between those working towards the war effort, and those not.

However, it is possible to have two quite different outcomes when bombing of the same factory. One outcome could kill 500 munitions workers. Another could kill 500 sleeping civilians. Yet, one act is considered more easily justifiable. This is difficult to agree with, because the worker in the munitions factory is a civilian in the same way a farmer is. If we start qualifying or, as Zupan says, ‘excusing’ particular civilian deaths because of their occupation, then we are on a slippery slope. It would be possible that someone could plausibly argue, then, that a mother and her three children could be justifiably killed because it is possible that her children will eventually join the army, posing a foreseeable threat. The mother could be killed because she may bear more potential fighters. This conclusion should cause us some discomfort. Yet, this is the logical end to the line of argument that says that bombing munitions workers is justifiable.

Part 8, on intentionality, can be found here.