Combat ethics

Anti-Flag said:
I don't see what else they can do, they will want to survive, same as someone surrendering. In the USA you may get away with being jailed, other regimes will kill people refusing to fight. The worst thing is being sent as a non-combatant, who in their right mind would allow themselves to be forced into a warzone without a gun?
To resist conscription would require a large enough civil unrest to have an armed force to oppose the leaders or it would just be a slaughter.


We're an occupying force after invasion in Iraq but were led to believe we'd be a liberation force. That's the governments lies and peoples ability to fall for it more than anything else.
I don't think the soldiers are the one's complaining though they would have every right to, even if they should know better than to believe things like "over by christmas" etc. At least they're all volunteers though.
Click to expand...
(not ignoring you,am going to the beach..will reply later)
 
there can be no rules to war. humans have become weak and ethicaly at a downfall.

if i had a nation and we were at war with another nation, then the only answer is to wipe them out. if we do not kill all of them there will always be some kind of opposition to confront my forces and fight back someway.

if we let civilians live then we are at risk of guerrilla tactics. i would use any weapon and underhand style of warfare to achieve victory. only a foolish general limits his weapons and tactics. chemical weapons, nukes, orbital launch-pads, anything goes i wouldent care about morals. thats why politicians should stay away from generals.

i would only hold prisoners to use as means of bargain and trickery. or put tp worl as slaves. i would slaughter anybody able to think for themselves and who resists, any young children and babies would be taken and assimilated into my own forces.


any person put to work as a slave would have to wear a choker and wrist-bands that are explosive. you can work out why obviously. all science would be given the go-ahead all genetic research is ok, super warriors are to be grown, stemcell research will be given extra funding, so would the production of all types of spore weapons and biological killing agents.


anything goes in war, to think otherwise is weak and not warlike behaviour.


peace.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
there can be no rules to war. humans have become weak and ethicaly at a downfall.

if i had a nation and we were at war with another nation, then the only answer is to wipe them out. if we do not kill all of them there will always be some kind of opposition to confront my forces and fight back someway.

if we let civilians live then we are at risk of guerrilla tactics. i would use any weapon and underhand style of warfare to achieve victory. only a foolish general limits his weapons and tactics. chemical weapons, nukes, orbital launch-pads, anything goes i wouldent care about morals. thats why politicians should stay away from generals.

i would only hold prisoners to use as means of bargain and trickery. or put tp worl as slaves. i would slaughter anybody able to think for themselves and who resists, any young children and babies would be taken and assimilated into my own forces.


any person put to work as a slave would have to wear a choker and wrist-bands that are explosive. you can work out why obviously. all science would be given the go-ahead all genetic research is ok, super warriors are to be grown, stemcell research will be given extra funding, so would the production of all types of spore weapons and biological killing agents.


anything goes in war, to think otherwise is weak and not warlike behaviour.


peace.
Click to expand...

Wanna' be my vice-president when I run for office? Please?

But ya' just gotta' stop signing your posts with that silly, foolish "peace" thingie, okay?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Agreed!!

And we'll start off with a nuke attack on Iran, then go immediately to attacking India and Samcdkey! :D

Baron Max
Click to expand...

i think india is ok for the moment they pose no threat right now. i dont like the look of iraq, iran, korea, or france.


lets take them out first and see who else wants some,we have taken the west already, all we need is a good grip on the middle east, if we take iraq and iran we will have that grip, and from taking over korea we will have a good foot in the far east,

china is already willing to roll with us, but japan are keeping to silent i dont like that lets keep an eye on them, they are most likely creating some kind of wierd weapons, we dont need to fight china to use their strength,


lets not go for russia yet untill we build the outposts surrounding putin, i mean missile defence unit. we need more info on him before we make a move.

peace.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
i think india is ok for the moment they pose no threat right now.
Click to expand...

Oh, hell, I don't care about "threat" or any of that bullshit ...if I want to nuke someplace, then I'll do it!! And as my vice-president, it's your place to back me up when I make such a decision.

EmptyForceOfChi said:
i dont like the look of iraq, iran, korea, or france.
Click to expand...

Okay, okay ....but only after we take out India.

EmptyForceOfChi said:
china is already willing to roll with us, but japan are keeping to silent i dont like that lets keep an eye on them, they are most likely creating some kind of wierd weapons, we dont need to fight china to use their strength,
Click to expand...

If we give the Chinese all of Japan, then they'd go along with us. In fact, they might help us nuke some other places that need it real bad.

EmptyForceOfChi said:
lets not go for russia yet untill we build the outposts surrounding putin, i mean missile defence unit.
Click to expand...

I think Russia would go along with us ..as long as we let Putin nuke some of his own people! But we'd have to watch the Chinese and Russians ...cain't trust 'em, ya' know?

And didn't you promise to quit signing "peace" to your posts?!

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Oh, hell, I don't care about "threat" or any of that bullshit ...if I want to nuke someplace, then I'll do it!! And as my vice-president, it's your place to back me up when I make such a decision.



Okay, okay ....but only after we take out India.



If we give the Chinese all of Japan, then they'd go along with us. In fact, they might help us nuke some other places that need it real bad.



I think Russia would go along with us ..as long as we let Putin nuke some of his own people! But we'd have to watch the Chinese and Russians ...cain't trust 'em, ya' know?

And didn't you promise to quit signing "peace" to your posts?!

Baron Max
Click to expand...


sorry its kind of an OCD now i cant help it, maybe we can use it to our advantage, it will keep the liberals happy,

and i dont care if you nuke india, i was just saying they werent a threat, go ahead and nuke them but i think we should enslave a good few million first, i dont want my slaves getting radiation poisoning, they will be to weak to constuct my monuments of self glorification.


yeah if we shoot some tibetans aswell it will basicaly seal the deal with china. slap a few buddhist monks about, shoot little buddha in the kneecaps. before we iradicate japan we should capture their scientists they can help with our biological weapons, and our weapons tech in general, but we have to put exploding chockers on them ofcourse.


i dont trust putin, i say we pull a litvenenko on his ass, and blame it on saudi arabia, just to see what happens, set them up.


and i want to take out france personaly, no nukes or anything just give me a few thousand good men and let me wipe them bastards out,


peace.
 
Hmm, I got an infraction for this little discussion, Empty, so.....

Perhaps we'd best curtail the discussion, huh? :D

Baron Max
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
there can be no rules to war. humans have become weak and ethicaly at a downfall.

if i had a nation and we were at war with another nation, then the only answer is to wipe them out. if we do not kill all of them there will always be some kind of opposition to confront my forces and fight back someway.

if we let civilians live then we are at risk of guerrilla tactics. i would use any weapon and underhand style of warfare to achieve victory. only a foolish general limits his weapons and tactics. chemical weapons, nukes, orbital launch-pads, anything goes i wouldent care about morals. thats why politicians should stay away from generals.

i would only hold prisoners to use as means of bargain and trickery. or put tp worl as slaves. i would slaughter anybody able to think for themselves and who resists, any young children and babies would be taken and assimilated into my own forces.


any person put to work as a slave would have to wear a choker and wrist-bands that are explosive. you can work out why obviously. all science would be given the go-ahead all genetic research is ok, super warriors are to be grown, stemcell research will be given extra funding, so would the production of all types of spore weapons and biological killing agents.


anything goes in war, to think otherwise is weak and not warlike behaviour.


peace.
Click to expand...
Have you been reading the supervillain handbook?
 
I've been wanting to participate in this discussion more, but the first reply was pretty much useless (Baron ignored "situation allows", and jokingly commented on the last). Everyone else strayed off topic - although rationalizing the validity of surrender is interesting. The second page is run of the mill internet banter.


I'm still curious about my original questions however.

I managed to find something about "Rules of engagement" which looks something like this (and actually seems to answer my question as far as "official policies" go):

British Military ROE

The British Ministry of Defence officially defines ROE as:

"Directives issued by competent military authority which delineate the circumstances and limitations under which UK forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered." [1]

The ROE deal with four issues [2]:

* When military force may be used,
* Where military force may be used,
* Against whom force should be used in the circumstances described above, and
* How military force should be used to achieve the desired ends.

The ROE take two forms: Actions a soldier may take without consulting a higher authority, unless explicitly forbidden (sometimes called 'command by negation') and second, actions that may only be taken if explicitly ordered by a higher authority (sometimes called 'positive command').

In addition to a typically large set of standing orders, military personnel will be given additional rules of engagement before performing any mission or military operation. These can cover circumstances such as how to retaliate after an attack, how to treat captured targets, which territories the soldier is bound to fight into, and how the force should be used during the operation.

The ROE are extremely important:

1. They provide a consistent, understandable and repeatable standard on how forces act. Typically they are carefully thought out in detail well in advance of an engagement and may cover a number of scenarios, with different rules for each.
2. They assist in the synchronization of political-diplomatic and military components of a strategy by allowing political commanders to better understand, forecast and tailor the actions of a force.

The first rule of engagement for British Armed Forces is always the right to use force in self-defense.

U.S. Military ROE

The 1999 Marine Corps Close Combat Manual (MCRP 3-02B) presents a “Continuum of Force” the following breakdown:

* Level 1: Compliant (Cooperative). The subject responds and complies to verbal commands. Close combat techniques do not apply.
* Level 2: Resistant (Passive). The subject resists verbal commands but complies immediately to any contact controls. Close combat techniques do not apply.
* Level 3: Resistant (Active). The subject initially demonstrates physical resistance. Use compliance techniques to control the situation. Level three incorporates close combat techniques to physically force a subject to comply. Techniques include: Come-along holds, Soft-handed stunning blows, Pain compliance through the use of joint manipulation and the use of pressure points.
* Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include: Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows.
* Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm or weapon.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement#U.S._Military_ROE
Click to expand...
 
domesticated om said:
I'm still curious about my original questions however.
Click to expand...

Just as I said in my original post, you didn't give enough particular info on the situation to expect any kind of legitimate answer! If you'd read my first post, and answer the questions, then perhaps I can answer your questions.

As far as I can tell, your "Official" rules gave nothing in answer to your questions about prisoners.

Baron Max
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
yeah the top one is a joke but its good reading.
Click to expand...

I don't know, the top one wasn't any more of a joke than the others?

Combat is ...horrific. Making rules and laws for something that's ...horrific, is ...well, pretty odd, ain't it? Ain't it sorta' like making rules on how to act during a car wreck? ...while the accident is actually taking place?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Just as I said in my original post, you didn't give enough particular info on the situation to expect any kind of legitimate answer!
Click to expand...

'Assuming the situation allows', this would mean there are no factors that would impede either decision. It's assumed the specific elements surrounding the battle allow for the soldier to either kill, or take prisoners.
The specific situations you've presented (IE- the unit is taking fire; the unit is explicitly instructed to kill/take prisoners; unit is too far away from medical help; etc) answer themselves.
 
domesticated om said:
If you shoot at the enemy and incapacitate them to where they can no longer fight, are you obligated to finish them off, or do you seek medical attention and take them prisoner (assuming the situation allows)?
Click to expand...

Take them prisoner and give them medical attention. However, taking prisoners also means that you must guard them or take them to another location, like a prisoner-of-war camp. If the battle is still going on, and you need all of your soldiers to fight the ongoing battle, then....?

domesticated om said:
Are you obligated to kill an unarmed enemy soldier if they don't surrender?
Click to expand...

Are they still fighting with fists and feet? Are they still trying to hurt you? See? What do you mean by "...they dont surrender."?

domesticated om said:
Are you obligated to kill enemy soldiers who are unarmed, have not surrendered, but are totally trapped/surrounded (example -- a bunch of enemy troops are out of ammo, but holed up in a small dead-end cave.... your squad/unit/whatever is at the entrance of the cave......do you toss in tear gas, or start spraying napalm?
Click to expand...

How do you know they don't have weapons of some kind? See? How can you know that, how can you be so sure? You asked the question, but you don't supply the requisite info on which to make a decision.

domesticated om said:
How do you handle a situation where the enemy's weapons are absurdly inferior to your own military?
Click to expand...

One can be killed with a rock or a club. If they're fighting and have any way of hurting or killing you, kill them.

domesticated om said:
Let's say an imaginary new tribe was discovered in a remote jungle. The tribe's chief declares war, and the 'warriors' of the tribe are armed with nothing but spears and clubs. They are all dedicated soldiers who will fight to the death no matter what, and never surrender - even when taken prisoner. Do you kill them, or do you use modern nonlethal riot control tactics (tear gas, high pressure hose, etc).
Click to expand...

Imaginary questions usually call for imaginary answers ....which tells nothing to anyone about anything.

Baron Max
 
domesticated om said:
I have a few questions regarding to the killing of "the enemy" during combat. Users who've served in the Military would probably consider these questions basic. At any rate, here goes:

If you shoot at the enemy and incapacitate them to where they can no longer fight, are you obligated to finish them off, or do you seek medical attention and take them prisoner (assuming the situation allows)?

Are you obligated to kill an unarmed enemy soldier if they don't surrender?

Are you obligated to kill enemy soldiers who are unarmed, have not surrendered, but are totally trapped/surrounded (example -- a bunch of enemy troops are out of ammo, but holed up in a small dead-end cave.... your squad/unit/whatever is at the entrance of the cave......do you toss in tear gas, or start spraying napalm?

How do you handle a situation where the enemy's weapons are absurdly inferior to your own military?
Let's say an imaginary new tribe was discovered in a remote jungle. The tribe's chief declares war, and the 'warriors' of the tribe are armed with nothing but spears and clubs. They are all dedicated soldiers who will fight to the death no matter what, and never surrender - even when taken prisoner. Do you kill them, or do you use modern nonlethal riot control tactics (tear gas, high pressure hose, etc).
Click to expand...

The Geneva Convention already answered these questions:

1. The intent isn't to kill the enemy (contrary to Patton's veiwpoint) but to render them incapable of incapacitating friendlies. If they are incapacitated, they are to be taken prisoner and provided medical care.

2. If they are unarmed (assuming you mean unable to resist) they are to be taken prisoner.

3. If they are are surrounded/trapped (assuming they are unable to resist) we are to try to take them prisoner. If they resist ... try to incapacitate ... if unable to do that - napalm.

4. If they are resisting with anything, they are still resisting.

The general concept is to not kill but to remove the enemy's capacity to make war (bombing supply lines, fuel depots, weapons manufacturing, wounding soldiers, etc.) some just happen to get killed in the process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top