Murdering a metropolis?

[Baronus]

Imagine yourself as a general in a large scale war and you are given command to do whatever is in your power to defeat the enemy.

What are the pros(and cons) of murdering an entire 10 million citizen or larger city in your opinion?

What could possibly happen?

EDIT: Like for example if china and japan get into war with eachother and china is somehow able to capture tokyo. Chinese troops are however trapped by an overwhelming japanese siege. How effective would it be in this scenario to murder the 27+ million people of tokyo?

Would it have enough shock value to make the japanese troops surrender?

What could speak against such action, except for war crime allegation?

Edited May 16, 2016 by Baronus

[Clarke]

Hello my commie friend, is this your idea of a good time?

[Doktor Avalanche]

Considering there are only 17 cities in the world with a population of over 10 million citizens, it is ridiculous to fathom being the one to push the button, or order the extermination of the entire population. The only positive to doing so is achieving psychopath status worldwide and a sidenote section on you in the history books. The con? Same thing.

[Thalmor]

Okay, so despite the ridiculous shortness and lack of context of the OP, this can actually be a fun one. Bear with me, though, because it's a long one.

 

A story that I've always wanted to write would be a first-hand account of an anti-government militiaman, turn officer, in a hypothetical Second American Civil War (although it's not so hypothetical now that the Texan Republican Party is wanting to secede and could possibly take a few other states with it). In this scenario, most of the fighting occurs between the United State Military and pro-government militias against various rebel militias and military deserters in the northeast (where the government is most concentrated), Texas (where the heart of the rebellion is located), and California (simply due to it's large population).

 

Eventually, the rebellion organizes a full fledged army, and begin their first major campaigns in Kentucky (no bias here) to seize the South to tip the balance in their favor. After Kentucky is liberated, the protagonist of the story goes on to become a Major General, and leads a 1,500-man force to take over Lafollete/Jacksboro:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaFollette,_Tennessee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksboro,_Tennessee

 

These two cities are picked because I visited them a lot a few years ago when I went with my mother to her out-of-state workplace over the summer or Fall/Spring/Christmas break. As such, I'm very familiar with them (and the mountain terrain makes for some interesting, well terrain, for combat situations).

 

Going into Lafollette the normal way, you pass by an opening in the treeline by the side of the road on the highway that puts a large section of one of those two cities in view. In the story, the protagonist orders his artillery batteries to set up where the opening in the treeline is, and having help from an anti-government militia inside the city, the artillery batteries attack government structures (because Lafollette/Jacksboro has a loyalist government) and Tennessee State Guard positions.

 

The end result is that the anti-government forces swarm into the two cities and force the pro-government forces to surrender due to the speed and strength of the unexpected attack (greatly helped by accurate artillery attacks, of course).

 

Now, in the story, there was a lot of factors in favor of the attackers regarding the artillery: They had good intel, there was no pressure or rush, the artillery could clearly see their targets even without coordinates, the weather was cooperative, and the enemy had no air support nor artillery of their own. 

 

In a real world situation in which mass artillery is used, it's unlikely that the factors would be so stacked like that. So what happens is that the possibly for civilian causalities goes up for one reason or another. Lafollette/Jacksboro does not have a large population, and it's quite spread out. There was also only a handful of batteries used in the shelling. So, naturally, if one or both of those factories increase, then so do the number of civilian causalities.

 

So, to answer the OP plainly, it would be a war crime. That being said, In this scenario presented in this post, I wouldn't mind ordering the shelling of a metropolitan area if there was an abundance of enemy personnel or war materials that needed to be taken out. Collateral damage will always be a part of warfare. However, there is a line in which civilian causalities and ethics do overtake strategy, and so the situation OP presents in very particular.

