Ukraine - Russia Conflict

[Spooky]

Armed or unarmed he's a combatant and a valid target. It's war. You can shoot them in the back, burn them alive, blow their heads off. He's not surrendering. He's retreating in a circle.

I see, and I understand that. So at what point DOES he become a non-combatant? I know surrender has been pretty consistently recognized, even by drone pilots. Would pulling a white flag out while running do it? Hands and knees praying?

 

[Gunz]

I see, and I understand that. So at what point DOES he become a non-combatant? I know surrender has been pretty consistently recognized, even by drone pilots. Would pulling a white flag out while running do it? Hands and knees praying?

Basically, he becomes a prisoner at the whim of whoever has him at gunpoint. But theoretically, the whim is guided by the ROE and other factors such as the value of the target and whatever directives are issued by command regarding POWs.

We took prisoners, most of whom were wounded to some extent. But sometimes our Counterparts felt it necessary to ignore our ROE by lethal means. Civil Wars are a bitch.

Don't ask me how a drone operator takes a prisoner.

 

[Jaknight]

I see, and I understand that. So at what point DOES he become a non-combatant? I know surrender has been pretty consistently recognized, even by drone pilots. Would pulling a white flag out while running do it? Hands and knees praying?

How would they keep him prisoner? Would the drone escort him to the pilot?

 

[AWP]

Wave your white flag, drop your arms and ammo, and move towards the other guy's lines. Maybe it works out for you, maybe it doesn't, but you're surrendering to a god damn robot. What do you expect to happen? The drone operator to orbit you until their forces show up?

Pay your money and take your chances.

Realistically? We Hellfired and JDAM'ed unarmed dudes for crawling on our broken down vehicles. Surrender to a drone, no matter if a person is flying it or not? Here's the 20-sided...roll for initiative.

 

[GOTWA]

War is the crime. Everything else is just business.

 

[AWP]

War is the crime. Everything else is just business.

Papa Cheney, tell us again how you and Halliburton vanquished our nation's enemies from the earth?

 

[GOTWA]

Papa Cheney, tell us again how you and Halliburton vanquished our nation's enemies from the earth?

Not that it requires an explanation, but not business in the profitable sense. ROE, in this case, is the business.

I'm not sure if the drone warfare has upped the stakes or not. It certainly appears more brutal on the outside, but at the core the fundamentals haven't changed. What's so different when we drone strike, read assassinate, non-combatents? When the US government killed an entire family for driving around in a white Toyota Corolla, the only bit of response they gave was "oooopsies". Remember flamethrowers? White phosphorus?

They can drop their gun and run, but once that drone is gone, it's right back to war. You see a prisoner swap, I see a respawn. We are in no place to tell another country how to execute their war. Think China would take POWs? They off their own people for less.

If a foreign nation hits our shores, or starts dropping troops from the skies, I'd bet my last dollar the tune would change for those talking about waving white flags and POW status.

It's Geneva Suggestions at that point.

 

[Teufel]

This is a complex subject with multiple layers to it. There is a moral answer to this question as well as a legal one. The former will vary with each person put into this kind of situation. The latter, while still debatable, is a bit less opaque. The act of surrender is a fundamental part of the Law of Armed Conflict that transcends Rules of Engagement. Violating the Rules of Engagement may land you in a court martial but violating the LOAC can make you a war criminal. You are on shaky ground if you kill a combatant who openly declares a desire to surrender. The accepted convention for doing this at sea is by striking your colors, or by dropping your weapons and raising your hands on land.

There are conditions, however, that apply to this convention. Here are two big ones. First, the surrendering party must unambiguously express a genuine interest in surrendering. Shooting a combatant who may pose a continued threat is perfectly legal as long as it happens in the heat of battle and not post detention. There is also wide leeway given to the fog of war. Secondly, it must be feasible for the attacker to accept the opposing parties' surrender. It would be difficult, for example, to accept someone's individual surrender during a trench assault, or in a group of soldiers under long range machine gun fire.

This stipulation is difficult to achieve with a drone. I do not believe there is a legal requirement to cease an attack if a target dropped their weapon and raised their hands. The drone is not capable of accepting a soldier's surrender, and the target will almost certainly resume combat operations after the drone departs. On the other hand, I saw a Ukrainian propaganda video that outlined how to surrender to a drone. In this scenario, the Russian soldier would have to drop their weapons, raise their hands, and wait for the drone to acknowledge the surrender by 'nodding' by quickly flying up and down. At this point, the soldier would follow the drone back to Ukrainian lines to surrender formally. I think it would violate the LOAC to kill a soldier who is following these directions.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Not that it requires an explanation, but not business in the profitable sense. ROE, in this case, is the business.

I'm not sure if the drone warfare has upped the stakes or not. It certainly appears more brutal on the outside, but at the core the fundamentals haven't changed. What's so different when we drone strike, read assassinate, non-combatents? When the US government killed an entire family for driving around in a white Toyota Corolla, the only bit of response they gave was "oooopsies". Remember flamethrowers? White phosphorus?

They can drop their gun and run, but once that drone is gone, it's right back to war. You see a prisoner swap, I see a respawn. We are in no place to tell another country how to execute their war. Think China would take POWs? They off their own people for less.

