Jump to content

Collateral damage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, seeCollateral damage (disambiguation).

Ruins from the Allied accidentalbombing of the Bezuidenhoutin 1945 included the deaths of more than 500 Dutch civilians.
Tokyoafter the massivefirebombingattack on the night of 9–10 March 1945, the single most destructive raid inmilitary aviationhistory. TheTokyo firebombingkilled around 100,000 civilians, but the city's industrial productivity—the primary target of the bombing—was cut in half.

"Collateral damage"is a term for any incidental and undesired death, injury or other damage inflicted, especiallyon civilians,as the result of an activity. Originally coined to describe military operations,[1]it is now also used in non-military contexts to refer to any unwanted fallout from an action.[2][3]

Since the development ofprecision guided munitionsin the 1970s, military forces often claim to have gone to great lengths to minimize collateral damage.[4]

Critics of use of the term "collateral damage" see it as aeuphemismthatdehumanizesnon-combatantskilled or injured duringcombat,used to reduce the perceivedculpabilityof military leadership in failing to prevent non-combatantcasualties.[5][6][7][8]

Collateral damage does not includecivilian casualtiescaused by military operations that are intended to terrorize or kill enemy civilians (e.g., thebombing of ChongqingduringWorld War IIandRussian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructureopenly described as "retaliatory" and intended to "make towns uninhabitable" ).[9][10][11][12]

Origins and usage[edit]

The term "collateral damage" likely originated as aeuphemismduring theVietnam Warreferring tofriendly fireor to the intentional killing of non-combatants and destruction of their property.[13][failed verification]The term was used in this context in a 1961 article in the journalOperations Researchby economistThomas Schelling.[14][non-primary source needed]

During the1991 Gulf War,Coalition forcesused the phrase to describe the killing of civilians in attacks onlegitimate military targets.According to ScottishlinguistDeborah Cameron,[15]"the classicOrwellianarguments for finding this usage objectionable would be that

  • it is jargon, and to the extent that people cannot decode it, it conceals what is actually going on;
  • it is a euphemism; abstract, agentless, and affectless, so that even if people succeeded in associating it with a real act or event, they would be insulated from any feelings of repulsion or moral outrage ".

In 1999, "collateral damage" (German:Kollateralschaden) was named theGerman Un-Word of the Yearby a jury of linguistic scholars. With this choice, it was criticized that the term had been used byNATOforces to describe civilian casualties during theKosovo War,which the jury considered to be an inhuman euphemism.[16]

International humanitarian law[edit]

Military necessity,along withdistinctionandproportionality,are three important principles ofinternational humanitarian law,governing thelegal use of forcein anarmed conflict.Offensives causing collateral damage are not automatically classed as a war crimes. They are war crimes when the objective is excessively or solely collateral damage.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo,Chief Prosecutorat theInternational Criminal Court,investigated allegations ofwar crimesduring the2003 invasion of Iraqand published an open letter containing his findings. A section titled "Allegations concerning War Crimes" elucidates this usage ofmilitary necessity,distinction,andproportionality:

Under international humanitarian law and theRome Statute,the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[17]even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 AdditionalProtocol Ito the 1949Geneva Conventions,but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly"excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires,inter alia,an assessment of:

  • the anticipated civilian damage or injury
  • the anticipated military advantage
  • whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).[18]

U.S. military approach[edit]

TheUSAFIntelligence Targeting Guidedefines the term as the "unintentional damage or incidental damage affecting facilities, equipment, or personnel, occurring as a result of military actions directed against targeted enemy forces or facilities",[19]stating that "[s]uch damage can occur to friendly, neutral, and even enemy forces". AnotherUnited States Department of Defensedocument uses "[u]nintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time",[20]which also states that "[s]uch damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack".

In U.S.military terminology,the unintentional destruction of allied or neutral targets is called "friendly fire".

The U.S. military follows a technology-based process for estimating and mitigating collateral damage. The software used is known as "FAST-CD" or "Fast Assessment Strike Tool—Collateral Damage".[21]

Non-military uses of the phrase[edit]

While not actually invented by the military,[22]its use in military context has been common. However, the term has since been widely adopted for non-military cases, and in particular, theCOVID-19 pandemic.A large number of medical,[23]government sources[24]and media[25]use this term widely in relation to deaths caused indirectly as a result of government policy such as lockdowns, and not directly by the virus itself. Significant debate on the pandemic strategy has ensued, with some advocating restrictions such as lockdowns to save lives, where others claim the 'collateral damage' caused by enforced lockdowns, masks and distancing may in fact cause more deaths over a longer term. An example is theGreat Barrington Declaration,purportedly signed by 3500 medical and other professionals (and mentioned in UK parliament[26]and media[27]) has a FAQ page titled 'Lockdowns and collateral damage',[28]and refers to this phrase several times.

The term has also been borrowed by thecomputing communityto refer to the refusal of service to legitimate users when administrators take blanket preventative measures against some individuals who are abusing systems. For example,Realtime Blackhole Listsused to combatemail spamgenerally block ranges ofInternet Protocol(IP) addresses rather than individual IPs associated with spam, which can deny legitimate users within those ranges the ability to send email to some domains.

