Are New Technologies Undermining the Laws of War? 317
Lasrick writes "This is a great read — from the article: 'Today, emerging military technologies — including unmanned aerial vehicles, directed-energy weapons, lethal autonomous robots, and cyber weapons — raise the prospect of upheavals in military practice so fundamental that they challenge assumptions underlying long-established international laws of war, particularly those relating to the primacy of the state and the geographic bounds of warfare. But the laws of war have been developed over a long period, with commentary and input from many cultures. What would seem appropriate in this age of extraordinary technological change, the author concludes, is a reconsideration of the laws of war in a deliberate and focused international dialogue that includes a range of cultural and institutional perspectives.'"
As the old adage says... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As the old adage says... (Score:5, Funny)
If your lovemaking includes unmanned aerial vehicles, directed-energy weapons, lethal autonomous robots and cyber weapons... You're probably doing it very right and should do online tutorials.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why American society is so against sex/boobs in movies and such. When you combine sex with a very common social thread, war (War on INSERT_TERM_HERE, or on other countries, we're always at war here or there), you end up with some very bad comedy.
In America, sex happens behind closed doors, opening the doors is offensive and prohibited. But we do see war and terror almost constantly, it seems to be what we do best (we certainly spend a lot on it, we better be good at it; and is conflict not a r
Re: (Score:2)
And sex happens in the streets in Europe? Sign me up!
Also, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Also, (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes history repeats itself. I come back to the only justifiable war is one where you are willing to do what is required to win. If the issue is important enough to engage in massive property destructions and to kill or maim people, than it should never be done in vain, an obligation exists to see it thru and secure the intended outcome. "What is required" May vary if you posses an outsized military advantage you have the luxury not using certain forms of brutality and less des descriminating targeting practice and you should so long as it does not jepordise victory. If you are disadvantaged than asymmetric and "terror" tactics are probably a must.
Societies not just soldiers go to war. It does not matter if you have a gun in hand or a garden hoe you are supporting the war fighting capability and so be considered a target if need be.
Re:Also, (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no justifiable wars.
What we have now are invasions of sovereign nations which happen to be chock full of resources and blind eyes turned to genocide elsewhere.
Iraq and Afghanistan are about to fall to the taliban (mission accomplished claims notwithstanding) so after more than ten years, trillions of pounds and millions of lives lost (yes, brown people count) we have precisely nothing to show for it.
Iraq was working better under Saddam than it is now, it's a joke (or would be if it hadn't cost so many lives)
How about we start putting our trillions into solving problems at home instead of attacking people elsewhere and let other nations govern themselves.
I'll leave you with this well known Einstein quote:
“He who joyfully marches to music rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.”
Re:Also, (Score:4, Informative)
The US Civil War?
World War II?
Two of the most obvious examples of a justifiable war. There are others.
Re:Also, (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Civil War? The South seceded from the North because their American Dream was based on States' Rights. Especially the right of States to ensure legal slavery. It wasn't like the North declared a jihad on the morally-bankrupt South. The two regions had been negotiating on the issue for decades. But when the South split, the more fundamental issue of whether it was the United States of America or the United States of America took over. Whether that justified a full-scale war or not is debatable.
World War II? Hitler was the one that "justified" that war. But the responsibility of putting that monster in power is in large part laid to blame to the powers that ended WWI. If they hadn't been so blindly determined to punish Germany and so uncaring of the consequences, Hitler would not have been able to gain the power he did.
In both cases, the "justifications" came after the fact, and had people spent more effort beforehand, it's unlikely that war would have happened. At least in Germany. In the USA, as mentioned, a lot of effort was expended, but they decided war was "justified" anyway.
Traditionally, the "laws" of war exempted civilians. That's because in older times, states were non-democratic, the people had little say in the decision, and in many cases, the goal was to annex territory, so it wasn't good policy to alienate or exterminate people who would - if you won - become your newest citizens.
The WTC incident (to take one example) was "justified" in that the USA, being an (alleged) democracy, had the implicit approval of the majority of the American people on the policies to which Al-Qaeda objected. Where their justification fails is that "majority" isn't totality and that in fact, there was a virtual certainty that not only were some of the victims willing to vote in the other direction, but that there was no "keep out" sign on the building that excluded Moslems. Many of which were likely to be more observant than the terrorists themselves, as the hijackers weren't exactly role models for the faith, even excluding their willingness to commit murder.
There are "Laws of War" in constructs such as the Geneva Conventions, but there are also "Rules of War", which are the precepts from which the Laws of War are constructed. They include minimizing the destruction to the goals at hand, sparing the innocent, treating captured enemies according to the same standards as you would wish for your own forces, and so forth. Those rules have remained largely invariant despite the ever-increasing ability over history to remove the opposing forces from direct physical and emotional contact with each other.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Did WWII came because Hitler came to power, or did Hitler came to power to wage WWII? I'd really wanted to know if those internet rumors about western financial backing of both USSR and Nazis are true, if they are WWII is a different kind civil war to shape up the not so pleasant society we seem headed to.
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler started WWII, are you saying he was justified?
Re: (Score:3)
There was no WW2. We're entering the hundredth year of WW1.
Re:Also, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Saddam was apparently lead to believe he could attack Kuwait without consequence, it could have been stopped before it started.
There was no good reason for US to enter Afghanistan, the whole exercise was completely futile, US is mostly leaving now with more Afgans hating America more than ever.
US goes to war to keep the corporate military machine going, if America stopped going to war it's economy would take a dive.
Re: (Score:2)
The Taliban and orgs like it have "governed" Afghanistan for thousands of years. Don't be fooled by the propaganda effort to conflate the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
I wasn't. But the Taliban still aren't exactly representative of Afghans in general - aren't they basically just the Pashtuns? My point was just that letting one faction get the upper hand over the others isn't, as the original commenter seemed to think, the same thing as national self-determination.
Re:Also, (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes, "war" is thrust upon you. The obvious classic example is WWII.
The French/Belgians/Poles/Russians did not ask to be invaded. The Brits did not ask to be bombed.
Sometimes, your choices are reduced to only two.
1. Surrender and die
or
2. Fight back.
There is no #3. Wait, there was a #3, which Chamberlain tried first. Didn't work. So that leaves fight back or die.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, hitler was justified in going to war?
FML
Re: (Score:2)
There are no justifiable wars.
There may be no justifiable wars right now, but there have been in the past. For that matter I think that Iraq and Afghanistan are more complicated than you potray them. If we truly did it just for the resources we would have simply made a deal with Saddam and treated Afghanistan much differently.
As for the Einstein quote - remember that he helped convince the USA to develop nuclear weapons with the fear that Germany would develop them first. So obviously either his beliefs changed or his views more nuan
War is an ironic racket (Score:5, Informative)
From a Marine Major General: http://warisaracket.org/racket.html [warisaracket.org] "Smedley Butler: 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. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket."
At length: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html [ratical.org]
Another quote by Einstein: "The release of atomic power has changed everything except our way of thinking ... the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker. (1945)"
See also this essay by me on how that applies to all forms of modern weaponry, inspired by that Einstein quote, given a modern-day digital watch has more computing power than was used to design the first atomic weapons:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html [pdfernhout.net]
----
Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?
Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere?
These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not so deadly serious. Here is some dark humor I wrote on the topic:
A post-scarcity "Downfall" parody remix of the bunker scene. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/openmanufacturing/8qspPyyS1tY/vZacyDL86DIJ [google.com]
See also a little ironic story I wrote on trying to talk the USA out of collective suicide because it feels "Burdened by Bags of Sand". http://www.pdfernhout.net/burdened-by-bags-of-sand.html [pdfernhout.net]
Or this YouTube video I put together: The Richest Man in the World: A parable about structural unemployment and a basic income. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p14bAe6AzhA [youtube.com]
Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possibl
Re: (Score:2)
People count on useful idiots like you. Stalin considered people like yourself to be critical for success. Tyrants and dictators depend on useful idiots to stand by and do nothing will they commit their atrocities.
