Earlier this year, US intelligence discovered that the Russian government planned to assassinate the chief executive of a powerful German arms manufacturer which has been producing artillery shells and military vehicles for Ukraine, according to five US and western officials familiar with the episode.
We had civilians driving supply trucks for the US military in Iraq. I’d consider them legitimate military targets. “Civilian” is a pretty nebulous concept when you’re performing integral work supplying an enemy in wartime. If it’s legit to target a weapons factory of an enemy nation, it seems just as legit to target the guy running it. You can’t hack the rules of war by privatizing your military.
deleted by creator
CEO should be the first person you’re allowed to target. They’re paid the most, so they should take the risk
Yeah, we’re all contributing to some extent so “civilian” is meaningless if you go too far. But whatever the cutoff is, it should start from the top down. The receptionist at the weapons plant is a lot less culpable for the war effort than the CEO. But I’d also say if the receptionist got offed in a missile strike it wouldn’t be a deplorable civilian casualty. They knew where they were working and that their business is death.
The difference is that the receptionist isn’t being targeted, the factory is. I think that holds true for the CEO also. If they’re collateral damage it isn’t a warcrime, if they’re specifically targeted it is.
Fair enough, though there are some employees whose death would meaningfully impact arms production, like a star engineer or a tech with hard to replace skills. A CEO’s death would also likely meaningfully impact arms production.
And frankly, I think anyone directly involved in making weapons that are killing your people is fair game. The army also has receptionists who don’t participate in combat operations, but they know what they’re involved in.