History UsefulNotes / TheLawsAndCustomsOfWar

20th Jun '16 5:09:35 PM Ramidel
Is there an issue? Send a Message


It is untrue that all is fair in love and war. Especially in war. There are a considerable number of treaties governing the conduct of war. WarIsHell, but now even this [[EvenEvilHasStandards hell is developing a lot of standards.]] In fact, this is considerably OlderThanFeudalism, as even nonliterate, stone age peoples have usually had [[http://www.amazon.com/Primitive-War-Its-Practices-Concepts/dp/087249196X/ customs and taboos]] strictly limiting what may be done in war, and Hugo Grotius' classic ''On the Laws of War and Peace'' (1625) cites back to ancient Greek and Roman sources for many of its rules.

to:

It is untrue that all is fair in love and war. Especially in war. There are a considerable number of treaties governing the conduct of war. WarIsHell, but now even this [[EvenEvilHasStandards hell is developing a lot of standards.]] In fact, this is considerably OlderThanFeudalism, OlderThanDirt, as even nonliterate, stone age peoples have usually had [[http://www.amazon.com/Primitive-War-Its-Practices-Concepts/dp/087249196X/ customs and taboos]] strictly limiting what may be done in war, and Hugo Grotius' classic ''On the Laws of War and Peace'' (1625) cites back to ancient Greek and Roman sources for many of its rules.
16th Jun '16 11:06:24 PM apm483@gmail.com
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Match grade ammunition (such as Sierra Match King) often contains a thin hollow nose for ballistics reasons, but since its wound profile is not noticeably different from a normal FMJ wound, the U.S. military has authorized its use.

to:

Match grade ammunition (such as Sierra Match King) [=MatchKing=]) often contains a thin hollow nose for ballistics reasons, but since its wound profile is not noticeably different from a normal FMJ wound, the U.S. military has authorized its use.
16th Jun '16 1:41:02 PM Brick3621
Is there an issue? Send a Message


These bullets, which expand in a person's body, are prohibited in formal warfare, but allowed in domestic law enforcement and actually required in some jurisdictions for hunting. Their downsides are that they have poor performance against armor and barriers as well as sometimes not expanding correctly. In addition, automatic or semi-automatic weapons capable of reliably feeding hollowpoints are a relatively recent invention. Their upsides is their relatively low chance of {{OneHitPolykill overpenetration}} (and hitting something ''[[AccidentalMurder behind]]'' your target) and of course increased stopping effectiveness.

to:

These bullets, which expand in a person's body, are prohibited in formal warfare, but allowed in domestic law enforcement and actually required in some jurisdictions for hunting. Their downsides are that they have poor performance against armor and barriers as well as sometimes not expanding correctly. In addition, automatic or semi-automatic weapons capable of reliably feeding hollowpoints are a relatively recent invention. Their upsides is their relatively low chance of {{OneHitPolykill overpenetration}} (and hitting something overpenetration and causing collateral damage ''[[AccidentalMurder behind]]'' your target) target, and of course increased stopping effectiveness.



The reason behind the ban on both Hollowpoints and Dum-Dums is the idea that military weapons should serve a military purpose, and no more. That is, follow the idea of Least Suffering - a weapon should cause the minimum amount of damage to incapacitate a person, and no more, or kill someone quickly, rather than maim. Intentionally maiming an opponent serves no moral purpose that a "normal" wound wouldn't, and therefore is excessive, and banned.


to:

The reason behind the ban on both Hollowpoints hollowpoints and Dum-Dums is the idea that military weapons should serve a military purpose, and no more. That is, follow the idea of Least Suffering - a weapon should cause the minimum amount of damage to incapacitate a person, and no more, or kill someone quickly, rather than maim. Intentionally maiming an opponent serves no moral purpose that a "normal" wound wouldn't, and therefore is excessive, and banned.

banned.




