That is not the argument I was making. I was exploring whether the rules devised with WW2-type conflicts very much in mind, can be morally applied, 100% of the time, in what is a completely different geopolitical, technological and military landscape. You clearly believe so; we're going to have to differ on that.
General / Off-Topic World refugee crisis
- Thread starter Surfinjo
- Start date
That is not the argument I was making. I was exploring whether the rules devised with WW2-type conflicts very much in mind, can be morally applied, 100% of the time, in what is a completely different geopolitical, technological and military landscape. You clearly believe so; we're going to have to differ on that.
don't misunderstand me, the second Iraq war in particular was probably the worst foreign policy blunder of the last 30 years. Those that contributed to this cork up (Tony, I'm looking at you) should be held to account.
:
I was more trying to refute the impression that NATO used chemical or nuclear agents in the gulf.
:
AFAIK, NATO and allied powers nuclear doctrine is "no first use", we only hold the big stuff in our inventories, stuff that's pretty obvious if you use it.
:
The Russians on the other hand not only have small nukes for use "in theatre" but have recently updated their doctrine to allow their use if they are losing on the conventional front.
:
Free from having to worry about a critical press or populace, Putin is free to pretty much act as he pleases in Syria. I expect ISIS will get hit harder as the Russians won't give as much thought to collateral damage. AFAIK the Russians aren't even using their (supposedly inferior) smart weapons, they are just dropping dumb bombs which are bound to cause more collateral damage.
Given that even US generals are now clearly saying they made a terrible error by targeting a hospital, perhaps you should reconsider your deplorable stance that the Geneva conventions are no longer valid.
Luckily the majority of the civilized world disagree with you.
Last edited:
The issue with having a Geneva convention, is it is enforced, years after the fact. Ok, Asad had chemical weapons and the whole world, went, wow! Fortunately the Russians could go in and round them all up and remove them; allegedly. My point is this; that was the one time, the world, stopped and found a way to step in and deal with it, at the time. War crimes are being committed all of the time; often by parties that do not recognise the conventions existence. The rest of the world, just bows its head and at most, makes a speech, or demands an inquiry. Nothing is done at the time. The convention was proposed to limit war, to have it played out within particular rules. Unfortunate war does not work that way, war is total, unforgiving, has no rules of play and it will always be, the non-combatants that suffer the most.
Field Marshal Haig, should have been tried as a war criminal after the first world war. Just for what he did with his own troops for a start, but he would have never been found guilty; simply because: He was incompetent.
- - - Updated - - -
Correct and he won't have the issue of, 'our boys over there dying' as well. The Russians have a totally different mind set, mostly due to the propaganda control their government has.
You're still trying to draw general conclusions from a specific case.
All law international, civil and military is based in a large part on specific cases (case-law).
If you'd prefer a generalization, obeying the Geneva conventions is what the "good guys" do. The "bad guys" are the people who ignore them.
The most recent global example of a well publicized war crime in direct violation of the Geneva conventions was the US attack on a hospital, hence it's frequent mentions in this thread and the media.
Large-scale terrorist attacks in Europe. And third world war is our common future for the near future. Sad world
I hope not, the MAD doctrine has worked so far.
However anybody who actually want's to hurry up Armageddon and go to their version of paradise (religious fundamentalists of whichever flavor) aren't deterred by the thought of wiping out humanity. Strangely enough the MAD doctrine doesn't work on people who are mad.
I wonder if they are human ...
Has it?............................
<Checks out of window for mushroom cloud> So far, yes.
Checks out window for any passing elephants and concludes that my anti-elephant spray has effectively kept elephants from the S coast of England.
Does it work on space iguana's ?.
Human, yes. Humane, no.
(David Icke thinks they're all space iguana's)
The terrestrial Thargoids, somehow
Last edited:
Your logic was flawed.
The problem with MAD is is presupposed that, given an advantage, either side would have willingly used their weapons.
Not so.
Moreover, while nuclear weapons have been encouraged in apartheid S Africa and Israel. Since these states were/are not opposed by anyone similarly armed, there is no MAD
Moreover, there has been irrational and preposterous levels of outrage when the wrong sort seem to be showing signs of capability. That demonstrates that the weapons have more to do with dominance than mutual respect.
Nuclear weapons are essentially unusable in Europe since the potential combatants are so close together, the effects of any strike would be indiscriminate. They were used in Japan because they only affected some in Korea which didn't matter.
They are essentially big sticks in a small space. There for effect. Costing hundreds of millions plus each though, they are expensive sabre rattling.
1st: thanks for clearing up the MAD thing for me, was not sure what it meant this time.
The Nuke terrorist act; will happen, it is just a matter of time. At the same time, the whole world is equipped, to prevent it. As to intercontinental exchanges, the option is still there. After watching Chinas VJ day parade, it seems egos are really big this year. To be honest, having that sub the UK has somewhere out there, is not much, but it is security. How much it costs? As long as it is British jobs, British technology and British companies take the cash, I don't care how much it costs. Does that sub etc, make us a target? Of course it does; along with a dozen other reasons to target the UK. Should they all be dismantled and resigned to history, most definitely. All of them, across the world. Only problems, they are easy to make and you can't turn back understanding, or time. There was a time, when something called the Hood; was the biggest sabre on the planet. It worked, but escalation always happens. The Hood lasted minutes, during its first battle.
I haven't tried to defend the MAD doctrine I was condemning it and wild eyed religious types, in a lighthearted way. Hence the tongue in cheek tone.
As far as my logic on MAD goes, I don't think it's a good idea, in fact I think it would be more aptly named utterly bonkers.
But major nations with big-ass armies, fleets and nukes haven't gone at it (except in proxy wars and against the technologically inferior) since the world went nuclear. MAD works but it works in an utterly sick way, it's like being trapped in a lift with someone wearing a suicide bomb. You give him as much room as you can, politely ask what floor he would like to get out on, but all the time you hope he isn't going to listen to the voices in his head.
The nuclear age is the most peaceful period in recorded history. But it's only peaceful because we are all screwed* if things go wrong.
*proper screwed, as in extinction
I've often thought about MAD. It's without a doubt the reason why the world has been at (relative!) peace since the second world war. Come to think of it, have any nuclear-armed countries gone to war against each other since the end of WWII? I'm betting THAT list is very low in comparison to the number of non-nuclear countries who have gone to war since.
The idea that one day we could find nukes raining down because of one stupid mistake is absolutely horrifying, though.
Strange but true. Peace (mostly) through the threat of certain death.