The rules of warfare.

For everything that doesn't fit elsewhere; literature, movies, video games - whatever you desire.
Post Reply
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

The rules of warfare.

Post by Lord Jim »

Is it just me or are the reactions of certain groups and people to the casualties of war and the way wars are conducted sort of coming from La La Land? We all know war is are terrible and should be avoided at all cost, but how they are conducted is being scrutinised against a set of rules that are no longer fit for purpose surely. The various conventions can be adhered to in a traditional or conventional war where everybody knows the rule book and usually tries to follow it. However the rise of asymmetric warfare has created a mass of grey areas. For example if the rules say you cannot target any location within a certain distance rom a hospital then an opponent who also has a copy of the rules will place his force within that area to protect them. If we target him and his associates, but a number of innocent civilians are injured or killed we will be accused of war crimes and the media will go into a frenzy. Shouldn't the crime be to set up a military base so close to a civilian building. The same would go for using events such as weddings to cover meeting of a military command or using buses to transport supplies whist they are carrying civilians. I also find it very disturbing how the media and other groups believe that wars can and should be fought without any detrimental effect on the civilian population and that humanitarian aid should be able to be delivered where ever it is needed. These sort of ideas actually prolong wars as it gives the faction suffering the hope that international intervention may happen and also that their civilians are taken care of by outside organisations rather then their responsibility requiring them to use their resources. I seriously think the current Conventions need to be revised in order for them to be applicable to how warfare is evolving. A faction that uses human shields should be condemned and sanctioned to the same extent as a nation or persons that commits acts more traditionally classed as war crimes.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: The rules of warfare.

Post by abc123 »

IIRC, such things you mention ARE war crimes (misuse of various protections by international conventions) and objects under protection used for operations aren't protected any more.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The rules of warfare.

Post by Lord Jim »

But it doesn't stop interested parties from demanding any such action that might even graze a civilian as a war crime and the media jumping on board. It is like the Me2 campaign it dilutes the real issues.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: The rules of warfare.

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:But it doesn't stop interested parties from demanding any such action that might even graze a civilian as a war crime and the media jumping on board. It is like the Me2 campaign it dilutes the real issues.
I would suggest that a similar effect is achieved by advocating removal of the Laws of Armed Conflict when there are already clauses present that address your concern.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The rules of warfare.

Post by Lord Jim »

If you are suggesting I am advocating the removal of the laws/conventions governing the conduct of warfare you are wrong. What I am stating is that with asymmetric warfare, If an opponent knows your ROE and that you are not allowed to engage them if they occupy a certain location because the current laws prevent it them the laws need to be clarified. You should be free to engage with full responsibility placed on the heads of those who endangered others by their choice of location. If an opponent has placed a mortar near a Hospital and is shelling your troops you should be able to take it out with the minimum force necessary and any casualties are the responsibility of your opponent. This should be clear and unambiguous to all. Was is bad enough without having one side being able to bend the rules and use the media to win half its battles by having headline showing a damaged hospital and casualties with no mention of the destroyed Mortar battery only a dozen or so yards away.

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: The rules of warfare.

Post by topman »

The Laws Of Armed Conflict already cover, clearly, an enemy using a place with prescribed protection and what to do about it if you wish to attack them.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: The rules of warfare.

Post by abc123 »

Certain civillian casualtues are unavoidable. The important part is that you really try to avoid them, as far as reallisticly possible. That makes the difference between a civilised state/Military and a terorist organisation. So no, "one nail on hand of my soldier is more important than all civillians on that city"-attitude.
That's just another kind of terrorism, but making use of artillery/air support instead of IEDs ...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The rules of warfare.

Post by Lord Jim »

topman wrote:The Laws Of Armed Conflict already cover, clearly, an enemy using a place with prescribed protection and what to do about it if you wish to attack them.
I wish someone would then explain that to the media and the various parties that stoke the "War Crimes" fires every time a civilian gets killed, often causing a knee jerk reaction form out Politicians.

Post Reply