Country A with a powerful military attacks its neighbouring country B with a weak military in order to expand its territory and gain access to resources. The population generally supports this attack, army A only attacks military targets, but army B stands no chance of repelling the attacking army and does not receive support from third parties.
In this specific situation, would we hold country B to the same standards or would we deem it acceptable if country B attacked non-military targets, civilian infrastructure, and in the extreme civilians? That does not necessarily mean that such actions would be desirable because of the resulting reaction. And there might also be higher order effects, for example a change in the understanding what is acceptable in such conflicts, that make such action undesirable in the longer term.
Country A with a powerful military attacks its neighbouring country B with a weak military in order to expand its territory and gain access to resources. The population generally supports this attack, army A only attacks military targets, but army B stands no chance of repelling the attacking army and does not receive support from third parties.
In this specific situation, would we hold country B to the same standards or would we deem it acceptable if country B attacked non-military targets, civilian infrastructure, and in the extreme civilians? That does not necessarily mean that such actions would be desirable because of the resulting reaction. And there might also be higher order effects, for example a change in the understanding what is acceptable in such conflicts, that make such action undesirable in the longer term.