This reminds me a lot about the Geneva convention and how the rules of war very quickly got tossed aside during WW2.
If you compare say the Battle of River Plate (1939) vs. say the North Atlantic convoy run or the siege of malta (1942), there's a dramatic difference in how war was conducted and the types of weapon systems that were most effective. River Plate was almost gentlemanly: while commerce-raiding, the Graf Spee would first hail the merchantmen she was taking prisoner, identify them as belligerents, give them the opportunity to surrender, and then take crews on board before sinking them. When she was engaged and damaged, the ship took refuge in Montevideo, released the prisoners, and then there was elaborate diplomatic maneuvering to avoid violating Uruguayan neutrality. The ship was scuttled without further loss of life - other than Captain Langsdorff, who committed suicide. Several of his British adversaries attended the funeral.
By 1942, nobody cared about any of that. The most effective weapons were submarines and aircraft, and they shot to kill on sight.
We're at peace right now, despite a state of perpetual war that mostly exists for propaganda and business purposes. If it ever came to an existential conflict, human judgment would likely become a liability. Humans generally don't want to kill; in a state of total warfare that hesitation could be lethal.
I disagree, soldiers are conditioned to avoid hesitation, two nuclear bombs were dropped on japan,the pilots committed suicide. A soldier that would hesitate means the situation warrants hesitation.
Not hesitating when you should could mean escalation of conflict. Even if you win the battle,it can cost you the war. Look at vietnam, the US lost domestic support because of lack of political support at home. You need the people who are pulling the triggers to know what victory means and it is not as simple as efficiently killing everyone.
The only time taking humans out of decision making makes sense is if you want indiscriminant killing,political support would not waiver at the sight if most civilians being slaughtered , you are fine with inspiring waves of terrorists that will attack your civilians and every other country will remain allied to you and continue to engage in commerce with you despite your genocidal ambitions.
Even in world war 2, civilians were mostly not targeted and prisoners were taken on both sides.
War is not about killing, war is means to acheive a political end by force. A machine that kills without knowledge of the (political) end game in mind will slaughter the enemy and cost you victory. Killing axis soldiers was not the goal of the allies,liberating occupied regions and removal of the fascist regimes was the goal, a goal that can easily be acheived by bombing every populated area of europe with minimal foot soldier involvement.
Civilians were definitely target by both side throughout WW2. From Rotterdam to Dresden, Nanking to Tokyo. Both sides indiscriminately and intentionally killed civilians.
If you compare say the Battle of River Plate (1939) vs. say the North Atlantic convoy run or the siege of malta (1942), there's a dramatic difference in how war was conducted and the types of weapon systems that were most effective. River Plate was almost gentlemanly: while commerce-raiding, the Graf Spee would first hail the merchantmen she was taking prisoner, identify them as belligerents, give them the opportunity to surrender, and then take crews on board before sinking them. When she was engaged and damaged, the ship took refuge in Montevideo, released the prisoners, and then there was elaborate diplomatic maneuvering to avoid violating Uruguayan neutrality. The ship was scuttled without further loss of life - other than Captain Langsdorff, who committed suicide. Several of his British adversaries attended the funeral.
By 1942, nobody cared about any of that. The most effective weapons were submarines and aircraft, and they shot to kill on sight.
We're at peace right now, despite a state of perpetual war that mostly exists for propaganda and business purposes. If it ever came to an existential conflict, human judgment would likely become a liability. Humans generally don't want to kill; in a state of total warfare that hesitation could be lethal.