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.
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.
This hit a nerve.
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.
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???
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
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.
Easier to deal with a clueless ineffective moron than a professional, ideologically motivated saboteur.
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.
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.
The issue is that the Hague convention is frozen in time, and was partially based on BS. It is time to stop playing semantics.
The other issue is that the Hague/Geneva are only applicable between agreeable belligerents, which is ridiculous in the really real world.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
I agree that the parts of the Hague Convention and St. Petersburg Declaration that restricts certain kinds of munitions are outdated.
And while what you say about the Geneva and Hague Conventions (and the St. Petersburg Declaration) is true, that they really only apply to agreeable belligerent parties, for the politicians of our time these have become customary law.
Not saying I agree with that all the time, but when I wore the uniform I had to act in accordance with this reality. I had no illusions about being granted protected status as a POW, if I was ever taken captive in Afghanistan.
I do think that it is important to define what is lawful, if only to “protect” one’s conscience. Studies have shown that issues and doubts are more prevalent among veterans who did things while doubting the legality of their actions.
I hear what you are saying, but it shouldn’t always rest on the shoulders of us “stupid arrogant Americans over yonder” all the time.
I would probably be OK with intervention in Syria if we had solid goals, and the absolute desire to act with other nations (and I don’t mean 5 or 6) to do the right thing. Except we have dicked around way too long in Iraq, we are still doing in it A’stan with no end in sight and we can’t just seem to say “**** it, we’re going to annihilate you” because it hurts feelings.
That doesn’t matter. You know what would have won Afghanistan real quick? Nuking the entire country.
Yes, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians definitely ended World War 2 quicker with fewer American lives lost. But if we lost the war, you can bet those generals, colonels, pilots, and the president would have been charged with war crimes. Since we won, we declared the intentional slaughter of civilians “necessary.”
These are two things I really have a problem with. Our following of LOAC doesn’t stop insurgents from breaking it. Yes, we strive to be better, to take the high road, because of our own morals and because it helps us win hearts and minds. But it needs a major update.
When the ROE is brought to ridiculous levels due to LOAC that gets our guys killed… When the bad guys who have no intention of following LOAC take advantage of the fact that we do… Something needs to be done.
I am curious what you mean when you say ROE. I am not sure if US troops are put under different ROE than us, but I really wouldn’t call ISAF ROE restrictive. At least not as of last year.
The only restriction I encountered was McChrystal placing some restrictions on the use of CAS in 2009.
I am not going to discuss the particulars of ISAF ROE, but suffice to say that there isn’t just one ROE for the theatre, there are several.
Attacking civilian targets are a legitimate action due to their hand in the manufacturing, support, and logistical abilities they provide. When you make it unbearable for the civilian populace then they start to riot, strike, etc… moral drops among the troops and Johnny Jihad or Ivan the Soviet will want to quit fighting and go home so he can support his family and the government will lose support of it’s people. Now with radical Islamist that doesn’t work so well due to wanting to die for Allah. But winning them over with a restrictive ROE also doesn’t work.
Iraq and Afghanistan are two different failures. Iraq because we broke them to level of Afghanistan. The majority of Iraq were for the most part secular and westernized. We ruined that by disbanding the Iraqi Army, Police, and Government. Also by destroying their economy. Unemployment, poverty, lack of infrastructure, and a ton of males wondering around makes a great recruiting ground for radicals.
Afghanistan’s problem is that the majority want to live as 7th Century goat farmers and practice Bacha Bazi. They don’t want to come into the modern world and nothing we will do will stop that.
War is a terrible thing and it should be quick and painful. We should not make it gentle and happy. If we do then we will have more of it. If war leaves a horrible taste in one’s mouth then hopefully that person will think twice before sending our troops into it.
It may be the same reasoning, but the realities couldn’t be different. Some despots are bent on global domination, others just want their little piece to themselves. Assad may be full on evil, but he’s no Hitler. The reasons to thump Syria are all about foreign interests and money. The “human rights” veneer couldn’t be thinner. 
Yes “we” care about the method in which people are killed, from mass murder to the individual.
Of course.
It’s quite simple really.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses… In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
The Imperial Japanese weren’t so different from radical Islamists in the regard of wanting to die for their country. They had some of the first suicide bombers, after all. They were all willing to die for their god emperor. Why wouldn’t nuking Islamic nations work just as well?
I wasn’t arguing effectiveness, but rather legality earlier. Nuking and firebombing civilian centers in Japan may have been “necessary” to win, but it was illegal to hell and back by international law. But who’s going to tell that to the country that just won a war on two fronts and invented nuclear weapons?
For some reason I can’t bring up specific examples right now, my head is really cloudy at the moment, but I wasn’t referring to extremely recent ISAF ROEs.