So we should continue to leave countries under dictators that violate treaties, employ government rapists and kill their own citizens in large blocs because the country will run better? Te
Ha. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me why the Taliban are our 'enemy'?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, no one ever wins in Afghanistan but the Afghans (a grouping of peoples which is about as nebulous as can be). No one has managed to hold that territory for more than a generation since Alexander the Great. Not the British, not the Moguls, not the Mongols, not the Kazakhs, not even the Persians. The utter stupidity of the Pentagon rarely amazes me any more, but when they agreed to take over Afghanistan I was totally flabbergasted. WTF were they even thinking?
Re: (Score:3)
The purpose of warfare is generally to control something, be it territory, a trade route, raw materials, a population, whatever.
I think that's the traditional purpose of warfare but today it's not. America fights wars of principle. Why do we interfere in random civil wars like Bosnia? What did we gain? Why did people want the US to get involved in Rwanda? Why did we start giving weapons to Syrian rebels? Because we think we'll be in control of Syria afterwards?
It's a product of being rich and detached from the actual conflict. Personally I think it's linked to the decline of religion in the US. People need something to believe in, a
Re: (Score:3)
There are no justifiable wars.
I agree that wars are horrible, but to say that none are justifiable I think is false. Diplomacy is not perfect and does fail from time to time. Then what are we left with? The advancement of drones and "lethal robots"? Do we have a race to create the best T-800? T-1000?
It's unfortunate that there can be such disagreement and both parties (read: leaders) feel so strongly and are incapable of compromise,that the only resolution is war. Even if both sides were to fight with only drones/robots and the winner
Re:Also, (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, that is sort of the point of these invasions... to make sure that the governments are in some form representative of the people.
That is pure unadulterated nonsense.
For example, Hamid Karzai is no more representative of his people than Mohammed Omar: The difference is that Karzai is doing the bidding of the US and US-based oil companies instead of doing the bidding of Al Qaida and Iran. Karzai was not elected, he was selected by a meeting of the regional leaders of Afghanistan where the US Army was standing right outside the door (arguably in case the decision went differently).
When the people of the Middle East have overthrown dictators and replaced them with democratically elected leaders, the US does their best to put a stop to it. Egypt is the prime example of this: The elected president Mohammed Morsi, though certainly far from a perfect bastion of freedom and democracy, was ousted in a military coup, and the military of Egypt has close ties to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
slipping in a constitution favorable to him and his party though a bit of parliamentary trickery
George Washington, John Adams, and their buddies in the Federalists did exactly the same thing. The only difference was that he was also in charge of the army.
I would have been fine with an ouster of Morsi had he refused to give up power after his constitutional term was up, and he lost the election or was term-limited out. Neither of those things happened.
Re:Also, (Score:4, Interesting)
Pipeline, rare earth elements (which the Soviets had mapped), but most important it was the largest source of opiates on the planet before the Taliban shut down production. The only opium still being grown in the country was in the territory controlled by our allies the Northern Warlords, and the prospective loss of income was frightening for the large international banks. Over a trillion dollars in drug money is laundered every year, over half of it through the US, with bank charges averaging 10-15% for the service. The Colombians and Mexicans were starting to pick up the slack, but they launder their money differently and the banksters were looking at a huge revenue loss. Certainly not the only reason for the invasion, just one of several.
Re: Also, (Score:4, Funny)
"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that they are often misattributed" - Abraham Lincoln
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and Internet quotes" - Mark Twain
Re: (Score:2)
"Fuck you, Mark & Abe!" - George Washington
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well... instead of complaining you could have done some googling (though I agree the gp should have given a source):
"Wenn einer mit Vergnügen in Reih und Glied zu einer Musik marschieren kann, dann verachte ich ihn schon; er hat sein großes Gehirn nur aus Irrtum bekommen, da für ihn das Rückenmark schon völlig genügen würde. Diesen Schandfleck der Zivilisation sollte man so schnell wie möglich zum Verschwinden bringen. Heldentum auf Kommando, sinnlose Gewalttat und di
Re:Also, (Score:5, Interesting)
Got news, the Geneva and Hague Convention only apply to regular military. So the moment you are either facing or are irregular combatants everything goes. But then you need to remember by who when the treaties where singed. At the time generals would send thousand men to their deaths and then congratulate each other over their victories over a cup of tee.
