Collateral damage

The term "collateral damage" is often attributed to economist Thomas Schelling, who used it in his 1961 article Dispersal, Deterrence, and Damage published in Operations Research.{{cite journal |last1=Schelling |first1=T. C. |date=1961 |title=Dispersal, Deterrence, and Damage |journal=Operations Research |volume=9 |issue=3 |pages=363–370 |doi=10.1287/opre.9.3.363 |jstor=167568}}{{Cite web |title=In Memoriam: Thomas C. Schelling, 1921–2016 |url=https://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/in-memoriam/schelling |access-date=2024-11-16 |website=www.wcfia.harvard.edu |language=en}} In this article, Schelling discussed military strategies that inadvertently lead to the destruction of civilian areas, not directly targeted but affected by military actions intended to affect other strategic assets. The term came into usage during the Vietnam War and over several decades became entrenched in U.S. armed forces jargon.{{cite book

| last1 = Rockel

| first1 = Stephen J.

| last2 = Halpern

| first2 = Rick

| title = Inventing Collateral Damage: Civilian Casualties, War, and Empire

| year = 2009

| publisher = Between the Lines

| isbn = 9781897071120

}}

During the 1991 Gulf War, Coalition forces used the phrase to describe the killing of civilians in attacks on legitimate military targets. According to Scottish linguist Deborah Cameron,Deborah Cameron (1995). [https://books.google.com/books?id=1XYsOwXSVFwC&pg=PA73Verbal Hygiene. 2 – Restrictive practices. The politics of style. "Collateral damage" and the politics of discourse]. Routledge, p. 72. {{ISBN|041510355X}}. "the classic Orwellian arguments 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" ({{langx|de|Kollateralschaden}}) was named the German Un-Word of the Year by a jury of linguistic scholars. With this choice, it was criticized that the term had been used by NATO forces to describe civilian casualties during the Kosovo War, which the jury considered to be an inhuman euphemism.{{cite news|url=http://einestages.spiegel.de/external/ShowTopicAlbumBackground/a23795/l32/l0/F.html#featuredEntry |work=Der Spiegel|title=Ein Jahr, ein (Un-)Wort!|language=de}}

Military necessity, along with distinction and proportionality, are three important principles of international humanitarian law, governing the legal use of force in an armed 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 Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, investigated allegations of war crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and published an open letter containing his findings. A section titled "Allegations concerning War Crimes" elucidates this usage of military necessity, distinction, and proportionality:

{{blockquote|Under international humanitarian law and the Rome 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,Article 52 of ''Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions provides 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-Ocampo References page 5, footnote 11). 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 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva 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).Luis Moreno-Ocampo [http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/F596D08D-D810-43A2-99BB-B899B9C5BCD2/277422/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf OTP letter to senders re Iraq] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090327061739/http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/F596D08D-D810-43A2-99BB-B899B9C5BCD2/277422/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf |date=27 March 2009 }} 9 February 2006. "Allegations concerning War Crimes" Pages 4, 5}}

The USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide defines 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",{{cite web |url=http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afpam14-210/part20.htm#page180 |title=USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide — AIR FORCE PAMPHLET 14- 210 Intelligence |access-date=6 October 2007 |date=1 February 1998 |page= 180}} stating that "[s]uch damage can occur to friendly, neutral, and even enemy forces". Another United States Department of Defense document 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",{{cite web|url=http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf|title=Joint Doctrine Library|website=dtic.mil|access-date=3 April 2018|archive-date=24 August 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140824034254/http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf|url-status=dead}} 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".{{cite news|last=Bradley|first=Graham|title=Military Turns to Software to Cut Civilian Casualties|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=21 February 2003|page=A18}}

While not actually invented by the military,{{cite web |title=The meaning and origin of the expression: Collateral Damage |url=https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/97000.html#:~:text=The%20expression%20'collateral%20damage'%20wasn,existed%20throughout%20the%2020th%20century.&text=The%20expression%20'collateral%20damage'%20is,minor%2C%20might%20be%20so%20described. |access-date=17 February 2021 |website=Phrase Finder UK }}{{unreliable source?|date=April 2021}} its use in military context has been common. However, the term has since been widely adopted for non-military cases, and in particular, the COVID-19 pandemic. A large number of medical,{{cite journal |last1=Feral-Pierssens |first1=Anne-Laure |last2=Claret |first2=Pierre-Géraud |last3=Chouihed |first3=Tahar |date=August 2020 |title=Collateral damage of the COVID-19 outbreak: expression of concern |journal=European Journal of Emergency Medicine |volume=27 |issue=4 |pages=233–234 |doi=10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000717 |pmc=7202126 |pmid=32345850}} government sources{{cite journal |last1=Masroor |first1=S. |year=2020 |title=Collateral damage of COVID-19 pandemic: Delayed medical care |journal=Journal of Cardiac Surgery |volume=35 |issue=6 |pages=1345–1347 |doi=10.1111/jocs.14638 |pmc=7276840 |pmid=32419177}} and media{{cite news |last1=Gorvett |first1=Zaria |date=28 May 2020 |title=Why most Covid-19 deaths won't be from the virus |publisher=BBC Future |url=https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200528-why-most-covid-19-deaths-wont-be-from-the-virus}} 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 the Great Barrington Declaration, purportedly signed by 3500 medical and other professionals (and mentioned in UK parliament{{cite web |title=Covid-19: Great Barrington Declaration |url=https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2020-10-13/debates/D95AEF4A-019E-4067-BFCE-9116ECA0B27B/Covid-19GreatBarringtonDeclaration |access-date=17 February 2021 |website=The official report of all Parliamentary debates (Hansard) |publisher=UK Parliament}} and media{{cite news |last1=Freeman |first1=James |date=6 October 2020 |title=Why Won't the Media Listen to These Scientists? |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-wont-the-media-listen-to-these-scientists-11602013456 |access-date=17 February 2021}}) has a FAQ page titled 'Lockdowns and collateral damage',{{cite web |title=Great Barrington Declaration FAQ |url=https://gbdeclaration.org/frequently-asked-questions/ |access-date=17 February 2021 |website=Great Barrington Declaration |publisher=Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Sunetra Gupta and Dr. Martin Kulldorff}} and refers to this phrase several times.

The term has also been borrowed by the computing community to 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 Lists used to combat email spam generally block ranges of Internet 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 term collateral mortality has been presumed to derive from the term "collateral damage" and has been applied within military and non-military contexts. Fisheries are an example of this, where bycatch such as dolphins are called collateral mortality; they are species that die in the pursuit of the legal death of fishing targets, such as tuna.{{cite journal |last1=Chuenpagdee |first1=Ratana |last2=Morgan |first2=Lance E. |last3=Maxwell |first3=Sara M. |last4=Norse |first4=Elliott A. |last5=Pauly |first5=Daniel |date=2003 |title=Shifting gears: assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters |journal=Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment |volume=1 |issue=10 |pages=517–524 |doi=10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0517:SGACIO]2.0.CO;2 |jstor=3868162}}

• Non-combatant Casualty Value
• Acceptable loss
• Accidental death
• Legitimate military target
• Principles of war
• Unintended consequences
• Roadkill
• Center for Civilians in Conflict
• Principle of double effect

{{Reflist}}

{{Wiktionary|collateral damage|collateral}}

• {{cite web |last1=Roblyer |first1=Dwight A. |title=Beyond Precision: Issues of Morality and Decision Making in Minimizing Collateral Casualties |date=28 April 2003 |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA424627 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210421121639/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA424627 |url-status=live |archive-date=21 April 2021 }}
• [http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afpam14-210/part20.htm USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide – Attachment 7: Collateral Damage]
• {{cite journal |last1=Perice |first1=Glen A. |title=The Culture of Collateral Damage: A Genealogy |journal=Journal of Poverty |date=23 January 2007 |volume=10 |issue=4 |pages=109–123 |id={{INIST|18622358}} |doi=10.1300/J134v10n04_06 |s2cid=143970665 }}
• {{cite journal |id={{Gale|A133368631}} |last1=Reynolds |first1=Jefferson D. |title=Collateral damage on the 21st century battlefield: enemy exploitation of the law of armed conflict, and the struggle for a moral high ground |journal=Air Force Law Review |date=1 January 2005 |volume=56 |pages=1–109 }}
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20070217034358/http://www.friendsjournal.org/contents/2003/04april/feature.html The Faces of "Collateral Damage" by Charlie Clements, Friends Journal, April 2003]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20090527142007/http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/1571 "Collateral Damage: A Military Euphemism for Murder"] by Camillo Mac Bica, Znet, 16 April 2007

{{Authority control}}

Category:Military-related euphemisms

Category:Linguistic controversies

Category:War casualties