Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (26794)	4/24/2002 5:53:35 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Pearly_Button; Re: "If there were dozens gunmen, hell bent on killing your forces anywhere else in the world, I'm inclined to think USA and Britain would send in the F-16's. Just my view." I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. There's something called "proportionality" that the US military recognizes in the "Law Of Armed Conflict" (LOAC). It might require too many civilian casualties to take care of a problem that is no worse than "dozens of gunmen". Perhaps it's a good time to review the LOAC, at least as the US sees it: Law of Armed Conflict or LOAC are the broad based rules defining how we fight a war. ... * Many of the rules have developed over time and come from customs ... * Another place that LOAC rules come from is international law. Some common examples are the Geneva Conventions, Hague Conventions, and the recent Chemical Weapons Convention. * Finally, we have rules that develop from U.S. law such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and the Code of Conduct. ... Although it may seem odd, it has been shown that if a country does its best to inflict as little damage to property and injury to people as possible, the losing country is more likely to accept the terms of peace. ... There are, of course, many times when a target may provide a military advantage but may also cause some unnecessary suffering. This is where we use the third principle, PROPORTIONALITY. That is to say, we use no greater force than is needed to obtain the desired military objective. You can think of proportionality as a balancing test. For instance, let's say that Saddam Hussein parks one of his jets in downtown Baghdad near a civilian apartment complex. Clearly there is a military need to destroy the aircraft. However, we will also potentially kill a lot of innocent civilians. Proportionality may tell us not to bomb the plane or to use a precision guided munitions. A fourth principle underlying LOAC is CHIVALRY. This stems from the medieval knights and concepts of honor and integrity. For instance, we wouldn't use a white flag of surrender to start a surprise attack. ... NONCOMBATANTS are NOT legal targets. ... What happens if a NONCOMBATANT threatens your life? In that case, they have given up their protected status and become UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS. UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS are legal targets. ... Cultural landmarks are also protected places. Some examples are the Taj Majal and the Great Pyramids. ... Civilian property that does not support the war effort, for example, a local grocery store or jewelry store, is not a legal target. Also, you may NOT steal from civilians. ... Some people are surprised at which weapons are legal. For example napalm, flame throwers, white phosphorous, and nuclear weapons are all legal weapons. Poisons, asphyxiating (choking agents), and other gases are illegal. Biological weapons are also illegal. ... POWs are entitled to food, clothing and shelter, and oddly enough, tobacco. They are entitled to medical care equal to the care we give friendly forces. So if there is an American soldier with a broken arm and an Iraqi soldier with a sucking chest wound, the Iraqi gets treated first. Also, we must provide our POWs with protective gear such as a chem mask. During interrogations (usually conducted by OSI or Intelligence personnel) POWs are only required to give their name, rank, DOB, and serial number. We cannot torture, or beat POWs to get additional information. ... Most of you are probably thinking that most of our enemies do not abide by any of the rules we have talked about. That is a true statement. However, this does not relieve us of our obligation to follow the rules. ... aetc.randolph.af.mil -- Carl