Your assertions are correct and have lead to the impression of "clean" wars. But every war is dirty and bloody. I think each congressman and general should be required to send their brother, child or brother into the field in a war they authorize. If after that the war still seems like a good idea (e.g. destroying Nazi Germany*) then it worth fighting.
(* I am part German and still think it was a necessary and good idea... in general)
Re:Also, (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a sci-fi book I once read (for the life of me I can't remember the title) that had an alien society where if their governing body declared war, they'd fight the battle, and then all members of the governing body that voted for the war were put to death. You had to believe so strongly that the war was just that you were willing to give your own life.
I think that's a grand idea.
Re:Also, (Score:5, Informative)
Twas the Octospiders in Clarkes Rama series - any member that voted for or was involved in the war itself had an immediate sentence of death after the hostilities ended.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm not voting for war -- just give Hitler what he wants and cross our fingers!"
Re: (Score:3)
Twas the Octospiders in Clarkes Rama series - any member that voted for or was involved in the war itself had an immediate sentence of death after the hostilities ended.
Sounds like a strong incentive to continue hostilities indefinitely.
Re: (Score:2)
You know I agree with the basic premise, but it is also why I am so against war. The thing is it is "see it thru and secure the intended outcome." Intended outcome is the problem: war seldom is any good at securing an intended outcome.
Look at Iraq. Was the "intended outcome" just to kill their dictator? Mission accomplished eh? That is a very shortsighted goal, and by any real measure, Iraqis were better off under their dictator. Just about anything you could look at and say "look how bad things are for the
Re: (Score:2)
The TFA asks:
Are New Technologies Undermining the Laws of War?
You sez:
"All is fair in love and war"
Well, let's see
Another adage puts it this way ...
" To the victor goes the spoils "
There is absolutely *NO* fairness in WAR.
As for the "Laws of War", no matter if it came from Machiavelli or from Sun Zi, psy ops are as important as ever.
No matter if it's MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) or killer drones, no matter if it's a symmetrical warfare or if it's asymmetrical (such as terrorism), human beings are _still_ human beings.
For example: NSA is fighting a war against the citizens of the United States of America, and N
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't fight fair in life or death situations and war is the life and death of nations. Creating rules of war is like trying to settle conflicts with knuckle fights which can be mutually beneficial as both are less likely to end up dead or crippled, but either side can and will abandon them when it serves them. For example it's in the spirit of the conventions to shoot at other military personnel and leave civilians alone, while coming up with the wildest logic to defend the nuking of civilians in Hirosh
Or we could just stop starting wars... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure Kim shares your sentiment...
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, perhaps then you would like to list the wars he has started lately?
Or perhaps just listing the top 10 countries to start wars in the last 20 years would be a good start?
Or is desperate sabre (even if its a wooden sword..) rattling somehow worse than actual killing of people?
Its called perspective, and it is desperately needed.
Re: (Score:2)
and use technology for accomplishing things like ending hunger.
Hunger is not a problem, it's a consequence of inequality. Ending inequality shouldn't start with the difference between those who have 0% of the total and those who have 0.1% (the separation made by "hunger").
You might consider advocating for the end of massive accumulation of riches. That way you'll tackle a difference of several tens%
Re: (Score:2)
and use technology for accomplishing things like ending hunger.
Hunger is not a problem, it's a consequence of inequality. Ending inequality shouldn't start with the difference between those who have 0% of the total and those who have 0.1% (the separation made by "hunger").
You might consider advocating for the end of massive accumulation of riches. That way you'll tackle a difference of several tens%
Pragmatically speaking we should deal with the difference between those with 0% and 0.1% first. This is what feeding centres do in famine zones. You can look at inequalities later, but unless this acute need is dealt with people will die now!
Re:Or we could just stop starting wars... (Score:5, Interesting)
I spent some time volunteering in Africa, and I've seen the problems of hunger firsthand.
There is enough food overall... not much excess, but often enough for everyone to survive. The problem is that, for example, the food is over on the fertile side of a mountain ridge, while the starving people are on the other side. The only pass is controlled by a local oppressor who charges high tolls to use "his" road, and he's able to bribe the government agents and local police into letting him stay.
