Human Warefare

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- pure.virtual
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Human Warefare
OP - December 30, 2009, 11:41 AM

A Little piece of follow up after the worst religion pool

Is there in your opinion a certain code of moralities governing warfare?

Is there special rules of waging wars, in engagement, and in civilians rights during wars

The question mainly in the pool is directed to the civilian rights in warfare(and terror if you like to include it), should armies protect them, neglect them, or even target them?

if there is rules how do you relate to them in the light of monstrosities that man has made in war through history?
what do that tell about man or ethics that we pretend to withhold?
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: Human Warefare
Reply #1 - December 30, 2009, 11:45 AM

There are special rules about civilian rights in war, but in modern warfare its impossible not to inflict civilian casualties, as far as I can see. An army should take all possible steps to avoid civilian casualties, and never deliberately target them, but realistically there will still be civilians killed.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- pure.virtual
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Human Warefare
Reply #2 - December 30, 2009, 11:49 AM

should this include Hiroshima and Nagasaki sort of act??
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: Human Warefare
Reply #3 - December 30, 2009, 11:52 AM

There is an argument that not using nukes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have necessitated a ground invasion or a massive wave of conventional bombing, either of which would have caused more civilian casualties and suffering than the two nukes. I'm not a historian, I don't know if that's true, but if it is then Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't war crimes.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- pure.virtual
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Human Warefare
Reply #4 - December 30, 2009, 11:57 AM

what if the jap's desided to take the heat and get through with it after all and then the conventional bombing and land invasion takes place?

do you have anything to say to an Islamic fundamentalist who has the means and intension of whipping out the entire USA in order to bring peace to the world?
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: Human Warefare
Reply #5 - December 30, 2009, 12:02 PM

Quote
what if the jap's desided to take the heat and get through with it after all and then the conventional bombing and land invasion toke place

That was the other option to nukes, and according to many historians it would have caused more civilian casualties than the nukes. I don't know if they're right, I'm not a military historian, but if that was the case, (or even if the US leadership of the time genuinely but mistakenly thought it was the case), then it was the least worst option for Japanese civilians, and therefore not a war crime. A horrible thing, but not a war crime.

Quote
do you have anything to say to an Islamic fundamentalist who has the means and intension of whipping out the entire USA in order to bring peace to the world?

Either....

1) Stop worshipping the imaginary friend of a long dead cult leader and do something useful with your life

Or....

2) Nothing. I would say to the USA instead - find him and kill him.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- zomzom
- ᵀᴴᴱ'ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Human Warefare
Reply #6 - December 30, 2009, 03:32 PM

I said nuke them, end of the day war is not supposed to be ethical, I think wars should be avoided at all costs but if there is a war don't pull your punches, I think Pakistan has the best policy on this, defensive-offensive-first-and-second-strike policy what is the point of having nukes if your policy is not to use them in a first strike situation?

The strategic forces of Pakistan incorporate both active offensive elements and passive defensive measures. Land-based SSMs and manned bombers, part of the PAF Central Air Command, consisted of SSMs and bombers.

Protection of the Pakistani counterforce relies almost entirely on passive defence systems for surveillance, assessment, and warning of a missile attack. include radar and sonar; laser beams; high-resolution optical devices using natural or artificial illumination; and magnetic, thermal, chemical, and acoustical sensors the Airborne Warning and Control System
(AWACS) aircraft, in effect a flying radar station.

Left the forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=22997
- Heyjustlooking
- Ex-Muslim
- You know what time it is
- offline
Re: Human Warefare
Reply #7 - December 30, 2009, 05:48 PM

Nuclear weapons have proved to be a more dangerous invention then helpful. Granted that nuclear power can be an efficient way of producing electricity but the implications of WMD's has resulted in more than numerous civilian deaths and casualties but babies being born deformed and with mutations. I know if that was me or my family I wouldn't want them to be on the receiving end. Although I understand sometimes war is inevitable especially when you have an enemy that believes they has God on their side.

"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
- Homer
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Human Warefare
Reply #8 - December 30, 2009, 11:27 PM

In general, I look at warfare in terms of practicality (the object is to win, and it is friggen serious not to be taken lightly), which can/should be tempered with ethics (The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius once said that no matter how much a barbarian your enemy is, do not become one yourself).
I also see a difference when talking about total war, and non state/organization terrorism, police/peacekeeping/humanitarian missions, and so forth.
In general terrorism is a tactic, so how indiscriminate it is, the motives and intentions, the practicality, how the actions are viewed by the perpetrators, and more factors.

I'll give an example, on a small scale.
You are manning a .50cal and doing an MSR patrol. From the 3 o'clock you start getting small arms fire. You fire back, but realize that there are a group of mud houses, most likely housing civilians who are not involved in any of this including children, directly behind them. You know that your rounds would go though their walls. You try and aim as perfect as you can, but it is night time and a Mama douce is not a very accurate weapon. Their fire is no longer a threat to you, as they missed completely and you are able to break contact easy....Do you try and hose them down or do you hold fire?
Now...they are a serious group, RPGs, IEDs, and they already disabled a truck, and you are way outnumbered. They could overrun you soon, kill you or capture you and put you on a snuff film. Do you still hold fire out of concern about the people in those houses? Do you call in an airstrike?

I think that is a good example, on a small scale, that illustrates the moral and ethical questions faced in war.

The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the
superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition
is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery.
-Robert G. Ingersoll (1898)

"Do time ninjas have this ability?" "Yeah. Only they stay silent and aren't douchebags." -Ibl
- Baal
- Arab Slave Overlord
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Human Warefare
Reply #9 - January 02, 2010, 06:46 AM

Quote from: Cheetah on December 30, 2009, 11:52 AM
There is an argument that not using nukes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have necessitated a ground invasion or a massive wave of conventional bombing, either of which would have caused more civilian casualties and suffering than the two nukes. I'm not a historian, I don't know if that's true, but if it is then Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't war crimes.

The 2 nukes were not war crimes because they were committed by the clearly victorious, otherwise, the laws would have been drafted differently to make them war crimes.

Targeting civilian structures, will always be justified as a reason to end a war quicker, so it should not have been used for the nukes.

"Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
- Baal
- Arab Slave Overlord
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Human Warefare
Reply #10 - January 02, 2010, 06:48 AM

For example, if I am a commander attacking a building in south lebanon that is taken over by hezbolla, I will file a letter with a judge stating that the building is taken hostage by soldiers hiding in a civilian structure.

I will get the judge to give me permission to take the soldiers out, and then will proceed to combat the soldiers.

"Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
1« Previous thread | Next thread »