 

Just for fun, I'm also going to present pictures of the area I'm talking about. I think the first picture may actually be the area in the treeline I was talking about, but I could be wrong. The second picture gives a better view of just how in the country the city actually is (when I was there, you'd frequently hear coyotes making all sorts of noise). The location in the second picture is also very close to where the house is I lived in whenever I was down there. I can tell because you can see the airport on the left, and the airport was very close to where I lived (enough so that we regularly had low flying planes pass over our house during takeoff, and we'd see the airport lights forming pillars of light at night like the lights at drive-ins).

 

 

 

 

 

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Hello my commie friend, is this your idea of a good time?

I spoke with him on IRC, he's not a commie.

[SoS]

The thought of shelling Lafolette gives me wood after seeing the pix. Would be perfect. Although, I don't have a clue as to the value of such a place.

 

Would I kill 10m civilians to dick the enemy? If the situation required...absolutely.

[Doktor Avalanche]

 If the situation required...absolutely.

Agreed.

[Baronus]

I spoke with him on IRC, he's not a commie.

He is right, I'm nowhere near a commie I RP a communist nation, however...

********

But what if we change the factors a little bit. What if it is your home country you are sieging?

What if it is your home town, and you have no choice but to murder it out.

Would you still consider murdering it, even though you have lots of memories linked to the place?

Edited May 17, 2016 by Baronus

[Andrezj Kolarov]

If you're besieging the capital of world fascism it's by all means blast the hell out of it:

[Thalmor]

The thought of shelling Lafolette gives me wood after seeing the pix. Would be perfect. Although, I don't have a clue as to the value of such a place.

 

Would I kill 10m civilians to dick the enemy? If the situation required...absolutely.

 

Honestly, it's full of junkies and white trash. It probably should be wiped off the map. :/

[Baronus]

Also, you don't nuke your own country if you are in the process of taking it back. That's just retarded.

Unless there's an alien invasion of a !@#$ zombie plague you simply don't nuke your home turf.

Thing is, I wasn't talking about nuking a city, I was talking about murdering it, so really like the "holocaust of bullets" in WW2. Collecting all the people of the town and shooting them. Shooting explosive rounds at building with the people still in it. Setting all the buildings on fire. Spreading a deadly gas in the town. That kind of stuff.

What I was talking about is kind of a terror act to make the defenders surrender , and still let the city habitable

Using nuclear weapons in this day and age is one of the stupidest things you could do, due to mutually assured destruction.

[Baronus]

Yeah you wouldn't be able to do that.

In a city like Tokyo, the news would spread so quickly that people would leave or it would have the adverse effect of turning them into combatants.

If you did that in the United States, you'd have an almost 100% chance of turning everyone strong enough to lift a weapon against you.

So you are telling me that if an entire army would have sieged a city people would still be able to escape large scale? If the army is organised enough, they could probably kill everyone within a night or two, I think

And what do you think US citizens are going to do with their shotguns and handguns against bombers, tanks and heavy artilerry? One tank could run over a hundred of these people, armed or not . It is true that every US citizen is going to turn against me, but what would they be able to do against a heavily armed professional army?

I am really talking about a coordinated, organised and planned genocide of an entire city done by an established and heavily armed army of a world power. Not a simple local dispute or a small military or terroristic attack. I mean commanding 700K soldiers to elliminate all people in the town

[Dimitri Valko]

If you're besieging the capital of world fascism it's by all means blast the hell out of it:

 

The civilians living under fascism aren't the enemy. They've been lied to, and brainwashed into thinking their side is right. You should try and liberate them; show them the truth and free them from their tyranny.

[Thalmor]

So you are telling me that if an entire army would have sieged a city people would still be able to escape large scale?

 

There would be warning ahead of time, so many people would try to flee anyways. For an entire city and it's hypothetical 10 million people to NOT escape, it would require the opposing force to completely encircle the city and to control the airspace. Accomplishing both of those tasks would be difficult.

 

 

If the army is organised enough, they could probably kill everyone within a night or two, I think

 

The Raping of Nanking lasted about a month, and then they only killed 300,000 people.

