Whether a few innocent people should be sacrificed in military operations to pursue the overall victory is a complex and highly controversial ethical, legal, and practical issue. The following is a multi-angle analysis framework： --- ### **1. Ethics and Ethics Perspective** -** Utilitarian view**： Advocating the principle of “the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people”, it may be considered morally acceptable to sacrifice a few people in exchange for overall victory. However, it should be noted that this logic may be abused and lead to disregard for individual rights. -**The view of obligation theory (such as Kantian Ethics)**： Oppose the treatment of people as a means, and believe that the right to life of innocent people is inalienable, even if the sacrifice of them can bring greater benefits. The absoluteness of moral obligation is higher than the result. -**Theory of Just War**： The traditional principles of just war emphasize the “principle of distinction” (distinguishing combatants from civilians) and the “principle of proportionality” (the benefits of action need to far exceed the collateral damage). The deliberate sacrifice of innocents is usually regarded as a violation of the ethics of just war. --- ### **2. International Law and the Laws of War** -**Core limitations of International Humanitarian law (IHL)**： -**Principle of distinction**: Direct attacks on civilians or civilian facilities are prohibited (the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols). -**Principle of proportionality**: Civilian casualties caused by military operations must not be “obviously disproportionate” to expected military benefits. -**Deliberate sacrifice of civilians**May constitute a war crime, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) can be held accountable. -**Exceptions and disputes**： There are gray areas in practice, such as the interpretation of ”military necessity" (military necessity) may be abused, but the law still strictly prohibits the direct targeting of civilians. --- ### **3. Lessons from history and real-world cases** -**Strategic bombing in World War II**： The Allied bombing of Dresden and Tokyo caused a large number of civilian casualties, which is often criticized as a contradiction between “justice of result” and “injustice of means”. Such actions caused long-term ethical disputes after the war. -**Drone strikes in the War on terror**： The United States has mistakenly injured civilians in Afghanistan, Yemen and other places in the name of “collateral damage”, weakening the local people's recognition of the legitimacy of military operations, and even fueling extremism. -** Humanitarian intervention dilemma**： For example, the NATO air raid on Kosovo in 1999, although it was aimed at preventing ethnic cleansing, still caused civilian casualties, raising questions about the rationality of “stopping evil with evil”. --- ### **4. Practical and strategic risks** -**Short-term gains and long-term costs**： Sacrificing innocent people may achieve tactical goals in the short term, but it will cause a crisis of moral legitimacy, weaken public support, intensify antagonism, and even lead to escalation of conflicts. -**Uncertainty of intelligence and decision-making**： Military operations often face intelligence errors, and the so-called “sacrifice of the few” preset may be based on misjudgment, which ultimately leads to meaningless casualties. -**Separation of political and military responsibilities**： Decision-makers are often far away from the battlefield and may underestimate the ethical weight of sacrifice, while the executors need to face moral trauma (such as the psychological burden of soldiers). --- ### **5. Alternative path: the feasibility of minimizing damage** The development of modern military technology (such as precision-guided weapons, artificial intelligence-assisted decision-making) and tactical innovation (such as asymmetric warfare, psychological warfare) are driving the reduction of the possibility of collateral damage. For example： - **Precision strike and intelligence integration**: Reduce the risk of accidental injury through high-precision weapons and real-time intelligence. -**Humanitarian suspension and evacuation mechanism**: Provide an evacuation window for civilians before the attack. -**Non-lethal means**: Achieve strategic goals through economic sanctions, cyberwarfare, or diplomatic pressure. --- ###**Summary: There is no simple answer, but there is a consensus** -**Legal bottom line**: International law prohibits deliberate attacks on civilians, and no military necessity shall prevail over this. - **Ethical priority**: Most ethical frameworks oppose the toolization of innocent people, but in extreme situations (such as genocide is imminent) there may be exceptional disputes. -**Strategic wisdom**: Decision-making at the expense of civilians often outweighs the gains and losses. A true “overall victory” needs to be based on the principles of legality, sustainability, and humanity. There is no universal answer to this question, but the consensus of modern society is that military operations must strictly follow the principles of distinction and proportionality, and regard the protection of civilians as an insurmountable red line.