Wounding or killing 'combatants' is not a war crime. 'Combatants' are people who fight (e.g. infantry) or directly assist those fighting (e.g. logistics personnel). [[WouldNotShootACivilian Wounding or killing anyone else, i.e. civilians, is a war crime]]. That means, for example, a computer programmer or network technician setting up a military network is a legitimate military target, but a programmer or tech setting up a computer network for a news bureau, even though they are filming in a war zone, is not. This is why anyone who works in a combat or combat logistics position wears a uniform while on duty ''even if they are not in a combat area'', so that combatants and civilians are clearly distinguished. Wounding or killing combatants who have surrendered, [[SinkTheLifeBoats are leaving damaged vehicles]], or become '[[KickThemWhileTheyAreDown hors de combat]]' ("outside the fight," i.e. incapable of fighting) all constitute war crimes. It is a war crime for a combatant to disguise themselves as a civilian with the intent to attack. A combatant disguising themselves as a civilian for reasons other than intent to attack (inc. desertion and escape) is not a war crime.

While civilians are allowed by the Geneva Conventions to take up arms as militia against an invading army, they must still abide by the Geneva Conventions in their own behavior, be "carrying arms openly", and do their best to have "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" in order to still enjoy the protection of the Geneva Conventions for themselves. The intent of this particular section of the Geneva Conventions is to make the distinction between 'combatant' and 'noncombatant' immediately obvious at a distance; to try and minimize noncombatant casualties by letting the enemy be able to know which people are fighting him and which ones are just bystanders. The 'illegal combatant' distinction generally comes into play when that distinction is deliberately being abused.

There are several quasi-military jobs that were taken into uniformed services to give protection under the Geneva convention to those workers. Otherwise they were unlawful combatants and possibly spies. The Public Health and NOAA Corps are American examples of battlefield surveyors and ambulance personnel put in a uniform to give them protection on a battlefield.

Also note that medics and similar positions are permitted to carry small arms solely for self-defense (though, many chose not to). In particular today, when medics are integrated into the unit as a soldier first, medic second, most do not wear a Red Cross/Red Crescent symbol and do carry weapons. Also, even specialized actual medics are permitted to carry and use weapons against those who would attack those under their care; e.g. if the enemy is harming the wounded (itself a War Crime), medics are entirely justified in responding with lethal force. In these cases, they are considered lawful combatants, and are not war criminals for carrying weaponry. See below for other cases where medics are treated differently.

It is worth noting that the Convention only names Lawful Combatants and Noncombatants directly. Unlawful Combatants are a US invention, based only partly on the Geneva Convention.

to:

\nWounding or killing 'combatants' combatants is not a war crime. 'Combatants' '''Combatants''' are people who fight (e.g. infantry) or directly assist those fighting (e.g. logistics personnel). [[WouldNotShootACivilian Wounding or killing anyone else, '''noncombatants''', i.e. civilians, is a war crime]].crime. That means, for example, a computer programmer or network technician setting up a military network is a legitimate military target, but a programmer or tech setting up a computer network for a news bureau, even though they are filming in a war zone, is not. This is why anyone who works in a combat or combat logistics position wears a uniform while on duty ''even if they are not in a combat area'', so that combatants and civilians are clearly distinguished. Wounding or killing combatants who have surrendered, [[SinkTheLifeBoats are leaving damaged vehicles]], or become '[[KickThemWhileTheyAreDown hors de combat]]' ("outside the fight," i.e. incapable of fighting) all constitute war crimes. It is a war crime for a combatant to disguise themselves as a civilian with the intent to attack. A combatant attack, but disguising themselves as a civilian for reasons any other than intent to attack (inc. reason, including desertion and escape) escape, is not a war crime.

perfectly legal.

While civilians are allowed by the Geneva Conventions to take up arms as militia against an invading army, they must still abide by the Geneva Conventions in their own behavior, be "carrying arms openly", and do their best to have "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" in order to still enjoy the protection of the Geneva Conventions for themselves. The intent of this particular section of the Geneva Conventions is to make the distinction between 'combatant' combatant and 'noncombatant' noncombatant immediately obvious at a distance; distance so as to try and minimize noncombatant casualties by letting the enemy be able to know which people are fighting him them and which ones are just bystanders. The 'illegal combatant' "illegal combatant" distinction generally comes into play when that distinction is deliberately being abused.

