njlauren
Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
~FR~
From what I understand, gas warfare in 1915/16 was ineffective; it did not advantage either side and the damage done to individual soldiers was of course atrocious.
Strategically, a useless weapon. Makes me wonder about the mindset that led to developing the prohibitions in the Geneva Convention. Does the Convention prohibit land mines or nuclear weapons and label them as crimes against humanity?
Another question I have is: what is the enforcement mechanism? None really. Is the GC more than some rules on tissue paper?
Finally, seems like banning particular weapons of war is a consolation prize given by those who could not bring about an agreement to ban War itself. But I suppose there would be no effective enforcement mechanism for that. I mean, what do you do? Make war on those who are making war to stop them from making war???? Silly shit when you reduce it to the core logic.
There were attempts to do this, the Hague Conventions around the turn of the 20th century were supposed to limit military buildup and define what could and couldn't be used in war, it limited sizes of ships, etc.and failed. The Kellog-Briand pact after WWI supposedly outlawed war, it didn't do anything.
I believe with poison gas it is a war crime if used on civilians for mass slaughter rather than militarily, though I could be wrong about that specific (the Newsroom series implied that a Sarin gas attack against military targets would be a war crime as well, so I come to think of it probably am). As far as I know flamethrowers and napalm were not outlawed, if they were then the US violated that in both WWII, Korea and Vietnam. I know white phosphorus as an incendiary is illegal.
Yeah, it can seem ludicrous that something can be declared a crime against humanity when a nuclear weapon, that could kill hundreds of millions of people, is not considered one. It also depends on the target, too, things designed to target civilian populations can be considered a war crime, whereas things targeting military may not.
One of the reasons gas was not used in WWII was because those in decision making positions, especially good ole Adolph, had experienced it during WWI and couldn't stomach it (kind of interesting that Adolph wouldn't use it militarily, when they used it in the death camps and such.......). One of the prime reasons it wasn't used was it isn't a very effective weapon, among other things, it blows back on your own people too easily, and it really didn't work well, despite the vicious nature of mustard gas (it makes sarin look nice, nasty stuff).
In the end, what is a war crime ends up being what they actually get people to sign onto. The treatment of POW's was done at Geneva, for example, yet many countries never signed it, but the Japanese did not, yet some Japanese military were executed for their treatment of POW's (not enough, like Japan as a whole, but that is another story) even though their country didn't sign it.
The real answer is something anyone who has ever served in combat will tell you, all the attempts at civilizing warfare, all the attempts to 'make it humane' are a bitter joke, there is no such thing as civilized warfare. Sure, it is a lot easier to talk about something like Malmedy where thousands of unarmed POWS were gunned down in cold blood by the Germans (where again those responsible never paid full price for it), but for example, you are in a small unit operating behind enemy lines, and you capture someone......think they are going to take him prisoner? No fucking way.....it is brutal and barbaric, and often does end up as carpet bombing. In the first gulf war we had B52's flying out of the indian ocean at Diego Garcia, and they were doing the same thing we did in North Vietnam, carpet bombed. We have cluster bombs that often take out civilians, and there is nothing civilized about it. While I am glad there are proscriptions on certain weapons, I also think it doesn't make war any less horrible. It is why I found the whole concept of Just war Augustine and Aquinas and others tried to fly up the flagpole, I don't think there is a morally just war, never has been, there are necessary wars, but when we fool ourselves into thinking they are crusades or blessed, it makes it too easy to do, and IMO there isn't such a think called a morally justified war, war can never be morally justified.
|
What makes it a war crime? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread