"The Rules of War"

Manic Moran

I'm going to throw something out there for discussion.

We have all these well-meaning people trying to come up with rules of warfare. Ban things that are supposedly too inhumane, protect places and people, that sort of thing. So it's fine to blow people apart with big bombs, but not little ones and so on. Shooting people with full metal jacket is fine, but jacketed hollow-point is not, despite the fact it's the round of choice for police and private citizens.

Basically, they're trying to civilise warfare. Make it painless and sterile, with no side-effects.

I propose that this is the wrong tack. By trying to make warfare palatable, it reduces the impetus to try to solve problems with another track. If warfare returned to the uncivilised, brutal, God-awful horrendous violence that it would otherwise be, maybe people would be a little more interested in doing everything they could do to avoid a war in the first place. It's sortof a variant on MAD.

There would probably still be some code of conduct, but mainly when it's in your own interest. For example, sensible militaries accept surrenders and treat prisoners well. Not because it's the 'humane' thing to do, but because if word gets out that surrender isn't a particularly appealing prospect, the losers will simply fight to the death and take more of your own guys with them.

What do you think? Eternal peace? Or Middle Ages?

NTM

r3nu4l

I think that the idea you have is fine in principle. However, look at WWI and WWII. There was hugely barbaric killing and methods of killing employed, massive civilian casualties, most of the world was involved and yet even after those massive wars, there are wars springing up all over the place.

Most African wars are truly barbaric and yet war wages in many African countries to this day. Therefore, saying that we should allow the most 'inhumane' methods of killing in the hope that it will discourage warfare and encourage dialogue, doesn't really stand up imo.

On the other hand the USA had its ass handed to it in Vietnam and that kept America out of war for a long time...it's a tough one but I doubt many politicians would put their heads above the parapet to take your idea on board and run with it

dlofnep

The general idea is too minimize the deaths of civilians who are not partaking in the war. Which is why using methods like cluster bombing campaigns are disasterous.

quad_red

An interesting idea.

But, as r3nu4l pointed out, totally disproven with dismaying regularity in Africa every day.

Perhaps what you are alluding to is the deluded idea many in the West, particularly because of the way it is presented by the media, of how 'sterilised' war has become.

Precision bombs, 'targetted' weapons etc. are all nice and good. Talk of minimising civilian casualties, of dismantling military machines.

But war is still the same old dirty bloody slog it's always been. Whether you've gutted 100 soldiers or dropped a cluster bomb on them.Whether you've sacked and burned a city or bombed it to rubble with airstrikes and artillery.

seamus

It's probably a symptom of "liberalised" thinking. We in the west would like to view war as something of a power struggle - we want the land that you have so we're going to take over your country.
When viewed with this kind of sterility, then war does become more of a "game" of tactics rather than simply a matter of the winner being the one who fights better.

Basically because we've shifted to a position that all people are equal, then logically it makes sense that the purpose of war is not to remove/destory a country's population, but rather to take command of them. So civilian casualties are not only pointless, they're also counter-productive. Military casualties are "necessary", but again we have civility and sterility, so the weapons used must cause the least harm possible.

You can see the logic, but it unfortunately neglects a fact of many (most?) of the wars taking place around the world. That is, that not only is one side looking to seize land/oil/money, they also have a hatred of those whom they are fighting and actively *want* to butcher and destory as many of them as they can.

When you encounter sectarian violence, the rules of war are next to impossible to maintain because at least one side in the war has no wish to avoid civilian casualties (and may be trying to cause as many as it can). It's like trying to play football against a team who doesn't know the rules and/or doesn't want to follow them, but there's no referee to keep order.

Manic Moran

Perhaps it's because people in Africa have a pretty poor existance to begin with, that the violence is so horrible and they don't stop it? Either way, the 'rules' exist for them as well, they just choose not to obey them. Almost invariably when there is overmatch, even when one side is a Western power, the rules are discounted by the weaker side, as they basically doom them to lose, so it's still pretty irrelevant.

NTM

Phototoxin

Its BS. War is about crunching the other guy till he gives you what you want, simple as. Warfare is and can never be humane. Self defence or defending your country I agree with but if its justified then thinks like JHP bullets, flamethowes, shotguns mines bombs, booby traps etc are all in.

IE if iceland invades tomorrow I will garrote them with their own intestines if necessary, inhumane as it may be, if I make that choice to fight back. We could however all be pacificsts and work things out like civilised adults.

War is big business... in sweden they manufacture bombs which are illegal in the EU to use but ok for amerians to use... surely that is double standards ?

concussion

Phototoxin wrote: »

War is big business... in sweden they manufacture bombs which are illegal in the EU to use but ok for amerians to use... surely that is double standards ?

Which ones are those?

uptherebels

concussion wrote: »

Which ones are those?

I dont know about being made in sweden but could he be referring to cluster bombs

Manic Moran

I wouldn't be surprised to discover if there's some bizarre EU health-and-safety rule which declares some substance to be hazardous to handler's health.

NTM

Local-womanizer

Its all well and good having rules in war but nowadays it is only the "big armies" that play by these rules(majority of the time)but the opposition does not,ie Iraq militants beheading POWs,Hamas using children as human shields suicide bombers etc.

These double standerds would make a lot of soliders dissalusioned with what they are doing,leading to frustration ,leading to "war crimes" being committed and a carrer left in tatters after.I know this is not the case with every solider but it is alot of mental pressure they are being subjected to when having to make a decision in a battle.

concussion

uptherebels wrote: »

I dont know about being made in sweden but could he be referring to cluster bombs

Probably.

The recent convention on cluster bombs doesn't make them illegal, it just put a load of restrictions on their design. And it only applies to devices used by aircraft. 6 EU countries have not signed it and, although the EU is working on it's own convention, it hasn't been finalised (or possibly even drafed) yet.

As for H&S rules, I wouldn't be surprised at all :rolleyes::p

quad_red

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Its all well and good having rules in war but nowadays it is only the "big armies" that play by these rules(majority of the time)but the opposition does not,ie Iraq militants beheading POWs,Hamas using children as human shields suicide bombers etc.

'Majority of the time'. That's the kicker isn't it? Large scale Western forces can afford to be picky as to when they'll be all for human rights and the rules of war.

ie. They are all for them when they apply to someone else. But when it comes to what they want - no no no. They've euphemisms for just about everything else. Iraqi militants behead POWs. Cue condemnation world wide etc. etc. But redesignating POWS you capture 'enemy combatants' and disappearing them off to whatever tin pot dictatorship you have in pocket to have the crap tortured out of them - that's different.

HAMAS using children as human shields - what? Hamas is a fanatical organisation which seems to have a callous disregard for the suffering of civilians around them. But where is that coming from?

As a society, we look on with disgust on suicide bombings, blowing themselves up in civilian areas.

But somehow see a grand moral divergence between that and carpet bombing, phosphorous munitions, cluster munitions, depleted Uranium rounds etc.

concussion

quad_red wrote: »

carpet bombing, phosphorous munitions, cluster munitions, depleted Uranium rounds etc.

I assume you put the first three in there because they have the potential to cause harm over a wide area, but why include depleted uranium rounds?

helimachoptor

concussion wrote: »

I assume you put the first three in there because they have the potential to cause harm over a wide area, but why include depleted uranium rounds?

Does the shell not still stay harmful after it has destroyed the target therefore causing illness/death to anyone who handles it?

concussion

helimachoptor wrote: »

Does the shell not still stay harmful after it has destroyed the target therefore causing illness/death to anyone who handles it?

It's not harmful before it's been fired - its a kinetic weapon. DU is approximately 0.7 times as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium, which is all around you in the topsoil. It's less toxic than, for example, arsenic or mercury, both of which are found naturally.
If you decided to crawl into a destroyed armoured vehicle you'd probably be at more risk from unexploded ordnance or jagged edges.

quad_red

concussion wrote: »

I assume you put the first three in there because they have the potential to cause harm over a wide area, but why include depleted uranium rounds?

Indeed.

I am no expert in the exact pathology of the long term effects of exposure to depleted uranium munitions. But it does appear, to my mind, that such considerations of their effect on 'enemy' populations is not considered.

It is not considered because it is out of mind. A brutal solution. And let's be frank - whether or not it did cause serious long term problems, the Pentagon/MOD would still produce studies disclaiming it because of it's undeniable effectiveness as an anti armour weapon.

War is horrific. People die, most for ignoble reasons, in a gruesome variety of painful ways. Those who seek to outline how different we are than 'them', how more civilised 'we' fight than them, are walking a well worn narrative.

concussion

I've changed the percentage above, DU is in fact 0.6 - 0.7 (60 to 70%) as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium, which is still negligable. The WHO has a fact sheet about it, which says

For the general population, neither civilian nor military use of DU is likely to produce exposures to DU significantly above normal background levels of uranium. Therefore, individual exposure assessments for DU will normally not be required. Exposure assessments based on environmental measurements may, however, be needed for public information and reassurance.

quad_red wrote: »

whether or not it did cause serious long term problems, the Pentagon/MOD would still produce studies disclaiming it because of it's undeniable effectiveness as an anti armour weapon.

The British Army is phasing it out, as they are looking at a replacement to their current tank gun which will give them more cabability and versatility.

quad_red

concussion wrote: »

I've changed the percentage above, DU is in fact 0.6 - 0.7 (60 to 70%) as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium, which is still negligable. The WHO has a fact sheet about it, which says

The British Army is phasing it out, as they are looking at a replacement to their current tank gun which will give them more cabability and versatility.

Riiight. Man, I bet you like your big guns, don't you?

Anyway, I take back what I said about DU rounds. They're great.

My over all point remains the same though.

concussion

quad_red wrote: »

Riiight. Man, I bet you like your big guns, don't you?

Anyway, I take back what I said about DU rounds. They're great.

My over all point remains the same though.

I wouldn't say that they're great, enviornmentally, but I think there's a hell of a lot of scaremongering going on - I've seen DU described as radioactive warfare and WP deemed 'chemical warfare'. Food for thought, a Boeing 747 has several hundred kilos of DU as ballast but you wont hear much about that.

I'll leave the big guns to Manic Moran, who will no doubt give us the full realities of depleted uranium.

I'll just stick to my auto-cannon

Local-womanizer

quad_red wrote: »

'Majority of the time'. That's the kicker isn't it? Large scale Western forces can afford to be picky as to when they'll be all for human rights and the rules of war.

ie. They are all for them when they apply to someone else. But when it comes to what they want - no no no. They've euphemisms for just about everything else. Iraqi militants behead POWs. Cue condemnation world wide etc. etc. But redesignating POWS you capture 'enemy combatants' and disappearing them off to whatever tin pot dictatorship you have in pocket to have the crap tortured out of them - that's different.

HAMAS using children as human shields - what? Hamas is a fanatical organisation which seems to have a callous disregard for the suffering of civilians around them. But where is that coming from?

As a society, we look on with disgust on suicide bombings, blowing themselves up in civilian areas.

But somehow see a grand moral divergence between that and carpet bombing, phosphorous munitions, cluster munitions, depleted Uranium rounds etc.

I totally agree with you,but not every western solider breaks the rules of war.I was just trying to highlight the rules from their perspective.

Re Hamas.They are a political party in power who let these things go on,ie surronding themselves in civilians in the hope that Israel will take the chance to take them out with some collatoral in the hope of winning world symphaty,which works imo.I dont mean the walking around holding on the civilians,useing them for cover while shooting at the Israelis!Its the civilians that suffer from their actions,aswell as Israels.

I know goverments will twist the ruled to suit them but for the mans fighting on the ground its not as easy and clear cut.But with war thats the way things are.

Re the weapons,do you condemn their use entirely on just on civilian areas?Just curious.

I agree with your other points though.

Manic Moran

I'll leave the big guns to Manic Moran, who will no doubt give us the full realities of depleted uranium.

Absolutely. Though it's to be pointed out my current ride is a Bradley with an autocannon, albeit one which also has DU ammo.

DU is not actually the heaviest metal out there which can be used. Some sabot rounds, such as those made by Germany, are made from tungsten, which is even more dense. However, DU has a sort of 'self-sharpening' capability, as it penetrates armour it sharpens itself thus providing an overall greater penetration capability. There are attempts ongoing to try to come up with a tungsten alloy with the DU properties, which would make it the most effective thing yet developed, but nobody's managed it yet. The other advantage to DU is that there's quite a lot of it about. After the uranium has been used up in nuclear reactors, the residue (depleted!) is just sitting around collecting dust. On the other hand, tungsten is actually quite pricey.

As stated above, the radioactive qualities of DU are a little overstated. It is primarily an alpha-emitter, particles are stopped by your skin, let alone anything heavier. The more dangerous beta and gamma emissions are at levels not unusually found in nature anyway.

There is, however, a danger in areas where DU has been used. Like any heavy metal, the human body (and probably animals as well) don't like it very much, you can end up with heavy-metal poisoning. When DU strikes an armoured target particularly, a portion of the material will atomise and start floating around. Your standard metal-on-metal shaving. This is nothing you would particularly like to breath in if you can avoid it. It is thus recommended that you don't clamber into a tank you just shot with DU for a half hour or so until the dust settles. In theory, the particles can be washed away by rain and end up in the water table, which we then drink and get more heavy metal poisoning.