There are several quasi-military jobs that were taken into uniformed services to give protection under the Geneva convention to those workers. Otherwise they were unlawful combatants and possibly spies. The Public Health and NOAA Corps are American examples of battlefield surveyors and ambulance personnel put in a uniform to give them protection on a battlefield.

battlefield.

Also note that medics and similar positions are permitted to carry small arms solely for self-defense (though, many chose not to). In particular today, when medics are integrated into the unit as a soldier first, medic second, most do not wear a Red Cross/Red Crescent symbol and do carry weapons. Also, even specialized actual medics are permitted to carry and use weapons against those who would attack those under their care; e.g. if the enemy is harming the wounded (itself a War Crime), war crime), medics are entirely justified in responding with lethal force. In these cases, they are considered lawful combatants, and are not war criminals for carrying weaponry. See below for other cases where medics are treated differently.

It is worth noting that the Convention only names Lawful Combatants lawful combatants and Noncombatants noncombatants directly. Unlawful Combatants '''Unlawful combatants''' are a US invention, based only partly on the Geneva Convention.



[[RapePillageandBurn Deliberately wounding or killing civilians]] is a war crime, as is obeying or issuing orders to wound or kill civilians. This is subject to some fine distinctions, however; if civilians are in or near a legitimate military target, it is not generally considered a war crime to destroy the target in the absence of other options. This is how it was not considered a war crime for the various belligerents during World War II to go around bombing each others' factories--the factories were generally producing either war materiel or other items necessary or useful to the war effort, and thus the fact that the workers were civilians was considered less important than the military character of the goods they produced. Moreover, the rule against killing or wounding civilians does not extend to seizing or destroying their property; examples from the 20th century wars are innumerable, but probably the best example of this in history was Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea that wrecked Georgia in September-December 1864 (and later campaigns in the Carolinas in early 1865) during UsefulNotes/TheAmericanCivilWar (a war fought largely in accordance with the modern rules of war), in which vast quantities of civilian property (including railroad infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, manufactured goods, cotton, private homes, and especially food and slaves) were seized and destroyed (the food was eaten, the slaves were set free, and the rest was either burned or reduced to rubble) while relatively few civilians were actually killed. Sherman's side won, so he would never have been prosecuted for this campaign anyway (instead, they wrote an [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-dzCt2xeSo infuriatingly catchy song about it]]), but if he were magically resurrected and placed on trial before a fair tribunal, he would doubtless be acquitted, as his acts would even today be considered cruel but not illegal.

to:

[[RapePillageandBurn Deliberately wounding or killing civilians]] is a war crime, as is issuing or obeying or issuing orders to wound or kill civilians. This is subject to some fine distinctions, however; if civilians are in or near a legitimate military target, it is not generally considered a war crime to destroy the target in the absence of other options. This is how it was not considered a war crime for the various belligerents during World War II to go around bombing each others' factories--the factories were generally producing either war materiel or other items necessary or useful to the war effort, and thus the fact that the workers were civilians was considered less important than the military character of the goods they produced. Moreover, the rule against killing or wounding civilians does not extend to seizing or destroying their property; examples from the 20th century wars are innumerable, but probably the best example of this in history was Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea that wrecked Georgia in September-December 1864 (and later campaigns in the Carolinas in early 1865) during UsefulNotes/TheAmericanCivilWar (a war fought largely in accordance with the modern rules of war), in which vast quantities of civilian property (including railroad infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, manufactured goods, cotton, private homes, and especially food and slaves) were seized and destroyed (the food was eaten, the slaves were set free, and the rest was either burned or reduced to rubble) while relatively few civilians were actually killed. Sherman's side won, so he would never have been prosecuted for this campaign anyway (instead, they wrote an [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-dzCt2xeSo an infuriatingly catchy song song]] about it]]), it), but if he were magically resurrected and placed on trial before a fair tribunal, he would doubtless be acquitted, as his acts would even today be considered cruel but not illegal.
15th Jun '16 4:37:30 AM apm483@gmail.com
Is there an issue? Send a Message


