What did Klingon's do with children?

[Tenacity]

Children of your blood enemies are thrown to starving targs.

 

[Timo]

True, but we've seen conflicting things about targeting helpless targets. In House of Quark it seems dishonorable to kill something weak and pathetic that can't defend itself, but in Nor The Battle To The Strong the Klingons are said to kill patients in their sickbeds. I guess it depends on the commander of that particular mission.

Or then it's purely utilitarian. A worthless weakling who is your enemy is best left alive, because he is a heavy burden on the enemy. A worthless weakling from your own army is best killed, because he is a heavy burden on you. And the latter also applies to injured enemy troops you have captured, if the alternative is caring for them in a POW camp and you have healthier captives for your interrogation and slave labor needs.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[XCV330]

Would they let them go or kill them or take them prisoner?

Lunch

 

[johnnybear]

Children would be no threat to Klingon soldiers and there would be no honour in killing an opponent that couldn't fight back! I would say that they would take children back to their main base eventually and train them as warriors to fight for the empire!
JB

 

[Nerys Myk]

Children would be no threat to Klingon soldiers and there would be no honour in killing an opponent that couldn't fight back! I would say that they would take children back to their main base eventually and train them as warriors to fight for the empire!
JB

KOR: Good honest hatred. Very refreshing. However, it makes no difference whether you welcome me or not. I am here and will stay. You are now subjects of the Klingon Empire. You'll find there are many rules and regulations. They will be posted. Violation of the smallest of them will be punished by death.

KOR: Return to your council, Baroner. You will receive our official notifications as soon as they are published. In the meantime keep the people in order. It is your responsibility.
KIRK: Or I will be killed.
KOR: That is exactly right. You will be killed.

 

[WraithDukat]

Kor seemed disgusted that Worf let child Duras live. So the fact they're kids probably doesn't matter to most Klingons, so I'd say they would be killed. 'Children' is an invented concept, they were basically mini people for a long time. Not every culture is going to agree with us.

 

[SpyOne]

True, but we've seen conflicting things about targeting helpless targets. In House of Quark it seems dishonorable to kill something weak and pathetic that can't defend itself, but in Nor The Battle To The Strong the Klingons are said to kill patients in their sickbeds. I guess it depends on the commander of that particular mission.

In House of Quark it was about a duel, in Nor The Battle it was war.
Also, in House of Quark it was about killing an opponent who refuses to defend himself. Quark pointed out that the "duel" was tantamount to just murdering him since he had no chance of winning.
While Gowron was willing to let the matter be settled by combat rather than by weighing yhe evidence, he was not willing to let it be settled by murder.

War isn't always about honor, and the opposite of "honorable" isn't always "dishonorable".
There is no honor to be gained in fighting a helpless opponent, but it is still tactically wise to do so.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

In House of Quark it was about a duel, in Nor The Battle it was war.
Also, in House of Quark it was about killing an opponent who refuses to defend himself. Quark pointed out that the "duel" was tantamount to just murdering him since he had no chance of winning.
While Gowron was willing to let the matter be settled by combat rather than by weighing yhe evidence, he was not willing to let it be settled by murder.

War isn't always about honor, and the opposite of "honorable" isn't always "dishonorable".
There is no honor to be gained in fighting a helpless opponent, but it is still tactically wise to do so.

What is the tactical value of killing the helpless?

You can argue if it's an alternative to taking prisoners, it's practical, but in the case of two year olds and the badly injured, they gain nothing.

 

[SpyOne]

The value in killing such people is preventing them from attacking you when they become more capable.

 

[Leathco]

I think they would more than likely ignore them. I mean, Worf more or less ignored Alexander, right?

 

[JirinPanthosa]

The value in killing such people is preventing them from attacking you when they become more capable.

Wouldn't Klingons welcome the fight?

I suppose in the 24th century it no longer costs more to heal a severely injured person back to usefulness than to train a new person.

But I don't get the impression this is utilitarian, I think Klingons have a war ethic that demands ruthless brutality toward the enemy until the war is over. The wounded, better to die than be disabled. Kids, the enemy just as much as their parents.