It is important to note, however, that this is a problem which is not specific to DU. Tungsten or even lead bullets will have similar results. However, and this is IMHO, tungsten and lead are not saddled with politically sensitive names, and tend not to be used by everyone's favourite punching bags to begin with, so they don't get anywhere near as much press.

NTM

A Dub in Glasgo

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Re Hamas.They are a political party in power who let these things go on,ie surronding themselves in civilians in the hope that Israel will take the chance to take them out with some collatoral in the hope of winning world symphaty,which works imo.I dont mean the walking around holding on the civilians,useing them for cover while shooting at the Israelis!Its the civilians that suffer from their actions,aswell as Israels.

How can an outfit run any sort of government without being surrounded by civilians?

The Dail is in surrounded by civilians, the local councils, police stations and schools are infested with them.

Look at the massive British Army barracks that were used in NI, they were located in residential areas and surrounded by civilians

Please tell me how you can run a government by detatching yourself ferom civilians?

Local-womanizer

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

How can an outfit run any sort of government without being surrounded by civilians?

The Dail is in surrounded by civilians, the local councils, police stations and schools are infested with them.

Look at the massive British Army barracks that were used in NI, they were located in residential areas and surrounded by civilians

Please tell me how you can run a government by detatching yourself ferom civilians?

The military wing of Hamas,when fighting the Israelis.

Read a good article in the paper today about people protesting against Israel and the war.It was on about how pictures of kids being dug out of buildings are like gold dust to hamas,fantastic PR.And its working.But it went on to say how Hamas is a fanatical organizatian,kills homosexuals,give women little to no rights.It said that you cannot expect Israel to sit back and watch its people being killed indiscriminatly by Hamas rockets,which are being fired from civilian areas.Hundreds of thousands of israelis are living in fear of being killed every day.On top of that nearly all Israels neighbours have said at one stage or another that they want to wipe out its country.

Of course the war could be handle better by Israel,but why people are constantly against a country who is being attacked by fanatical extremists who want nothing more than for Israel to be wiped out and have no intention of entering a proper peace deal?Get rid of Hamas and bring in someone who cares about there people and not see them as some PR tool.

A Dub in Glasgo

^^^^ That does not even address the points in my post

Local-womanizer

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

^^^^ That does not even address the points in my post

I was just pointing out I was talking about the military wing of Hamas who fire rockets from civilian areas,human shield aspect of it.I wasent talking about the metaphorical(if thats the right word)surrounding yourself in civilans if you get me?Obviously politicans surround themselves in civilians to rally support.

The rest was just an intresting article in the paper today(telegraph am or something)That wasent directed at your post.I was just pointing out that all these protesters in Dublin and the likes are protesting against crimes against humanity being inflicted by Israel,but have never protested against Hamas for being an opressive,fanatical terrorist group committing atrocities everyday.

Iam not supporting the war but can understand the reason for Israel for taking action.

Imo the protester are very hypocritical.

quad_red

Local-womanizer wrote: »

I was just pointing out I was talking about the military wing of Hamas who fire rockets from civilian areas,human shield aspect of it.I wasent talking about the metaphorical(if thats the right word)surrounding yourself in civilans if you get me?Obviously politicans surround themselves in civilians to rally support.

Again, your use of the term 'human shield' is inappropriate. Hamas come from the Gaza strip. And the reality of the Gaza strip, one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, is that wherever they are, there will be civilians close by.

I think what you ache for is a typical 'fair' military battle. One where Hamas march out into the middle of the countryside with their AK-47s and rockets, so that the IDF can annihilate them 'cleanly' using the most advanced military technology and the insurmountably superior crushing force they possess.

Local-womanizer wrote: »

The rest was just an intresting article in the paper today(telegraph am or something)That wasent directed at your post.I was just pointing out that all these protesters in Dublin and the likes are protesting against crimes against humanity being inflicted by Israel,but have never protested against Hamas for being an opressive,fanatical terrorist group committing atrocities everyday.

Iam not supporting the war but can understand the reason for Israel for taking action.

Imo the protester are very hypocritical.

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.

Israel cannot justify slaughtering hundreds of people indiscriminately (and it will be if they are pounding a densely populated urban area like this).

I do not think that the Israeli government has any interest in what Hamas does or does not do internally if it doesn't affect them. So all your points re human rights, treatment of homosexuals is completely and totally irrelevant.

People who marched against the US/UK invasion on Iraq weren't doing so in support of Saddam's despotic regime.

People are not marching in support of Hamas. They are marching in support of the Palestinian people and expressing their outrage at the terrible suffering to a million and a half people, the vast majority of whom are civilians, that Israel is inflicting.

