quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Mari, we know the old, "what if they gave a war, and nobody came." For a war fought on these terms, though, I'd suggest we modify it; What if they provoked a civilian massacre, and nobody watched the news?

quote:

Declared wars vs undeclared wars: Apparently it is no longer fashionable to declare war anymore. There may be multiple reasons for this. Again I would like this to change. Civilians ought to be able to live their lives in safety in the absence of declared hostilities. By declaring war, civilians are alerted to possible dangers and can take steps to remove themselves from the firing line.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

I have had a thought. A brilliant thought, if I say so myself. It is a sure method to avoid nearly all wars. (I am a supergenius.)

It is this: If everyone surrenders to me, there won't be any wars except the ones that I condone.

Please line up for the surrrender, all Ye who desire an end to wars.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

A number of interesting points have arisen here.

Civilians needs over military. There seems to be a view advanced by some that where civilian and military priorities clash, that the military priorities automatically take precedence. This is usually accompanied by another assumption - that war is war and the nasty things that happen in war to civilians cannot be prevented or altered. This is precisely the kind of thinking I would like to see challenged.

The rules governing warfare are not set in concrete, like any other set of laws they can be changed - in this case, by international agreement. In the past, to the victors went the spoils. Usually this meant rape and pillage. That is now outlawed. The Geneva Conventions outlaw another whole series of practices. These too can be changed and brought up to date.

A particular change I would like to see is that the presumption of military needs taking precedence over the rights of civilians reversed. This would mean that, for example, for an attack to occur in an urban area, the onus is on the attacker to be able to prove that there was a valid military target in the urban area, and that there was no less costly to civilians means of destroying the target available, that the method of attack chosen offered non-combatants the greatest degree of security.

Declared wars vs undeclared wars: Apparently it is no longer fashionable to declare war anymore. There may be multiple reasons for this. Again I would like this to change. Civilians ought to be able to live their lives in safety in the absence of declared hostilities. By declaring war, civilians are alerted to possible dangers and can take steps to remove themselves from the firing line.

So, in the absence of an official declaration of hostilities, I feel it ought to be illegal for any military force to engage in hostilities outside its country of origin unless granted permission by the host Govt, or specifically authorised by the UN. Any unauthorised military activity outside the military's country of origin would automatically count as a war crime, with the aggressor liable for all deaths injuries and damages incurred in an illegal war.

I have in mind other proposals relating to cross border incidents, legitimate tactics against urban guerrilla warfare and the use of aerial warfare/artillery in densely populated areas, which can wait for a later post. But I would like to note approvingly Aswad's comments on how to engage an enemy in asymmetrical warfare in urban areas. Had these been employed by various forces around the world today, there would be an awful lot more people alive with no loss, indeed, probable gains in military advantage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

I have had a thought. A brilliant thought, if I say so myself. It is a sure method to avoid nearly all wars. (I am a supergenius.)

It is this: If everyone surrenders to me, there won't be any wars except the ones that I condone.

Please line up for the surrrender, all Ye who desire an end to wars.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: PunisherNOLA

As long as the valid military targets are hidden amongst the population, no, they cannot be substantially reduced.

Bollocks. We took out plenty of valid military targets hidden among the civilian population in Afghanistan without anywhere near the level of civilian casualties seen in Gaza (and with most of the civilian casualties being caused by the insurgents, not ourselves).

quote:

As long as one country just lobs hundreds of rockets into the other without regard for where they hit, no, they cannot be substantially reduced.

This is, obviously, something one might want to reduce.

quote:

When one of the sides is using the civilian casualties for PR purposes, no, they cannot be substantially reduced.

I don't know about you, but I would consider PR for the other side to be something to avoid creating.

quote:

For snipers and regular soldiers to be able to distiguish between enemy combatants and civilians, they have to be close enough to enable them to do so.

That's the job description.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

If you ask the French, they'll probably be on board with that.

Hey! You want to buy some surplus WWII-era French rifles? They've never been fired and only dropped, once.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

Politesub53
How do you declare war on terrorists without harming the civillian population ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
This thread was started with the perhaps naive hope that we could discuss just how we could take civilians out of the line of fire as much as possible. I believe it is possible to outlaw those tactics that make serious levels of civilian casualties inevitable, with little or no military gain. The only instrument available to do that is the Geneva Convention, though I am open to other ways of creating and enforcing international law on this issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

How do you declare war on terrorists without harming the civillian population ?

quote:

Meanwhile, things just took a turn for the worse. Hamas are mistaken if they think this will help their cause.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

Did 9/11 teach you nothing about terrorism?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
A number of interesting points have arisen here.
Civilians needs over military. There seems to be a view advanced by some that where civilian and military priorities clash, that the military priorities automatically take precedence. This is usually accompanied by another assumption - that war is war and the nasty things that happen in war to civilians cannot be prevented or altered. This is precisely the kind of thinking I would like to see challenged.
The rules governing warfare are not set in concrete, like any other set of laws they can be changed - in this case, by international agreement. In the past, to the victors went the spoils. Usually this meant rape and pillage. That is now outlawed. The Geneva Conventions outlaw another whole series of practices. These too can be changed and brought up to date.
A particular change I would like to see is that the presumption of military needs taking precedence over the rights of civilians reversed. This would mean that, for example, for an attack to occur in an urban area, the onus is on the attacker to be able to prove that there was a valid military target in the urban area, and that there was no less costly to civilians means of destroying the target available, that the method of attack chosen offered non-combatants the greatest degree of security.
Declared wars vs undeclared wars: Apparently it is no longer fashionable to declare war anymore. There may be multiple reasons for this. Again I would like this to change. Civilians ought to be able to live their lives in safety in the absence of declared hostilities. By declaring war, civilians are alerted to possible dangers and can take steps to remove themselves from the firing line.
So, in the absence of an official declaration of hostilities, I feel it ought to be illegal for any military force to engage in hostilities outside its country of origin unless granted permission by the host Govt, or specifically authorised by the UN. Any unauthorised military activity outside the military's country of origin would automatically count as a war crime, with the aggressor liable for all deaths injuries and damages incurred in an illegal war.
I have in mind other proposals relating to cross border incidents, legitimate tactics against urban guerrilla warfare and the use of aerial warfare/artillery in densely populated areas, which can wait for a later post. But I would like to note approvingly Aswad's comments on how to engage an enemy in asymmetrical warfare in urban areas. Had these been employed by various forces around the world today, there would be an awful lot more people alive with no loss, indeed, probable gains in military advantage.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Laws like this require an otherwise law abiding government.