This can get tricky. If I'm attacked by a criminal, I may intend to shoot the criminal, but if I'm a poor shot, I may inadvertently hit an innocent bystander. That wasn't my intention, but it was the outcome. In that case I'd hate to be judged by the outcome.
It gets even trickier when you aim at a legitimate target, knowing that there will be collateral damage among innocent bystanders. The objection raised is, "How can you say you didn't intend to kill those bystanders when you know it would happen?" The answer is, did the good effect of my attack (destroying a factory, blowing up a train, whatever) follow in any way from the deaths of the bystanders? If I could have achieved all of my purpose even had the bystanders been miraculously removed from the scene, then killing them was not part of my intention. However, if any part of my benefit derives from killing someone, such as by depriving war industries of workers, then that outcome has to be counted as part of my intention.
However, in the cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention the fire-bombing of Tokyo and the obliteration bombing of Dresden, the intention was clear from the outset. The aiming points given the bombardiers were chosen such that bombs were to fall on civilian housing, non-military industries, etc. The stated intent was to wipe out the cities and their inhabitants.
Anscombe has a lot of good stuff, but basically she's a philospher, You have to be pretty deep into philosophy (I'm not) to understand much of what she says. I recommend The Just War Tradition by Corey and Charles; Law and War by Peter Maguire; and Just and Unjust Wars by Walzer. The latter is particularly interesting because Walzer is an atheist and derives Just War entirely from the Natural Law tradition, with not so much as a gesture to Aquinas or any of the other Christian scholars of Just War.
Hope that helps.
“If I’m attacked by a criminal, I may intend to shoot the criminal, but if I’m a poor shot, I may inadvertently hit an innocent bystander. That wasn’t my intention, but it was the outcome.”
Not your fault. The fault lies completely with the criminal as his actions caused collateral damage, as it were. Like a sniper in a hospital (or mosque). . .one can shoot back to defend and if innocents get hurt it is not the fault of the person shooting back, it is the fault of the sniper who is acting with evil because he is placing the innocent in a position to suffer. The sniper is not, in accordance with Just War, acting in a way aimed at minimizing the suffering of innocents. In fact, hje his bringing suffing down on them.
“It gets even trickier when you aim at a legitimate target, knowing that there will be collateral damage among innocent bystanders. The objection raised is, “How can you say you didn’t intend to kill those bystanders when you know it would happen?” The answer is, did the good effect of my attack (destroying a factory, blowing up a train, whatever) follow in any way from the deaths of the bystanders?”
A question of proportionality. Is the military gain worth the cost to the innocent? This is the question that is most difficult and the most politicized.
Many are not able to discern moral difference when it comes to civilian causalities.
Sad.