A million and a half of whom have been under long term economic blockade and who trapped in a city that is being pounded by artillery, helicopter gun ships, fighter jets and naval bombardment. Who have no place to run and where even clearly designated UN safe points are being destroyed.

concussion

quad_red wrote: »

I think what you ache for is a typical 'fair' military battle. One where Hamas march out into the middle of the countryside with their AK-47s and rockets, so that the IDF can annihilate them 'cleanly' using the most advanced military technology and the insurmountably superior crushing force they possess.

TBH, would there be as many protests worldwide if the IDF fought such a battle?

"Evil Israel invades Gaza and destroys terrorist group in 2 day battle - no civilians injured"
"Palestinian sources claim Israel used overwhelming firepower to win a battle against firmly entrenched militants"


I would think the only people who don't want a more conventional fight would be Hamas and Hamas supporters.

quad_red

concussion wrote: »

TBH, would there be as many protests worldwide if the IDF fought such a battle?

"Evil Israel invades Gaza and destroys terrorist group in 2 day battle - no civilians injured"
"Palestinian sources claim Israel used overwhelming firepower to win a battle against firmly entrenched militants"


I would think the only people who don't want a more conventional fight would be Hamas and Hamas supporters.

A 'more conventional fight'. Against 'firmly entrenched militants'.

Man, you should work for the Pentagon press office! Cos you've got the nomenclature nailed.

'A more conventional fight'. Warfare isn't like subbuteo. And expecting a militant/resistance group to attempt to go toe to toe with a war machine (seems to be the buzzword these days) like the IDF is, well, either total naivety or just another expression of your own bias (in my opinion of course - don't take offense )

In a conflict situation, belligerents seek to maximise their strengths.

Israel possesses a functional economy that can educate it's people, train them, feed them, keep them healthy, raise revenue, organise, train and arm a large technologically advanced military. This is aided by access to state of the art American weaponry and billions worth of subsidisation from the US.

The IDF possesses total air superiority, total naval superiority, complete heavy armour superiority, superior medical support, superior logistical support, superior intelligence support etc. etc.

The Palestinian's have little to nothing. And what there was of a state structure, economy and infrastructure has been totally destroyed. It is not in their capability to raise a 'conventional military'.

And Hamas is not a 'conventional' military force. I don't think it can be considered wholly representative of all the people in the Gaza strip and it certainly doesn't possess the coherent command control structure you are implying - it is a very different beast to Hizbollah.

So this fair 'conventional war' you seek isn't plausible or possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

You're basically saying that in this case a belligerent loses the right to resist military. To fight for what it believes in.

And in doing so, you belittle the humanity of one side of the conflict and excuse any level of behaviour by the other side.

In historical terms, by taking this stance, you are removing the legitimacy of one side of just about every colonial conflict this century (note: I am not saying that this conflict is politically a colonial one. Just that the enormously different military realities of the belligerents is reminiscent of many such conflicts).

I understand why Israel is doing what it is doing.

I also understand why the Palestinians, in feeling that they have been wronged so mortally, feel the need to resist in whatever way they can.

You, patently, do not.

concussion

Good post, sorry you had to write all that - those 'news headlines' were firmly tongue in cheek. I was just musing whether any one around the world would care if Hamas were doing the fighting away from civilians. Would there be outcry over how they were forced into being terrorists/freedom fighters by Isreals policies if civilians weren't being killed around them? I wouldn't expect them to fight any other way than they are now to be honest, they wouldn't last. But I just wonder how many people would care if that were the case.

I understand both sides, and support neither. While it may look like I'm supporting Israel, I'm in fact looking to sort the truth from the rhetoric, hysteria and propaganda which is flying around in the media and on the boards.

quad_red

concussion wrote: »

Good post, sorry you had to write all that - those 'news headlines' were firmly tongue in cheek.

Era, a good rant gets the gray matter going. Nothing wrong with that

concussion wrote: »

I was just musing whether any one around the world would care if Hamas were doing the fighting away from civilians. Would there be outcry over how they were forced into being terrorists/freedom fighters by Isreals policies if civilians weren't being killed around them?

But that's the point! Most people are *not* coming out to support Hamas! Irish people, generally, seem to have more sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Perhaps not surprising given our own historical experiences. But clashes between Hamas and the IDF, even ones that incurred large scale casualties, would not be expected to draw people out to protest.

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.

Hence - the protests.

concussion wrote: »

I wouldn't expect them to fight any other way than they are now to be honest, they wouldn't last. But I just wonder how many people would care if that were the case.

As stated above, probably not many. And certainly not many would be bothered to protest.

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.