Guest GriffinCheng Posted March 2, 2000 Share Posted March 2, 2000 Hey, Compassion. IIRC, Apache does not fire Mavericks, it fires Hellfire missiles. I think Maverick may be too heavy for Cobra, too, but I have to check book up at home... It is interested to learn that .50 cal "sniper" rifle is illegal against biological targets. In a movie showing right now in Hong Kong, a villan "blows up" a cop car with such weapon and kills the passengers in another one shooting through the roof. I think many others have expressed my views in greater and better details. Griffin @ work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PeterNZ Posted March 2, 2000 Share Posted March 2, 2000 I'd have to check my sources.. but i think that gangster could be up for charges! PeterNZ (actually the 50cal point is interesting, i've got no idea, anyone else?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 2, 2000 Share Posted March 2, 2000 Peter, Seeing as he was fighting an "undeclared war" the rules of war don't apply n'est ce pas? Thus his actions aren't actually sanctionable in a court of law but he IS liable to be shot as a terrorist once captured . Kinda makes you wonder about Kosovo doesn't it? IIRC there was never a formal declaration of war in Kosovo. Doesn't that mean that Allied airmen shot down wouldn't have been under the protection of the GC ? Of course if Milosevic had hurt a single hair on their heads after capture he'd have been in a HUGE world of hurt so he wouldn't have taken them out at dawn and shot them but it is an interesting speculation no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted March 2, 2000 Share Posted March 2, 2000 IIRC the GC only apply in conflicts between states, not in cases of armed insurrection like Chechnya or Kosovo. It´s correct that the US and its lackeys didn´t declare war on Serbia, I guess that if you declare war it all becomes so serious(!),it´s a lot easier just to bomb those you don´t like. Perhaps you have to pay your soldiers more if there is a real war?! BTW, was there a formal declaration of war against Iraq in 90/91? The soldiers on the Eastern front fight far better. The reason they give in so easily in the West is simply the fault of that stupid Geneva Convention which promises the good treatment as prisoners. We must scrap the idiotic thing. Adolf Hitler, March 1945, qouted from "Panzer Leader" by Guderian. The 3 US soldiers captured in/near Kosovo where held by Yugoslav authorities as criminals IIRC. Showing POW:s on TV is a violation of the GC (anyone remember endless columns of Iraqi POW:s on CNN? Or British pilots on Iraqi TV?) but since Kosovo wasn´t a war, the GC doesn´t apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PeterNZ Posted March 2, 2000 Share Posted March 2, 2000 I have to go to work, so i can't check, but i'm pretty sure that internal conflicts are governed by the GC's, (note the plural the adittional protocols expand a little on some of the original stuff, and i'm pretty sure that's where the bits we need are). Bassically if there are two declared sides with a leadership and everyone else reckons there's a war going on then they apply. It's just that as a rules in an internal war they're much much much harder to ensure they're used. I might come back and check later on. Fionn: Yeah, well come to think of it the gangster might be fine, because, afterall, he was using the 50cal on a vehicle, and the destruction of the passengers was coincidental to the destruction of the vehicle hehe. Also of course, it's hardly a war situation so whatever domestic rules would come into play PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 3, 2000 Share Posted March 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurtz: [...]but since Kosovo wasn´t a war, the GC doesn´t apply.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm, I just watched a Channel4 broadcast called 'Military Blunders', today's was about the undelivered promises of technology in this century. Gen. Sir Michael Rose, one-time commander of UN peace-keepers in Bosnia said that in his opinion, the allied forces in Kosovo might be guilty of breaking the Hague and Geneva protocols, b/c the airwar killed more civilians than military personnel and therefore it broke the sections about ensuring that civilians are kept out of it as much as possible (as you can see, I am not a lawyer ) I have also heard it said on different occasions, that some of the pilots responsible for particular blunders, e.g. the attack on the train crossing a bridge, might find themselves hurled in front of the International Court of Human Rights (name?). Any thoughts on this one on the board? ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted March 3, 2000 Share Posted March 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GriffinCheng: Hey, Compassion. IIRC, Apache does not fire Mavericks, it fires Hellfire missiles. I think Maverick may be too heavy for Cobra, too, but I have to check book up at home...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Doh! Ok, modern hardware;s not my thing.... He shot a missile. The sentiment of being somewhat disquieted by the whole experience was what I was trying to get across, hope that came through. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It is interested to learn that .50 cal "sniper" rifle is illegal against biological targets. In a movie showing right now in Hong Kong, a villan "blows up" a cop car with such weapon and kills the passengers in another one shooting through the roof. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but it's ok if he can weild 2 at a time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darroch Posted March 3, 2000 Share Posted March 3, 2000 Originally posted by PeterNZ: [snip] eg. For my own country of New Zealand to deploy and use landmines would be 'against the law' because we signed the Canadian (good work there Canada!), No-Use-Landmines Treaty Thing, (it's official name eludes me, something Protocol i think). So any soldiers who did would be in big trouble and govt if they heard about it would probably prosecute them etc etc.. i dunno. [snip] I'm afraid to note that there was a little scandal up here a few weeks back when it was discovered by the media that some of our peacekeepers had recently deployed with some command-detonated claymores... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted March 3, 2000 Share Posted March 3, 2000 I am impressed by the spectrum of nationalities posting here. I am also somewhat amused by the 'legal' matters. Just for the record, Someone mentioned whether or not the US declared war on Iraq. Yes they did. Also for the record, we only went there with everyone else to get Iraq out of Kuwait, thats why we didnt 'finish Saddam'. As for the claymores ... technically they arent mines ...or land mines. They are teleoperated anti-personnell weapons. Being above ground is a plus for them. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted March 3, 2000 Share Posted March 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: Just for the record, Someone mentioned whether or not the US declared war on Iraq. Yes they did. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thought that Congress authorized the President to follow the UN... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for the claymores ... technically they arent mines ...or land mines. They are teleoperated anti-personnell weapons. Being above ground is a plus for them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess it depends on if they are remote controlled or tripwired... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PeterNZ Posted March 3, 2000 Share Posted March 3, 2000 Germanboy: Oo very interesting! Yes.. I would tend to say that there was some dodgy things, like blowing up the TV Station, killing some half-doz civilians is rather dodgy. I think it tends to be in a grey area, since you could argue they are aiding and abbeting the war effort, (in the same way civilian aircraft technicians would be considered legitimate military targets under the Conventions).. but others might quite legitematly argue that it's stretching the spirit of the law quite a lot! I was quite saddened by the incident myself, since those people died and the TV station was back on air in a few hours anyway, (and because it was at night, what did people miss? Some reruns of 90210 probably ) As for prosecution, I'd say unlikely, i'm realistic enough to accept that "to the victor go the spoils" and that generally includes directing the attention of international law away from yourself, (despite what activists might try). I hope everyone has found this debate interesting. It's sometihng i know a little about so can meaningfully contribute haha.. yeah, you guessed it, i don't know much about tanks and stuff. (cept they're big.. and go 'vroom vroom bang' and you can drive them into supermarkets accidently like my Granddad ) As for the Claymores, a manually operated claymore should be ok (?! I should check the agreement i guess hehe).. but tripwire would be naughty i'm certain. I'd be interested to hear more of that case where some PK's got in trouble. PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Thiel Posted March 3, 2000 Share Posted March 3, 2000 I beleive that claymores would be OK in either a trip-wire or teleoperated mode for the reason that they can be found and easily neutralised after an engagement and arent left for the little kiddies to dig up. I want to make sure that my army in the field, with conventional weapons, can do precisely what Fionn described earlier. Let's not tie their hands, but let's not leave any indelible scars beyond those on the actual combatants. . . . and let's make war with some class gentlemen. ------------------ Men make wars. Boys fight them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted March 3, 2000 Share Posted March 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by William Thiel: I beleive that claymores would be OK in either a trip-wire or teleoperated mode for the reason that they can be found and easily neutralised after an engagement and arent left for the little kiddies to dig up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm pretty sure that one of the big deals about the concerns about all the mines around isn't becacue they are all that hidden. After all, arty deleivered hasty minsfields are obvious and easy to see... one of the reasons they are used is to funnel an enemy. Can't see Claymores being much different than arty or air deleivered minefields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 3, 2000 Share Posted March 3, 2000 Good job keeping the discussion away from emotional rants. Warcrimes etc. usually has that effect IIRC the Congress only authorized the use of military forces, they did not declare a formal state of war. The authorization simply ment that funds would be made available for the extra military expendatures, as well as being a voice of support. So far as I know WWII was the last war declared by the US, even though we have fought a half dozen sizable "wars" since then. In this day of overwhelming military power deliverable in days, not years, I think FORMAL wars are pretty much a thing of the past for all sides. The US and other large and small nations have a LONG history of military action without formal declarations of war. I can think of several actions the US did in Central America in the early part of last century (20th) and the Allied invasion of Russia at the close of WWI was certainly not declared. So this has been in the works for a long time. From a historical standpoint, I think this is understandable and not detrimental. The use of military force is now heavily scrutinized by the public of any free nation, and therefore the political entities need to use it with some sort of care. In fact, nations like Iraq and Yugoslavia count on this, and that really isn't a good thing. So a formal declaration is really just a rubber stamp and therefore not very important. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Ned Anderson Posted March 3, 2000 Share Posted March 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: IIRC the Congress only authorized the use of military forces, they did not declare a formal state of war. The authorization simply ment that funds would be made available for the extra military expendatures, as well as being a voice of support. So far as I know WWII was the last war declared by the US, even though we have fought a half dozen sizable "wars" since then. In this day of overwhelming military power deliverable in days, not years, I think FORMAL wars are pretty much a thing of the past for all sides. The US and other large and small nations have a LONG history of military action without formal declarations of war. I can think of several actions the US did in Central America in the early part of last century (20th) and the Allied invasion of Russia at the close of WWI was certainly not declared. So this has been in the works for a long time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IIRC, the US congress took a vote to declare war in december of 1990, should sanctions fail to kick Saddam out. Is this right? Or was it a vote for something else entirely? ------------------ I love the f***ing Army and the Army loves f***ing me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted March 3, 2000 Share Posted March 3, 2000 It seems I was mixing things up in my last post. Sorry, I´ll punish myself in an appropriate way. The Horror! The Horror! I was probably thinking of the UN´s inability to intervene in a civil war (who invented this terrible term!? ) There was an addition to the GC in 1977 (2nd Geneva Protocol) dealing with non-international conflicts. However, it explicitly states that it can not be referred to to justify an direct or indirect intervention in the armed conflict or in the internal affairs of the state whatever the cause may be. [my emphasis] Well, might makes right..... Regarding declarations of war, from the 3rd Haag Convention (1907) "The parties who has signed the treaty admits that hostilities between them should not commence without a previous unambigious announcement worded either as a motivated declartion of war or as a ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war" (I just translated this into English, it may not be consisent with the original text) Mines: If you employ claymores with tripwire, it´s a mine. Bad, bad boy! If you detonate them on command, it´s a weapon. Good boy! Artillery delivered mines is probably classified as anti-vehicular and are as such not covered by the Ottawa Convention. I could be wrong on this, though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest -panzershreck- Posted March 3, 2000 Share Posted March 3, 2000 Posted by PeterNZ "Or the US A may have felt it was an inhumane way of killing someone," ------------------------------------ AHAHAHAHAHAHAH IS THERE A HUMANE WAY TO KILL SOMEONE??? HAHAHAHHAHAHAH KILLING SOMEONE IS INHUMANE FULL STOP. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH [This message has been edited by -panzershreck- (edited 03-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 3, 2000 Share Posted March 3, 2000 I think an important issue here is that this whole area is evolving and has done so for the last couple of centuries. In an evolving system, it is rather unlikely that you get linear development. There will be dead ends, and sometimes practicality will win out over principles. Good examples of evolution in thinking are landmines, gas or wholesale area bombing of civilian targets. Peter's point about what was right in the past is not necessarily right now IIRC. Society's thinking in what it considers to be acceptable evolves, and I for one think that is a good thing. Saying that whatever harms the enemy most or prevents harm from our soldiers best is acceptable is not a way forward. I guess my point is that this is a complex area in which the argument that we killed many of THEM and lost few or none of US is not good enough. Involving the media in the prosecution of a war leads to at least some benign side-effects, in that outside control over military actions is established. A look at how NATO conducted the war in Kosovo on the media front should prove this. The public scrutiny did not help the Serbian civilians killed in the train, but maybe it stopped some trigger-happy pilot short of repeating the incident, and maybe it will lead to a change of rules of engagement next time round (i.e. go below 15,000ft). The reporter's point about burying the Iraqui's being unfair is not as stupid as it sounds. It is a correct challenge to the means employed towards the end of winning. I do not believe that the end in all cases justifies the means. In a democracy, these challenges are important because they lead to reflection and improvement of the means. "War is too important to be left to generals" Clemenceau (?) ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted March 3, 2000 Share Posted March 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by G Ned Anderson: IIRC, the US congress took a vote to declare war in december of 1990, should sanctions fail to kick Saddam out. Is this right? Or was it a vote for something else entirely? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I recall, that vote was as Steve said. That the congress was going to athorize the funds to wage war. I think that the Pres can declare, can't he? I mean if he has the 35 brp's ... but the congress gets to authorize payment of the troops and increased spending for consumables and replamcements and that's what the vote was for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 4, 2000 Share Posted March 4, 2000 The Congress must ratify any declaration of war. Check and balance This is why there has been a debate among the Constitutional Eggheads (couldn't resist the jab ) about the use of force outside of the US borders without Congress' direct approval (formal declaration of war). Personally, I think it is better the way it is now. The President sits down with the leadership of the Congress, they agree on certain parameters, and action is taken when it counts, not weeks later after playing stupid political games which have nothing to do with the military action in question. If anybody thinks that a Democratic President can do SQUAT without consulting the Republican House and Senate members they are kidding themselves. So any military action taken under President Clinton (or any previous president) did in fact get the stamp of approval from the Congress, even if it was more or less informal. In effect the check and balance system is working just fine, but is rather more efficient now. And if the military action is going to be involved and/or highly contraversial, you bet your butts that the leadership of the Congress isn't going to shoulder the responsiblity for giving the President the green light, so they will bring it to a more formal debate (like the Gulf War). Politicians don't like taking credit for politically risky stuff Oh... and one more thing. There is a VERY good reason why the US doesn't declare war any more. Because once they do that they can legally start drafting able bodied men and women into military service. Unless we are talking about one seriously big and important fight brewing up (like WWII sized), the American public is likely to nix any draft (i.e. declaration of war) in the bud. So the politicians won't ever ask for a formal war unless the scope of the war needs more troops than are already under arms. And as we saw in the Gulf, the standing armed forces are generally large and powerfull enough to kick pretty much any butt they want to so long as the funding for the operation is in place. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted March 4, 2000 Share Posted March 4, 2000 Strayin' even further OT with this, but maybe y'all can help me here. Why do wars cost so much money? I mean, the soldiers are gettin' paid whether there's a war or not, right? And the ammo already exists, right? Fuel consumption would be way way up, but other than that, where's the moolah going? ------------------ Floreat Jerboa ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted March 4, 2000 Share Posted March 4, 2000 Well, what's a cruise missile cost... and how many were fired in 1990 as opposed to 1991? That's one reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EScurlock Posted March 4, 2000 Share Posted March 4, 2000 Quote: Strayin' even further OT with this, but maybe y'all can help me here. Why do wars cost so much money? I mean, the soldiers are gettin' paid whether there's a war or not, right? And the ammo already exists, right? Fuel consumption would be way way up, but other than that, where's the moolah going? The costs that would be incurred as part of standard O&M are calculated into the total cost of an opperation. So even though they'd be paying Joe bag of dougnuts even if there was no opperation going on, it's added into the costs. Having said that, even if normal O&M costs are factered out, an opperation like Desrt Sheild would be an enormous expence. Reserve units were called up to active service. The cost of moving that much war matterial is exorbinate. Then there's food and lodging. Tents make it cheaper, but plenty of money went into that including basic infrastructure like water and sewage. The cost of training when you're preparing for the real thing goes right through the roof. All branches probably expended 10 or more time the ammount of live and training munitions than they normally would, maybe much more, I'm just guesing. All the things that go bang and boom are procured at a far greater rate than normal. Suppies can be shifted around, but orders are emediately placed to fill the vacancies. Other expenses include special equipment and uniforms for the region, builup of medical supplies, fuel, morral and wellfare items, hazardous duty pay etc. The Air Force put many more hours on their planes than normal. The increase in O&M money there alone must have been stagering. They had special teams deployed in various places in Europe performing hourly and Isochronal inspections that normally would be done at the aircraft's home station. Once the shooting started the cost went up that much more. I'm sure I left out plenty, but you get the idea. BTW, refering to a previous thread. I've only handled claymores a couple of times, but I don't remember the U.S. version having a trip-wire function; at least we were only trained to set them up to be fired on command. ------------------ He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted March 4, 2000 Share Posted March 4, 2000 As the comedian, George Carlin, once said, "The US just loves to bomb brown people. And the only reason why the US declared war on Germany and Japan was that they were bombing people. So, BULL****! That's our job!" Just a little humor on the subject. ------------------ "Cry Woe...Destruction...Ruin and Decay. The worst is Death...and Death will have His day."--Gen. Chang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PeterNZ Posted March 4, 2000 Share Posted March 4, 2000 PZ: *Puts on his poe-face serious look* Of course there are humane and inhumane ways of killing people, the Geneva Conventions say so! *relaxes* haha of course, it's a weird idea, but so is war It's just the way the game is played! PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts