Barking Mad To Run
From the "for what it's worth" department, I can say as someone with 30 years in uniform that rules do apply even in a war zone. Those rules are frequently flexible and a soldier never gives up the right of self-defense but there are always rules of engagement.
+1
"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." Theodore Roosevelt
Labrat
I wonder - if we had no rules to make war "nicer", would we have fewer wars, and would they be of shorter duration? During WW2 there were an estimated 305,000 civilians killed in Germany from Allied bombing, and about 110,000 in Japan from the two atomic bombs. In today's "rules" neither of these are allowed - but did both result in an earlier end to hostilities and the resulting saving of military lives? Is someone who dies of shrapnel any less dead than someone who dies from poison gas? Why is one "good" and the other "bad"?
I wonder - if we had no rules to make war "nicer", would we have fewer wars, and would they be of shorter duration?
During WW2 there were an estimated 305,000 civilians killed in Germany from Allied bombing, and about 110,000 in Japan from the two atomic bombs. In today's "rules" neither of these are allowed - but did both result in an earlier end to hostilities and the resulting saving of military lives?
Is someone who dies of shrapnel any less dead than someone who dies from poison gas? Why is one "good" and the other "bad"?
Actually, you can argue that it was against "the rules" then. There are plenty who maintain that the dehousing campaign in Germany, and the firebombing of Japan were war crimes.
However, if they were legitimate then, they remain so under the same sort of fudging.
But ineffective. Which city are you going to bomb in Iraq or Afganistan ?
In asymmetric warfare, strategic bombing is wholly useless.
5K 20:23 (Vdot 48.7) 9/9/17
10K 44:06 (Vdot 46.3) 3/11/17
HM 1:33:48 (Vdot 48.6) 11/11/17
FM 4:13:43 (Vdot 35.4) 3/4/18
I find it interesting that the professional soldiers on this forum think that the soldier was held appropriately accountable for failing conduct himself as he had been trained and instructed to do. If you are a soldier, you don't get to make the rules; you get to abide by them. Period. That's part of what it means to be a professional soldier rather than an armed thug.
That's the way I understood it. I can't see any other way to it. I would make a terrible soldier, might I add...
PRs: Boston Marathon, 3:27, April 15th 2013
Cornwall Half-Marathon, 1:35, April 27th 2013
18 marathons, 18 BQs since 2010
No more marathons
Actually, you can argue that it was against "the rules" then. There are plenty who maintain that the dehousing campaign in Germany, and the firebombing of Japan were war crimes. However, if they were legitimate then, they remain so under the same sort of fudging. But ineffective. Which city are you going to bomb in Iraq or Afganistan ? In asymmetric warfare, strategic bombing is wholly useless.
I know - just looking for some sense in an area that makes none.
I'm remembering a book or a movie (maybe both) that showed a future world where the battles were completely computer generated so as to save the infrastructure, but then the civilian population that "died" needed to report for disposal. Makes about as much sense as what we do now.
Boston 2014 - a 33 year journey
Lordy, I hope there are tapes.
He's a leaker!
Drink up moho's!!
Aerial bombardment and civilian casualties are always a touchy subject but because the towns in question were vital to the war effort and the fact that towns were defended, the civilians were unfortunately made "legal" targets by their own military.
Also by the convention you cannot target buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes. Our enemies know that we will not indiscriminately target these areas so they chose to make them their headquarters and weapons caches or at least place them near those areas.
When I was in Bosnia we were briefed on this and it was part of our rules of engagement where we had to have eyes on the target to verify we were targeting an enemy strong hold or a weapons cache. I was there in 96/97 so it was after the hostilities but we were still briefed on the matter and how to react to a threat of such. I carried 150 rounds of ammunition for my M16 when off base and it was always a threat but in my 7 months in country I never was placed in a situation where I had to chamber a round to my rifle.
I know - just looking for some sense in an area that makes none. I'm remembering a book or a movie (maybe both) that showed a future world where the battles were completely computer generated so as to save the infrastructure, but then the civilian population that "died" needed to report for disposal. Makes about as much sense as what we do now.
Star Trek (the original) did this, but they aren't unique in the story.