It's funny because the situation you speak of with China is purely hypothetical while there are plenty (too many to count, really) modern day examples of the US military striking civilians all around the world.
But hey, at least America has the decency to agonise over it, right? Very civilised indeed.
5% collateral casualty rate, while regrettable, is very, very low, comparatively speaking. And yes, I was discussing this in context of a purely theoretical invasion of Taiwan. That's the whole point.
Comparatively speaking to what? The 20% non-military fatality rate in the decade of bombing that preceded that particular year? Vietnam? Korea?
To make a hand-wavy statement such as "China won’t agonize about collateral damage the way we do" makes it sound as though you think the collective American morality is somehow superior to that of the Chinese? I'm curious how one could come to such a conclusion while taking into account both recent and less recent history.
I wonder if China would treat the Tawainese civilians as gently as it treats its own? I suppose Tibet, Tianemnen, forced abortions, political prisoners, and the rest are just "hand-wavy" issues. Actually I do recall watching that one guy wave his hands a bit as he was run over by a tank in Tianemenn... or maybe it was twitching... can't recall.
Well, I suppose they are since you just hand-waved over them. I could hand-wave over any number of quantifiable, internal American social/geo-political issues also. Gun laws (Aurora, Sandy-hook, San Bernardino, Orlando, Mandalay Bay, Stoneman Douglas), mass for-profit incarceration of blacks/latinos for non-violent offences, forced births and closing of abortion clinics, Flint Michigan, response (or lack thereof) to hurricanes Katrina, Irma, Maria, just to name a few.
While we're at it, let me go ahead and hand-wave over the multitude of overseas abuses in a similar fashion. Lebanon, Cuba, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Argentina, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Iran, Libya, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria.
Now tell me, which of these points to any form of 'agonising' about human rights?
> Actually I do recall watching that one guy wave his hands a bit as he was run over by a tank in Tianemenn... or maybe it was twitching... can't recall.
Not to worry, it is a well known stereotype that Americans have very long memories of atrocities carried out by countries other than their own.
The US is hardly an ideal state, but they have policies in place to limit civilian casualties and actually practice them in warfare. The process of estimating civilian casualties from each bombing run is not just as a paperwork but actually delays the use of force on a regular basis. This is a direct outgrowth of past blowback from indiscriminate total war in the past.
So, while it’s possible that China would use similar restraint you actually need to support that argument, because the American military does actually Agonize about this stuff.
You misunderstand the argument. You think the argument is about the justness or unjustness of killed/wounded innocent bystanders, and other collateral damage. Rightly you argue that the US behaves far better than any of it's enemies, or for that matter allies.
When compared to Venezuela, China, Russia and the other states these people keep defending, one might rightfully point out that the US not only behaves better but it's ridiculous to claim any comparison : clearly the US is morally superior to these guys. There can be no real argument about that. And about terrorists or Palestina, well, those states don't even claim their victims have anything to do with their "war", so if they have 95% collateral damage and innocents killed, they probably consider that a mistake.
In reality the point of complaining about America's use of force is a political point meant to change the politics of the US, change the balance of social power within the US.
Therefore arguments about what does and does not happen, or what is and isn't just given people's various positions ... are beside the point.
