"The Rules of War"

Manic Moran

But a full scale military assault on an undefended population centre containing one and a half million people and reportedly half a million children, is criminal, inhumane, disproportionate and outrageous.

So you suggest that a half-hearted military assault be done instead?

The use of the military should not be a first resort. However, once the decision to cross that line has been made, it would be irresponsible to do anything other than put full weight behind it. To quote First Sea Lord Fisher: "The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility"

Whatever the political proclivities of Hamas, and no matter how you couch it, there is an element of PROPORTIONALITY here that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge.

Disagree, for the above reason. It may not be 'fair' on the inferior force, but that's their problem. In any case, it appears to be working. Reportedly the reason that the Israelis got that rocket-group leader today was because his men were too scared to go out and do it, so he had to go launch rockets himself.

NTM

concussion

With regard to the Hague Declaration I found the following article quite interesting. There's also a good video dealing with wound ballistics.

'The 1899 Hague Declaration concerning expanding bullets: A treaty effective for more than 100 years faces complex contemporary issues'
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/irrc_849_Coupland_et_Loye

Wound Ballistics Video
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/f00943

---

Some other interesting documents I came across, all from the Red Cross site
Cluster munitions video
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/f00990

Document on cluster munitions
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/cluster-munitions-factsheet-010208

Duck's hoop

With all due respect. I'm with the all's fair, and all that. If someone's trying to kill you it's better for you to kill him first. I don't want to kill anyone but if s/he tries to kill me then I hope to kill him first.

This is of course the pre-emptoring position.

Pocono Joe

A question. What happens to the "rule of war" now that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is heading for trial in New York City, and entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen? He is a member of al-Qaida, who we are at war with, and the proclaimed planner of the 911 attacks. Now, if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was involved in mass murder, do we have the right to send Predators and Special Forces to kill al-Qaida fighters wherever we find them? Does this trial set some sort of precedence, as none of them has been granted a "fair trial." I just don’t understand Obama and Holder’s reasoning, and I fear for our military because of these two and there “political based” decisions.

Manic Moran

You've hit a very fundamental issue. The 'rules' simply aren't written with this sort of a conflict in mind.

On the one hand, in a normal war, you can hold the opposition, without trial, for the duration. Enemy surrenders or a treaty is negotiated, and everyone gets released. But there is no nation or government to negotiate with. By default, then, everyone captured is in for life, if you want to go that route.

On the other hand, it's not really a criminal investigation either. You come across all sorts of thorny legal issues from the rules of evidence through jurisdiction. We have enough trouble with this in the field right now to begin with, we don't need to add more.

Now, if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was involved in mass murder, do we have the right to send Predators and Special Forces to kill al-Qaida fighters wherever we find them?

A fundamental difference is that KSM is in our custody. In effect, he has surrendered. It is quite acceptable in warfare to kill your enemy as much as you want, until they have indicated a desire to surrender. Once the surrender has been accepted, there are some pretty solid limits on what you can do with them, and killing them isn't one of them. (Within limits. Arguably you can still execute non-uniformed combatants, for example, though a tribunal of some sort is still advised).

Article in StratFor last week on the issue.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091116_postsept_11_legal_dilemma

The real problem here is international law, which does not address acts of war committed by non-state actors out of uniform. Or more precisely, it does, but leaves them deliberately in a state of legal limbo, with captors left free to deal with them as they wish. If the international legal community does not like the latter, it is time they did the hard work of defining precisely how a nation deals with an act of war carried out under these circumstances.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

We have all these well-meaning people trying to come up with rules of warfare... Basically, they're trying to civilise warfare. Make it painless and sterile, with no side-effects.

"The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war" (John Lyly 1578).;)

Manic Moran

"Love." What do we know of love? We have no time for such sentimentality. In the future, there is only war. War consumes us for those who do not devote themselves entirely towards the profession of arms will fail the test. And anteaters. There is only war and anteaters. The ultimate test of man vs man, and mammal vs insect. With ever increasing defence budgets, we pit ourselves against the giant supercolonies of ants which can span entire continents. Otherwise, we shall be overrun by... Them!

(This post brought to you by the letters L, S and D, and special guest star Salvador Dali)

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

"Love." What do we know of love? We have no time for such sentimentality. In the future, there is only war. War consumes us...

Spoken like a true military man. But the symbolism of this imagery suggests the "love" of war, or "in love" with war, or "Dr. Strangelove: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb?"


Rules for war went out the window for the USA (or rather the bombay doors) with two words: Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Manic Moran

Those were the geo-political rules, not the legal ones.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Those were the geo-political rules, not the legal ones.

"Politics is the womb in which war develops"
(Karl Von Clausewitz).

Pocono Joe

Never advise anyone to go to war or to marry. -- Spanish Proverb

diverdriver

Some might find this relevant:

The Application of International Humanitarian Law to Wars of National Liberation

http://www.jha.ac/articles/a132.pdf

The author is a lawyer with an interest in the subject. If you can't wade through it the summary should be read.

COUCH WARRIOR

Manic Moran wrote: »

After the uranium has been used up in nuclear reactors, the residue (depleted!) is just sitting around collecting dust. NTM

Your a very naughty boy if this is where your getting your du :eek:. Much better to get it as the by product of the nuclear fuel enrichment process.

Manic Moran

Hmm. According to Wiki, you can get it both as a result of the enrichment process, and from spent nuclear fuel.

NTM

COUCH WARRIOR

yes - check out the u236 page and scroll to the bottom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-236

Jaafa

May I ask what exactly is the supposed tactical advantage of using depleted uranium in shells?

Manic Moran

Put simply, nothing has yet proven to be any better at penetrating armour. See earlier post in this thread for full explanation.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58494271&postcount=22

A secondary has arisen in DIME munitions, which use very small particles of the very dense metal in order to make a bomb which has high lethality in close proximity to the impact, but which has greatly reduced fragmentation range. For this purpose, any dense material will do, but DU is chosen because there's a lot of it about.

NTM

Jaafa

So basicaly its due to its density:volume ratio? I guess that would make sense.