Talk:Collateral damage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's the logic behind putting list of war crimes as links here ? Taw

Contents 1 Alternative Etymology 2 The merge suggestion 3 Question 4 Revert on 18 Mar 2007 5 Popularity of the term 6 Meaning of "collateral"

[edit] Alternative Etymology

I do not whole heartedly swallow the assertion that this term, "Collateral Damage" began and always existed as a euphemism or doublespeak. The section discussing etymology says that "the adjective 'collateral' doesn't seem to have been used as a synonym for "unintentional" or "accidental" earlier." However, in a criminology class I once heard the explanation of the term having originated in hostage negotiation, where "collateral" referred to the hostages or kidnap victims that were being "held as collateral" by the perpetrators hoping to collect a ransom or otherwise strike a deal. "Collateral" in this meaning can be easily extended to include goods, landmarks, property or otherwise material things that could be held "hostage" in addition to people. "Collateral damage" in this sort of situation refers to "damage to anything being held as collateral, which occurs during the course of attempting to resolve the situation."

For instance, during a bank heist, should any hostages be shot, killed, or maimed in the course of a rescue attempt or by bank robbers intent on making a point, those losses would be considered "damage to the collateral" or "collateral damage." If the perpetrators were to detonate explosives in the vault, damage to the integrity of the vault or to the contents of the vault would also be grouped under "collateral damage."

As such, the military extension of this term follows as meaning unintentional damage to anything or anyone that an intervening army would rather survive unscathed, which is not a party to either side of the conflict. This applies to lives and treasure. In essence, it tries to acknowledge a sense of care for the wellbeing of indigenous, non-combatant inhabitants and innocents, as well as their property, while also recognizing the difference between this "damage to the collateral" which is trying to be protected and "casualties" incurred upon military personnel and property.

In this sense, I do not believe the term is entirely cynical, euphemistic, or loaded with double talk, but rather a very exact, yet concise, description of the unfortunate phenomenon of accidentally causing harm to or letting harm fall to someone or something that an armed force is trying to protect or save.

[edit] The merge suggestion

Did someone throw that merge suggestion in as an act of vandalism? If the terms are at all related, then a link in this article to the other might be called for. (I.E. if that's where the term comes from)

The example of "skilled workers in war factories" is a poor one, as that has always been defined by advocates of strategic warfare as a militarily-significant target in which no "disinformation" bones need be thrown to a public. The case that the term is mostly just a euphemism has not been made at all. It is not denied by any rational person that innocent civilians are killed and property destroyed in war--it's the intention behind the death and destruction that consitutes war crimes. Buckboard 09:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think article needs quite a bit of work doing it. It is of little use to say in the article that 'collateral damage' is a euphemistic term and then only in the discussion acknowledge that its etymology was euphemistic, rather than current usage. The term is frequently used in academic discourse and has taken on a much deeper meaning: referring to incidental damage to civilian infrastructure and to civilian casualties in conflict, within the boundaries of the CIL principles of proportionality and necessity. Some mention should also be made of its pejorative use.

In response to the other question on this page the concept of collateral damage is really only relevant to the 20th century, with the 1899 Hague Convention starting the process of delegitimising the targeting of civilians.

Lastly, the 'list' of examples is insubstantial and incorrect - for example, the US government response to the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was that the Embassy was near to a munitions factory, and that their information did not show that the Chinese Embassy was so close.

[edit] Question

Is the concept of Collateral Damage, limited to the "US Military" euphemism or term for the unintended killing of civilians and destroying their property, or is the concept as old as War, itself? Dr. Dan 04:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The term is a recent US military euphemism, but the concept is of course as old as war itself. Thomas Blomberg 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert on 18 Mar 2007

Some extensive, opinionated, and unsourced additions were made by an anonymous editor at IP address 160.136.109.109. A claim about the Geneva Conventions seemed particularly dubious or deprived of context. I reverted the changes, but would welcome discussion here if the reverts are considered unjustified. -- Rob C (Alarob) 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity of the term

Something should be added to the article relating to the fact that, while the term may date back to Vietnam, its use by the general public -- and in pop culture (film, TV) -- did occur until it became one of the buzzwords of the 1991 Gulf War. 68.146.47.196 16:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of "collateral"

Being a former latinist, "collateral" sounds like "on both sides" to me (co- is a prefix for things made in common, while "lateral" means side). I was very surprised at the definition given here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.150.192.237 (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)