The related termcollateral mortalityis also becoming prevalent, and probably derives from the term collateral damage. It has been applied to other spheres in addition to a military context.Fisheriesare an example of this, wherebycatchof species such as dolphins are called collateral mortality; they are species that die in the pursuit of the legal death of fishing targets, such astuna.[29]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^Holland, Joseph (2007). "Military Objective and Collateral Damage: Their Relationship and Dynamics".Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law.7:35–78.doi:10.1017/S1389135904000352.ISSN1389-1359.
  2. ^"Collateral Damage".Merriam-Webster Dictionary.Merriam Webster.Retrieved17 February2021.
  3. ^"The meaning and origin of the expression: Collateral Damage".Phrase Finder UK.Phrase Finder UK.Retrieved17 February2021.
  4. ^"Defense.gov News Article: U.S. Military Works to Avoid Civilian Deaths, Collateral Damage".Defenselink.mil.Retrieved25 February2010.
  5. ^"The Political Psychology of Collateral Damage".Archived fromthe originalon 4 March 2016.
  6. ^Peter Olsthoorn (21 September 2010).Military Ethics and Virtues: An Interdisciplinary Approach for the 21st Century.Routledge. p. 125.ISBN978-1-136-89429-9.
  7. ^Magedah Shabo (2008).Techniques of Propaganda and Persuasion.Prestwick House Inc. p. 134.ISBN978-1-58049-874-6.
  8. ^George Monbiot(22 October 2014)."'Cleansing the stock' and other ways governments talk about human beings ".Comment is Free.
  9. ^Macintyre, Ben (21 March 2014)."'The Bombers and the Bombed,' by Richard Overy ".The New York Times.
  10. ^Ivan Arreguín-Toft (19 December 2005).How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict.Cambridge University Press.pp. 30–35.ISBN978-0-521-54869-4.
  11. ^Ivan Arreguín-Toft (19 December 2005).How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict.Cambridge University Press.pp. 41–42.ISBN978-0-521-54869-4.
  12. ^Beau Grosscup (22 August 2006).Strategic Terror: The Politics and Ethics of Aerial Bombardment.Zed Books.pp. 165–166.ISBN978-1-84277-543-1.
  13. ^Cordesman, Anthony H. (2003).The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons.Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers. p. 266.ISBN978-0-275-98227-0.
  14. ^Schelling, T. C. (1961). "Dispersal, Deterrence, and Damage".Operations Research.9(3): 363–370.doi:10.1287/opre.9.3.363.JSTOR167568.
  15. ^Deborah Cameron (1995).Verbal Hygiene.2 – Restrictive practices. The politics of style. "Collateral damage" and the politics of discourse.Routledge,p. 72.ISBN041510355X.
  16. ^"Ein Jahr, ein (Un-)Wort!".Der Spiegel(in German).
  17. ^Article 52 ofAdditionalProtocol Ito theGeneva Conventionsprovides a widely accepted definition of military objective: "In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage" (Source:Luis Moreno-OcampoReferencespage 5, footnote 11).
  18. ^Luis Moreno-OcampoOTP letter to senders re IraqArchived27 March 2009 at theWayback Machine9 February 2006. "Allegations concerning War Crimes" Pages 4, 5
  19. ^"USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide — AIR FORCE PAMPHLET 14- 210 Intelligence".1 February 1998. p. 180.Retrieved6 October2007.
  20. ^"Joint Doctrine Library"(PDF).dtic.mil.Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 24 August 2014.Retrieved3 April2018.
  21. ^Bradley, Graham (21 February 2003). "Military Turns to Software to Cut Civilian Casualties".The Washington Post.p. A18.
  22. ^"The meaning and origin of the expression: Collateral Damage".Phrase Finder UK.Phrase Finder UK.Retrieved17 February2021.[unreliable source?]
  23. ^Feral-Pierssens, Anne-Laure; Claret, Pierre-Géraud; Chouihed, Tahar (August 2020)."Collateral damage of the COVID-19 outbreak: expression of concern".European Journal of Emergency Medicine.27(4): 233–234.doi:10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000717.PMC7202126.PMID32345850.
  24. ^Masroor, S. (2020)."Collateral damage of COVID‐19 pandemic: Delayed medical care".Journal of Cardiac Surgery.35(6): 1345–1347.doi:10.1111/jocs.14638.PMC7276840.PMID32419177.
  25. ^Gorvett, Zaria (28 May 2020)."Why most Covid-19 deaths won't be from the virus".BBC Future.
  26. ^"Covid-19: Great Barrington Declaration".The official report of all Parliamentary debates (Hansard).UK Parliament.Retrieved17 February2021.
  27. ^Freeman, James (6 October 2020)."Why Won't the Media Listen to These Scientists?".The Wall Street Journal.Retrieved17 February2021.
  28. ^"Great Barrington Declaration FAQ".Great Barrington Declaration.Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Sunetra Gupta and Dr. Martin Kulldorff.Retrieved17 February2021.
  29. ^Chuenpagdee, Ratana; Morgan, Lance E.; Maxwell, Sara M.; Norse, Elliott A.; Pauly, Daniel (2003). "Shifting gears: assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters".Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.1(10): 517–524.doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0517:SGACIO]2.0.CO;2.JSTOR3868162.

External links[edit]

Look upcollateral damageorcollateralin Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collateral_damage&oldid=1233276351"