 

 

And what do you think US citizens are going to do with their shotguns and handguns against bombers, tanks and heavy artilerry? One tank could run over a hundred of these people, armed or not .

 

You have absolutely 0 understanding of military tactics.

 

A force of irregulars using guerilla tactics would be a headache for any force that was already engaged against the regulars on another country. That's just a simple fact that the Vietnam and Afghanistan/Iraqi occupations have shown.

 

Tanks aren't that great, either. You really overestimate them. Any sensible military will pair their tanks with infantry- especially in an urban zone. Tanks, if just by themselves, aren't that effective against a tirade of infantry.

 

As for heavy artillery, those need coordination, intelligence, and logistics for effective use (and protection by infantry). They're not that good by themselves.

 

As for bombers, you cannot win a battle with just air force. Bombers will inflict a lot of damage and causalities, but eventually the defenders will go underground or develop/utilize countermeasures. 

 

 

It is true that every US citizen is going to turn against me, but what would they be able to do against a heavily armed professional army?

 

I employ any modern nation to invade the ma-

 

 

against me

 

...

 

Okay...

 

But, yeah, I employ any modern military to invade the mainland United States. To do so, you'd have to breach the United States Navy and Airforce (not to mention our collection of confused lifeguards we call the Coast Guard). Following that, you'd have to withstand counterattacks to form a proper zone of control to safely deploy personnel and material to in order to support a ground operation. Then you'd have to fight through the millions of United States Armed Forces personnel that are currently enlisted, in the reserves, or that would enlist if we were invaded. Then, you'd have to withstand the millions of militia and volunteers that would proudly mobilize in defense of their homes, state, or nation.

 

Good luck!

 

 

I am really talking about a coordinated, organised and planned genocide of an entire city done by an established and heavily armed army of a world power. Not a simple local dispute or a small military or terroristic attack. I mean commanding 700K soldiers to elliminate all people in the town

 

As I sorta mentioned, the Raping of Nanking would if that bill pretty well. 

[Baronus]

Now I habe to agree with you you can't win a war with only bombers, but you can win a war if you combine the artillary, Air force and infantry.

 

Of course, the US civilians could use guerilla tactic, but I hardly doubt they know what they would be doing in such situation of mass panic.

 

And I know for sure that a car of 4000 kg going at a constant speed of 50 km/h will do much damage to any pedestrians, so how would an armoured vehicle of 10,000 K going at the same speed not able to do that. The composite armour of a tank is specifically designed to withstand bullets.

 

If I run the math correctly, if 700K soldiers kill 10 citizens an hour each, they could probably kill tokyo in about 4 hours

 

And then again my situation: I already have taken the city, and it would be surrounded by the enemy , I didn't take any if the pre fighting in consideration, as it is not useful in the debate

[Thalmor]

Now I habe to agree with you you can't win a war with only bombers, but you can win a war if you combine the artillary, Air force and infantry.

 

Of course, the US civilians could use guerilla tactic, but I hardly doubt they know what they would be doing in such situation of mass panic.

 

And I know for sure that a car of 4000 kg going at a constant speed of 50 km/h will do much damage to any pedestrians, so how would an armoured vehicle of 10,000 K going at the same speed not able to do that. The composite armour of a tank is specifically designed to withstand bullets.

 

If I run the math correctly, if 700K soldiers kill 10 citizens an hour each, they could probably kill tokyo in about 4 hours

 

And then again my situation: I already have taken the city, and it would be surrounded by the enemy , I didn't take any if the pre fighting in consideration, as it is not useful in the debate

 

So let's say you do wipe out all of Tokyo, or any other large city. Let's say nobody escapes, and there are millions of bodies in the street.

 

How do you deal with the internal dissent from such a atrocity, the foreign condemnation that will be brutal, and how do you think the population of the victim country will respond?

 

I mean, the intentional slaughter of civilians, even in limited circumstances, is viewed abhorrently. And, now, here you have it being done on an industrial scale intentionally.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Thalmor