[Skybird]

Some days ago somebody mentioned the Lusitania and another naval incident in a discussion with me, in the Gaza thread. I admit that I heared the name Lusitania, of course, but never learned any specifics about it from a documentary or book, since I never had any special interest. Thus, I refused - and still refuse - to form a personal opinion on these incidents. I lack any information or knowlege basis about it that I would trust, since I never educated myself about it. Being told many different versions of the story just tells me that there are several different versions of the story - it does not tell me the story's historic truth itself.

However, I certainly note that wherever the Lusitania incident gets mentioned, narration about the why and how that led to it'S sinking widely vary, according to the narrator's intention or willingness to define kind of a difference between warfare that is considered "acceptable" and determined warfare that crosses a line and is seen as "unacceptable". To me, such things make no sense. The difference to me is (ignoring the chances of misidentifying targets or bad intel) whether or not the destruction of a taregt like the Lusitania makes miliutary sense, or not. If it does, then it is just that: it makes military sense. If it does not, then the destruction is not necessary. The intended targetting and killing of civilians in itself is an act that I see no military value in as long as these civilians do not directly or indirectly interfere with any of the fighting sides (supplying intel, sabotage, hosting fighters, hiding weapons, voluntarily willing to serve as human shields, giving any form of support for the enemy, etc). Such killing of civilians is not needed and must not be done. However, if it is true that the Lusitania had been loaded with ammo supplies as well, then this made it a valid military target, and the loss of civilian life in this case was not intentional but what is called collateral damage - killings that are not intended but that get accepted as an unavoidable side-effect of acchieving the military goal. Whether or not churchill set up the Lusitania as a trap to lure the US into the war, like later Roosevelt gambled over a Japanese attack in order to bring the Us into WWII, is something political that in principal does not change the military logic in attacking the Lusitania.

War is neither fair, nor just. Never. You do the killing that is needed, and you must not do the killing that is not needed to achieve victory, defined as the achieving of military objectives up to a totality that the enemy breaks down. If that is not sentimental enough for somebody, or is too tough - he would be well-advised to be very hesitent about going to war. But he should be aware that although he may not seek war, war possibly can find him nevertheless.