If a foreign nation hits our shores, or starts dropping troops from the skies, I'd bet my last dollar the tune would change for those talking about waving white flags and POW status.

It's Geneva Suggestions at that point.

What is Obama's extra-judicial kill count of droning Americans overseas? I mean his were all from expensive drones with hellfires and such and not poping grenades or anything. But it's not like we couldn't do this, we just choose to do other things. Maybe this would have killed more Terries?

 

[GOTWA]

What is Obama's extra-judicial kill count of droning Americans overseas? I mean his were all from expensive drones with hellfires and such and not poping grenades or anything. But it's not like we couldn't do this, we just choose to do other things. Maybe this would have killed more Terries?

Well, that's exactly the point I was making. Does being added to the target deck make it more legal or acceptable? Was Soleimani an enemy combatant engaged in warfare when he was killed? Al-Baghdadi?

To @Box point, there are rules and then there are laws. We, as America, have not fought a real war in quite some time. I would argue the acceptance of those laws becomes less and less depending on ones standing in a war. If you're on the losing side, which I believe Ukraine is, do you think you would care about the possibility of being brought up as a war criminal?

On the face, the LOAC is a great way to keep things...civil? But if WW3 breaks out, it will come down to who is more willing to win. Nobody is going to care that you fought fair if you lose.

 

[Teufel]

To @Box point, there are rules and then there are laws. We, as America, have not fought a real war in quite some time. I would argue the acceptance of those laws becomes less and less depending on ones standing in a war. If you're on the losing side, which I believe Ukraine is, do you think you would care about the possibility of being brought up as a war criminal?

On the face, the LOAC is a great way to keep things...civil? But if WW3 breaks out, it will come down to who is more willing to win. Nobody is going to care that you fought fair if you lose.

Well the US adhered to the LOAC in WWII, I don't see why we wouldn't in WWIII. You can argue that the civilian casualties from the nuclear strikes were not proportional to their military necessity but they did end the war.

Well, that's exactly the point I was making. Does being added to the target deck make it more legal or acceptable? Was Soleimani an enemy combatant engaged in warfare when he was killed? Al-Baghdadi?

The process required to add someone to the target deck is expressly designed to make these strikes legal in the eyes of the international community. Otherwise they would be considered extrajudicial killings. There isn't always international consensus on the legal justification for these attacks though, especially the Soleimani strike.

 

[BlackSmokeRisinG]

I don't know how they connect the dots to terror leaders using intel and evidence when conducting these strikes. How they share classified material with the international community is a mystery to me.

Attacks in Iraq against the U.S. sure dropped right off after the Sulemani hit. A big win for us and Iraq.

 

[Teufel]

I don't know how they connect the dots to terror leaders using intel and evidence when conducting these strikes. How they share classified material with the international community is a mystery to me.

Attacks in Iraq against the U.S. sure dropped right off after the Sulemani hit. A big win for us and Iraq.

The intelligence is not shared with other countries, at least not for the purpose of justifying the legality of a strike. It is enough that there is a judicial process.

 

[GOTWA]

Well the US adhered to the LOAC in WWII, I don't see why we wouldn't in WWIII. You can argue that the civilian casualties from the nuclear strikes were not proportional to their military necessity but they did end the war.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, LOAC wasn't established until 1949. But to your point, we did drop nukes...and we still have a bunch of them in the stockpile. I don't think there is much to argue. I think we both agree it wasn't a proportional response, but we do accept the results.

 

[Marauder06]

I think the use of nuclear weapons in WWII was absolutely proportional, in the context of what the word means in war.
https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/...TY, the,the direct military advantage gained.

The rule of proportionality requires the comparison and balancing of elements of different nature, namely the military advantage sought on the one hand, and the damage and civilian losses associated with it on the other. IHL provides no objective standard for assessing what constitutes excessive civilian harm in relation to a given military advantage.

If we consider what the likely loss of Japanese civilian (and, more importantly to the decision makers, the loss of American service members) in a combined arms invasion and seizure of the Japanese main islands, comparative to the lives lost in the two nuclear explosions (and remember, they could have called it quits after the first one), I think the military advantage speaks for itself.

 

[DA SWO]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, LOAC wasn't established until 1949. But to your point, we did drop nukes...and we still have a bunch of them in the stockpile. I don't think there is much to argue. I think we both agree it wasn't a proportional response, but we do accept the results.

It's called total war for a reason.
FWIW-Japan was 6 months or so away from their own Atomic Weapon. Do you think they would have hesitated to use it?

 

[Teufel]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, LOAC wasn't established until 1949. But to your point, we did drop nukes...and we still have a bunch of them in the stockpile. I don't think there is much to argue. I think we both agree it wasn't a proportional response, but we do accept the results.

The LOAC did not exist during the war, but I believe that our behavior during the war met its requirements.

 

[757]

It should also be argued that the dropping of the Atomic bombs actually saved a lot of starving Japanese civilians by forcing the emperor's hand.

 

[Gunz]

There was also intense hatred on all sides and a much more tolerant attitude when it came to civilian deaths. We firebombed Tokyo and incinerated 100,000 people there before we ever got around to dropping the Big Ones. We also iced 25,000 in the HE & incendiary bombing of Dresden.

Now, we kill a few collaterals in a drone strike and it's worldwide headlines.