Are the Laws Of Armed Conflict obsolete?

[Whiskey_Bravo]

Anyone involved in using the two nuclear weapons. Anyone involved in firebombing entire cities. Etc.

You mean necessary acts that ended the war? The Japanese would have fought almost until the last man, and the Germans fought until the soviets where in Main Street Berlin.

Sometimes bad situations call for harsh measures. They didn't have precision smart weapons back in those days. Fire and splitting the atom got it done and over.

[Iraqgunz]

I agree. We can debate the necessity of what was done in hindsight, but I suspect many of us wouldn't be born had our grandparents had to fight it out to the bitter end causing untold numbers of death and destruction.

The real tragedy is that Hitler was allowed to get away with what he did while the world sat around fingering it's collective sphincter. Same goes for Stalin, etc...

But, that's the way things are I suppose.

You mean necessary acts that ended the war? The Japanese would have fought almost until the last man, and the Germans fought until the soviets where in Main Street Berlin.

Sometimes bad situations call for harsh measures. They didn't have precision smart weapons back in those days. Fire and splitting the atom got it done and over.

[BrigandTwoFour]

As someone who spent four years as one of the guys sitting in an underground control center with the launch keys to armed nuclear ICBMS, I have a rather unique perspective.

The ideas behind LOAC are not obsolete. They are in dire need of updating, but the principles remain. The whole system was born out of formalizing various gentleman's agreements about warfare and how it should be conducted with (and against) a largely conscripted force. It made sense in a time where nations held the monopoly on legitimized violence for political purposes, and had to deal with the consequences of any actions that were taken. Nobody wants to see their population riddled with the effects of nerve gas, biological agents, and other things that are limited by LOAC.

But we are rapidly transitioning to an era where international political and military acts are no longer the sole realm of nations. Militant religious groups, political groups, and others are building international networks through the use of readily available technology that pose significant security concerns. A lone motivated individual with sufficient computer skills could create a computer virus with the potential to take down a nation's technological infrastructure, something that nations have attempted to do through warfare for generations.

We are rapidly approaching a time when a lone individual with the resources and know-how will be able to create a man-made super virus that could wipe out all human life on earth. The technology already exists, and its only getting cheaper and more available.

So the question is what changes do we need to make? This goes far beyond just thinking in terms of FMJ vs soft point. Armed conflict has existed ever since Cain picked up a rock and put it to use. As long as we recognize that violence will exist, there is always room to establish laws for the legitimate use of it. But I think we are going to have to bring the laws up to date with current tech.

For example, we don't allow the indiscriminate targeting of civilians and hospitals with any of our weapons. But if we were to launch a cyber attack against an adversaries power grid, and all the hospitals in country went dark, what happens to the patients on life support? If water treatment plants can no longer treat water because of electrical or technological issues, who is responsible for the disease that will run rampant?

There are advancements being made in nano-medicine that could temporarily boost your intelligence, strength, and speed. However, the same tech could be turned into weapon that would do the exact opposite to a population, slowing their mental capacities and turning them lethargic. What kind of ethical discussions does that bring to the table?


Anyway, I'm rambling. It's just a thought. The things we think of now as far as LOAC are small potatoes compared to the capabilities that will be widely available in the future.

[yellowfin]

The outrage here, in my opinion, started out as diversion from damning stories against the administration and turned into Dear Leader backing himself into an impossible corner.

Why aren't the good guys on our side hammering on this NOW to nail the slimeball to the floor? What is it that they've always been holding back on him and not finished the job, kicked his worthless butt out of office and his #2 with him, and right the wrongs?

[duece71]

Why aren't the good guys on our side hammering on this NOW to nail the slimeball to the floor? What is it that they've always been holding back on him and not finished the job, kicked his worthless butt out of office and his #2 with him, and right the wrongs?

Can you say Joe Biden, POTUS???

[Honu]

I always found rules of war kinda strange
dead is dead ?

torture ? yeah not good but having your limb blown off then bleeding to death ? is that torture if you did it by stepping on a land mine vs someone cutting your hand off and bleeding to death ?
IMHO its the same again death is death both are not the way I would want to go

honestly war is hell as they say

and history shows most countries do not follow any kinda rules for prisoners anyway so whats the point
or treating all prisoners humanely no torture proper housing and meals will be honored or the loosing side will all be killed if they did anything to the winning sides prisoners ! that might change things

also this rule for engaging ? go in and take no mercy ! finish it as fast as you can and get out
loosing side pays back all money lost in war to replace everything

[Miami_JBT]

Valid point. I haven't been impressed with the three you mentioned. I think that Obama and Kerry want to demonstrate their strong enough to take action and that Boehner and Graham are going along with it, because they don't want to suffer any political fallout due to inaction concerning the deaths of the children.

I respect McCain's military record, but I think he has been shifting left for quite some time. At times I think he has forgotten what war is like.

There is nothing humane about war. It's a huge mess in Syria and I think we need to watch and wait. I do not want to see any more of our young men and women come home in body bags.

McCain proves my point... just because you wore a uniform and fought for your country doesn't mean that you aren't an ass. Morons, idiots, despots, etc... all serve. The military is a cross section of America. I don't respect him because of the fact that he served and was a POW; he ruined himself with his policies and actions once he got out of Navy. Because if I did then I would have to respect John Kerry.

[yellowfin]

Can you say Joe Biden, POTUS???

Easier to deal with a clueless ineffective moron than a professional, ideologically motivated saboteur.

[Sensei]

I agree. We can debate the necessity of what was done in hindsight, but I suspect many of us wouldn't be born had our grandparents had to fight it out to the bitter causing untold numbers of death and destruction.

The real tragedy is that Hitler was allowed to get away with what he did while the world sat around fingering it's collective sphincter. Same goes for Stalin, etc...

But, that's the way things are I suppose.

That is because the world (effectively America) suffered from the same negative inertia that it does now after a decade of war in the Middle East. WWI was a big downer and most Americans were non-interventionists when it came to Europe's problems during the first 2 years of WWII. It is the exact same reason why most Americans have no desire to intervene in Syria.

Thus, the collective wisdom of our nation is that we let 3rd world dictators have their day in the sun until they make a serious attack on our interests. When I say serious, I mean it has to be something on the order of Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Only then is the national will mobilized for violence.

[Arctic1]

I personally think so. I think they need a complete overhaul and rewrite.

Thoughts?

The current laws on chemical weapons leads to a ridiculous situation. It's ok to kill 100,000 people with conventional ordnance, but Allah help you if you use chemical weapons on 100.

Where does it say it's ok to kill 100,000 thousand people with conventional ordnance? Do you mean soldiers or civilians?

And which parts of the LOAC do you feel need an update? All of them or specific areas?

And for those of you talking about fire bombing, nuclear weapons and such, these were deemed illegal after WW2.

I also think you forget the four principles that the LOAC are based upon:

-Proportional use of force
-Military neccessity
-Distinguishing between military and unlawful targets
-Humanitarian concerns

The nuclear weapons used during WW2 certainly qualify under the principle of military neccessity, but probably fails with regards to others. As a military commander you have to decide what is more important.

I agree that parts of the laws need an upgrade to reflect the political and global situation of todays world.