Detail from an iconic 1972 photograph showing Phan Thi Kim Phuc running down a road near Trảng Bàng, Vietnam, following a napalm strike. Photo by Nick Ut via Wikimedia Commons.
When another wave of casualties hits the Operating Room, Frankie sees civilians and "a child, crying for her mother," and wonders "Had the U.S. bombed another South Vietnamese village?" (173).
The first question in this question set requires some research (cite reliable sources in your answer):
How did the civilian casualty rates in the Vietnam War compare to the civilian casualty rate in other wars the U.S. military has fought?
Is a high civilian casualty rate a reliable measure of an army's brutuality?
Would you say that armies that inflict high civilian casualty rates are less virtuous than armies that don't?
It was harder than I thought it would be to find a reliable source, but the estimated civilian casualty rate for the Vietnam war was around 247,000 people - including only southern Vietnamese civilians. Compare this to the Korean war, and the civilian casualty rate is lower, as in the Korean war, an estimated two million North and South Korean civilians died.
ReplyDeleteI would like to say that a high civilian casualty rate is a reliable measure of an army's brutality, but it probably is not that simple. Unless actions are being taken to try and prevent civilian deaths, then yes, it can be a reliable measure, as it can show that a specific army has little to no regard for civilian life.
I would say that a high civilian casualty rate is less virtuous. To me, that can be a reflection of the armies' values. Are they focused solely on winning no matter what? Or do they have some form of regard for human life?
I agree with your second comment for the most part. I do feel that a good example of high civilian casualty rates in war showing the army's brutality is Genghis Khan and his army which killed I think about 30 million people. That is a dated example but does truly show the extent of the brutality committed. A more modern example that shows that a high civilian casualty rates doesn't necessarily indicate a counties brutality is the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. More than 210,000 Japanese civilians died that day alone, but that event isn't necessarily indicative of America's army being brutal. This is a pretty intense example but I hope my point is understood and I don't sound crazy.
DeleteQ1 Vietnam has one of the highest civilian casualty rates of american wars of course ww2 had many but that was also a larger war and Americans weren't behind most of them Vietnam was a very bloody war compared to the other the US fought in.
ReplyDeleteQ2 I personally believe that in Vietnam many civilians died because the lines between who was the enemy and who was a civilian were blurred so badly. There are also cases where nations specifically target civilians and worsen the situation for everyone making the war extra brutal.
Q3 yes but you have to be careful as sometimes casualties are inevitable. War is horrible and sometimes innocent people do get hurt but an overly high amount of human casualties is a horrible thing.