1st Marine Parachute Regiment

[AWP]

I don't mean to attempt to derail the thread, but could you expound on this a bit more? Specifically the morally. I don't know the specific upper limits of the ROE or their evolvement throughout the wars other than, it was much much much more lenient in the initial invasion than today.

I won't speak for DA SWO, but considering we need a JAG's approval to initiate contact and they are part of the targeting process? We're so concerned about civilian casualties we can't trust commanders in the field to make that decision?

 

[Johca]

Rules Of Engagement (ROE) are more politically driven than mission need driven. While Research and Development to gain new technologies have a stronger direct connection to mission need and desire to reduce operational risks. The DC-130 video DC-130 Hercules Drone Carrier although focusing on the Southeast Asia conflicts does disclose the Cold War need by mentioning drone flights over China and Korea. However these drones were flown over other regions as were Extreme High Altitude Reconnaissance (weather) balloons. Part of the early drone mission need was to do tactical reconnaissance over areas nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction had been or were being used. The development of these technologies have direct connection to the loss of a U-2 flying over the Soviet Union and the capture of its pilot on 1 May 1960 and the shoot down and loss of other manned reconnaissance flights that were flying along the borders and coasts of China and the Soviet Union.

ROEs are foremost connected to compliances with International Laws of Armed Conflict of which the most prominently known and agreed to are the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and amendments to the five Geneva Conventions since then. ROEs are also heavily influenced by U.S. Domestic Politics as the poltical parties and elected officials of those parties use these laws to stay in power. The article Dodging The Legal Bullets of The Post Modern War: The Right Way Back to Total War, by COL James M. Patterson, USA (Ret) and LTC David G. Bolgiano, USAF (Ret). in the Winter 2015 Drop Magazine gives some good insight into politics influencing ROEs.

 

[Devildoc]

The article Dodging The Legal Bullets of The Post Modern War: The Right Way Back to Total War, by COL James M. Patterson, USA (Ret) and LTC David G. Bolgiano, USAF (Ret). in the Winter 2015 Drop Magazine gives some good insight into politics influencing ROEs.

I read this yesterday. Great article and the principles can be extrapolated to so many other areas.

 

[Dienekes]

That's awesome, thank you. I'm writing a paper soon for a class attempting to morally justify Total War and that article will help a lot.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

That's awesome, thank you. I'm writing a paper soon for a class attempting to morally justify Total War and that article will help a lot.

Did you choose this position, or was it assigned to you as a topic?

 

[Dienekes]

I chose this position.

Philosophers have studied war from a moral perspective for millennia, and they generally center their inquiries on questions of the “rightness” and/or “goodness” of some aspect of military conflict. In this paper, you are asked to take up a contested moral issue that arises either from the cause(s), conduct, or consequences of warfare. You need not limit yourself to wars of modernity, but be aware that topics relating primarily to wars of antiquity will be much more difficult to research and debate. Relevant Topics: Any issue relating to war that can be contested philosophically is fair game.

That's pretty much the only parameters. Professor's examples were the use of child soldiers, chemical weapons, terrorism as a justified action, etc..., and I wanted no part of justifying those. She said she even had a student justify the Holocaust in a paper once.

 

[x SF med]

You better bone up on your John Stuart Mill, Jefferson, DeToqueville, possibly Mao, Lenin, Trotsky... what era are you thinking of using as the base for the paper? The further back you go, you could bring in Thuridyces, Pope Clement, Augustine, Aurelius... You bit off big chunk, hope you can chew it up well enough that you can feed the baby birds.

 

[Dienekes]

For the era, I'm going to stick to modernity as the main example like WW2 and provide a postulate as to what contemporary total war would like. Then, I'll J ustify that using examples of total war throughout history(Sherman's March to the Sea, some French 19th century wars, etc...) using jus ad bellum as a function of jus in bello, and if I can swing it, throw in some unconventional warfare as part of the conduct of total war.

 

[AWP]

For the era, I'm going to stick to modernity as the main example like WW2 and provide a postulate as to what contemporary total war would like. Then, I'll J ustify that using examples of total war throughout history(Sherman's March to the Sea, some French 19th century wars, etc...) using jus ad bellum as a function of jus in bello, and if I can swing it, throw in some unconventional warfare as part of the conduct of total war.

What is your page limit or target?

 

[Dienekes]

It's only 6-8 pages, and less philosophical than I made it out to be. We only have to justify based on the Just War Tradition principles that we have learned in class. It's a political science trying to be philosophical than a pure philosophy class as we don't have a philosophy department or even a class.

 

[AWP]

Right on. That's a good topic for a single-spaced report.