One option is to just keep paying the tolls, and those starving people keep starving... but it's easy, and offends nobody.
Someone with wealth could pay the toll or use a different route, and bring ample food to support the locals, but then they're dependent on those gifts, and the oppressor could start using force to maintain his rule. The money used for support is also a drain on the provider's economy, so the future stability of such a supply is questionable.
The reliance on the pass could be removed, but that means improving local production. It's a long process, at best, and requires a large start-up cost.
Finally, we could just use force. Send in a squad of trained soldiers to forcibly allow traffic through the pass, even if that means killing the armed guards enforcing the tolls. Through overwhelming force, ensure that no replacements will be able to oppress traffic again.
Of course, force is never easy. There's always the risk that the oppressor will fight back, or that a new oppressor will patiently wait until the squad leaves to take over again. There will be some locals who oppose the intrusion, especially since they have been told (often by the oppressor himself) that the greatest embarrassment they could have is to accept help from outsiders. There will also be those who don't understand the connection between the tolls, the food supply, and standard of living - they just think they're poor because God is punishing them (and the church's leaders don't understand well enough to change that, either).
Going from that 0% to a sustained 0.1% is the hardest step, because it means removing the long-term limits that have already exhausted the local ability to provide for themselves. Once those barriers are gone and food is available at reasonable prices, going to 0.2% or higher is just a matter of doing the same thing more... move more trucks of tubers, make more salable products, and so forth. It's an upward spiral, but starting the process isn't easy.
Re: (Score:2)
in other words...(as Clausewitz so accurately said )...
"war is politics by other means"
everything you mention in you post has to do with the local politics of the area, not the economics or logistics.
people in control want to get paid...and are willing to starve those they have control of to achieve that goal.
trying to negotiate will have little to no effect, unless of course the negotiations quietly contain a hefty "aid" package of payola.
this is why those commenting on this thread who say "war is never ju
Nothing new in essence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. nearly lost the taste for war after that debacle, and was relegated to Paper Tiger for a generation.
The unbridled ability of humankind to forget any lesson, given enough time, is astonishing.
Re: (Score:3)
By all the gods, there are still people who spout this nonsense? Good grief. Vietnam was unwillable from the moment the French originally invaded. It's impossible to permanently hold a territory where the population hates you, and the day they organize is the day you start to lose. Why do you think that Cuba is still free? Even the morons in the Pentagon don't want to touch that one.
the geographic bounds of warfare (Score:2)
Cambodia, Laos - and now these days Pakistan. The rule only applies if someone you really don't want to piss off is on the other side of the line.
Re: (Score:2)
Or before that, Belgium and the Netherlands. Or more recently, Syria and Lebanon and Turkey. It's not like wars stay neatly on one side of a border. And it's not always the US expanding them.
Ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignorance is undermining the laws of war, the laws of commerce, and every other law our society used to have. This is what happens when you allow the world to be run by frat-echnocrats in suits.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your statement is correct. For example it is illegal under the rules of war to act in a battlefield and to not wear a uniform. If you are captured on a battlefield and you are not in uniform and you do not disclose your military ID data, (Name rank serial number) you are under the Geneva conventions a Spy and subject to summary execution. Every prisoner we took in Afghanistan and most in Iraq would have fit in this category. All Al Qaeda prisoners fit this category. Oh by the way, spies may be tortured
Re: (Score:3)
All Al Qaeda prisoners fit this category
Except that Al Qaeda is not recognized as a State, so it's just some guy running around with a bomb strapped to his dick, not a spy. That's how we can bomb Pakistan without actually bombing Pakistan as an act of war.
The laws do need updating to deal with the fact that rogue extremists are who we're fighting wars against now.
Arbitrary. (Score:2, Interesting)
International laws? what? They only arose after the nuclear arms race and have never been abided by. There is only one justified cause for warfare and that's self defense, and even then it raises moral objections.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Arbitrary. (Score:5, Informative)
And yes, like every law, also international laws are often and constantly broken, and enforcing those laws is even more complicated than national law.
The US is undermining the Laws of war. (Score:2)
The technology is not undermining the established laws but the US use of the tech sure does. Using depleted uranium, murdering civilians based on shoddy intelligence, torturing people with new methods, social media puppetry, wholesale wiretapping etc is just things that have been avoided before but has been reintroduced when they could do it in new ways.
The technology is not the problem at all, its the people using it.
Re: (Score:3)
murdering civilians based on shoddy intelligence, torturing people with new methods, social media puppetry, wholesale wiretapping etc is just things that have been avoided before but has been reintroduced when they could do it in new ways.
The technology is not the problem at all, its the people using it.
All of those things have always been a part of war, except the social media thing, but that is just an instance of propaganda.
Civilians have always found themselves being murdered in war. For example, in Wellington's Peninsular campaign, there were several instances of cities being taken by force and then the army doing a bit of rape pillage and murder. This was done by both sides even though the British were ostensibly trying to liberate the locals.
Then the invention of the bomber allowed civilian murde
Re: (Score:2)
Yes think back to the black sites, double tap drone strikes, the surge..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Really its just back to the old colonial wars under a new brand and better spin via happy 24/7 media sock puppets.
Re:The US is undermining the Laws of war. (Score:4, Informative)
Then the invention of the bomber allowed civilian murder to be taken to new extremes in WW2. The British bombing campaign was particularly bad, based as it was on the premise that the smallest target that could reliably be hit by night bombers was a city.
How accurate was German bombing during the Battle of Britain?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that Coventry was pretty much erased from the map (hence the revenge bombing of Dresden, subject to much hand-wringing in hindsight) I'd say it was quite accurate.
The reason why the cities were so erased was because the bombing wasn't accurate.
If you wanted to destroy a couple of factories in a city you pretty much had to wipe out the whole city to make sure you hit the factories.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the invention of the bomber allowed civilian murder to be taken to new extremes in WW2. The British bombing campaign was particularly bad, based as it was on the premise that the smallest target that could reliably be hit by night bombers was a city.
Well, that and things like firebombing [wikipedia.org], as used heavily in places like Dresden and Tokyo. When you have things like urban civilian populations suffocating to death due to lack of oxygen because all the fire raining from the sky is using it up... well, I don't think you can get much worse in terms of disregard for civilians.
Naive Article (Score:3)
Firstly, Betteridge's law applies here.
Secondly, the laws of war have never been developed through "a deliberate and focused international dialogue that includes a range of cultural and institutional perspectives." The laws of war have, unfortunately, always developed just after a major conflict, when lots of people said, "Whoa, we should do something to stop that happening again."
Re:Naive Article (Score:4, Insightful)
Firstly, Betteridge's law applies here.
Yeah, I noticed that also. Which makes me wonder: if Slashdot ran an article called, "Does Betteridge's Law Apply to Every Headline Here That Ends With a Question Mark?", would it still apply?
War is bad/wrong/immoral, period. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The only "law of war" that we need is one that states that war is not allowed, period. If you're an aggressor, you are breaking the "law of war".
That sounds really great, but I doubt it would work well in practice. The colonies would still be under the Crown, who never lost power. France would be under control of Louis XXXXII, the South would still run on slavery, etc. Without war and revolution, how would despotic regimes ever end?
Re:War is bad/wrong/immoral, period. (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually that is the law. Starting a war of aggression is always a crime in international law. The only reason any nation is allowed to wage war is in self defence. That is why many people consider the Iraq invasion to have been illegal.
As for colonies international law requires that populations be given the right to self determination. It's hard to enforce but in theory if the population of a geographical area within a country can show that they wish to be independent the country is obliged to try and facilitate that, perhaps through devolved powers or by letting them set up on their own. Slavery is illegal, internal revolutions are not wars per-se but internal conflict or civil war. The law only applies to nation states, not individuals or factions within nations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Always with the questions (Score:2)
Are New Technologies Undermining the Laws of War?
Yes? No? I don't know! Get out of my house!
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Rollerball and Network were two of the most prescient films of the 1970s.
Re: There are no nations. There are no "peoples" (Score:5, Informative)
As I get older, it seems that the movie Network is more truth.
Snowden did not hurt US security -- because this data is likely for sale to China via a contractor. Our "massive trading partner" is not surprised. The "damage" was for the merely large companies to learn what the multinationals already knew. And "spying on everything" takes on other connotations if you think of economics, trade secrets, and negotiations. Sure, getting dirt on politicians is profitable -- but knowing about money and technology is profit.
If there were an ACTUAL ENEMY out there, the US, the pentagon, and our secret agencies would be acting a lot differently than how they do now. It seems that these governments are more afraid of their own people. It's as if they were making a show of enemies at the gate to convince us to keep building up the castle and disenfranchise us.
Why is China, after years of peace with the USA while we did not take advantage of superior power, now buying air craft carriers and possibly getting into spending a lot of their prosperity on a military like we do? Is the air craft carrier going to help them dominate something that WalMart didn't already help them own? Are they going to attack a Samsung store down the street? Couldn't they continue dominating the world better by restricting imports and foreign ownership and continuing their public works projects and subsidizing strategic industries? Or are they only interested in "enough prosperity" and then later the same excuses to the middle class why they can no longer "afford education and health care" -- when they have record profits one day like we do now?
Repost of an earlier story (Score:3)
Today, emerging military technologies — including tanks, aeroplanes and machine guns — raise the prospect of upheavals in military practice so fundamental that they challenge assumptions underlying long-established international laws of war....
Today, emerging military technologies — including long range monoplanes and submarines — raise the prospect of upheavals in military practice so fundamental that they challenge assumptions underlying long-established international laws of war....
The wills of the many outclassed by the few. (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing about humans piloting machines of war is that you still need a lot of people's consent to fight the war. With a remote drone operator you could have a lot fewer folks consent for the same or more war-fighting: Have one guy take the helm of the lead fighting machine in an autopilot squadron. Kill their drone, it doesn't injure the pilot, not a scratch. Their neck's not on the line. They switch drones and keep coming for as much money as it takes to win.
Against enemies yields less risk of life for your soldiers, more bag for your Buck, more death dealt, more atrocities. Given that these systems aren't even needed due to our existing military might it just seems a little too convenient that it would also take less folks to fight against their own people with these drones -- detached, not having to show your face on the battle field -- and especially when we discover government drones are making their way to the homeland skies.
If your neck is not on the line, you have no right to pull the trigger. To remove the human element from war is inhumane by definition.
Re: (Score:3)
This is in principle an age old problem, and it is unresolved since then. But there is not much pressure to actually resolve it, because it just means that heroism
Re:The wills of the many outclassed by the few. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, drones make war too easy.
And even suicide attacks are self-moderating. But a drone can "strap on" some ordinance and you don't even need someone to volunteer or believe enough in the cause. There is no sacrifice or backlash -- just continual asymmetric warfare.
How does someone on the receiving end of such a drone policy react? They aren't ALL bond villains, are they? They had a gripe and were in our way and someone they know got attacked by a faceless drone. I'm thinking the futility and anger would b
Re: (Score:2)
To add to this, the horrors of war used to only be known to the few who actually fought in it. Yes, they might have told stories, but it's one thing to hear a story from grandpa about the horrible war he fought in and another to see it for yourself. As technology improved, we began to get photographs from the front lines (or near enough to them) and people saw for themselves how horrible war could be. Then we got video and real-time reporting. Faced with the real horrors of war, people didn't as readily
Funny title...'laws of war' (Score:2)
Powers That Be will never tire of war. (Score:2)
~JFK
Current Laws (Score:2)
The "rules" have no practical relevance (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There is only one law of war (Score:5, Interesting)
It's Simple (Score:2)
Gone are the days when a solder might be close enough to smell the odor of his enemy, see the sweat on his brow or hear the cries as he passed on.
It's all point n click now, home in time for American Idol.
14 hour shift piloting fighter drones, "can you pick up milk and sugar on your way home honey?"
Laws of war? (Score:2)
Is this a joke? There is only one law: Win, or you are conquered.
True, and not just for war (Score:2)
New technologies can undermine all laws. Laws must be updated to address the new technologies. Surveillance is another area where the effects are obvious.
Here is the "dialogue". (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think all us Americans are blind to what our country does and where it's true interest lies.