It is untrue that all is fair in love and war. Especially in war. There are a considerable number of treaties governing the conduct of war. WarIsHell, but now even this [[EvenEvilHasStandards hell is developing a lot of standards.]] In fact, this is considerably OlderThanFeudalism, as even nonliterate, stone-age peoples have usually had [[http://www.amazon.com/Primitive-War-Its-Practices-Concepts/dp/087249196X/ customs and taboos]] strictly limiting what may be done in war, and Hugo Grotius' classic ''On the Laws of War and Peace'' (1625) cites back to ancient Greek and Roman sources for many of its rules.

Thus, war has usually been governed by some sort of law or custom throughout history, but they differ in various times and places. As noted below, the Geneva Conventions recognize the right of a POW to attempt to escape. During the Napoleonic Wars, as an example, if a captured officer swore [[ThePromise an oath]] to his captors that he would return home and no longer participate in the war until its resolution, he was honour-bound to [[IGaveMyWord keep his word]]. Many imperialist victories throughout history can be attributed to two different sets of customs regarding war coming to a head.

to:

It is untrue that all is fair in love and war. Especially in war. There are a considerable number of treaties governing the conduct of war. WarIsHell, but now even this [[EvenEvilHasStandards hell is developing a lot of standards.]] In fact, this is considerably OlderThanFeudalism, as even nonliterate, stone-age stone age peoples have usually had [[http://www.amazon.com/Primitive-War-Its-Practices-Concepts/dp/087249196X/ customs and taboos]] strictly limiting what may be done in war, and Hugo Grotius' classic ''On the Laws of War and Peace'' (1625) cites back to ancient Greek and Roman sources for many of its rules.

Thus, war has usually been governed by some sort of law or custom throughout history, but they differ in various times and places. As noted below, the Geneva Conventions recognize the right of a POW to attempt to escape. During the Napoleonic Wars, as an example, if a captured officer swore [[ThePromise an oath]] to his captors that he would return home and no longer participate in the war until its resolution, he was honour-bound honourbound to [[IGaveMyWord keep his word]]. Many imperialist victories throughout history can be attributed to two different sets of customs regarding war coming to a head.



A quick way to show that a killer is really a bad guy is to have their bullets having a cross cut into the tip. This will cause the bullet to expand when it enters the body, causing far more damage. Since hollow points are permitted in most non-military applications and are more reliable ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMJ jacketed]] dum-dums have a disturbing tendency to leave the jacket in the barrel of the gun, nevermind the fact that they don't expand that reliably) dum-dums are usually used to show how bad someone is. Or that setting pre-dates the invention of hollow points. Named after an arms factory in India, by the way.

to:

A quick way to show that a killer is really a bad guy is to have their bullets having a cross cut into the tip. This will cause the bullet to expand when it enters the body, causing far more damage. Since hollow points are permitted in most non-military applications and are more reliable ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMJ jacketed]] dum-dums have a disturbing tendency to leave the jacket in the barrel of the gun, nevermind the fact that they don't expand that reliably) dum-dums are usually used to show how bad someone is. Or that setting pre-dates predates the invention of hollow points. Named after an arms factory in India, by the way.



These bullets, which expand in a person's body, are prohibited in formal warfare, but allowed in domestic law enforcement and actually required in some jurisdictions for hunting. Their downsides are that they have poor performance against armor and barriers as well as sometimes not expanding correctly. In addition, automatic or semi-automatic weapons capable of reliably feeding hollowpoints are a relatively recent invention. Their upsides is their relatively low chance of [[OneHitPolykill over-penetration]] (and hitting something ''[[AccidentalMurder behind]]'' your target) and of course increased stopping effectiveness.

Match grade ammunition (such as Sierra Match-King) often contains a thin hollow nose for ballistics reasons, but since its wound profile is not noticeably different from a normal FMJ wound, the U.S. military has authorized its use.

to:

These bullets, which expand in a person's body, are prohibited in formal warfare, but allowed in domestic law enforcement and actually required in some jurisdictions for hunting. Their downsides are that they have poor performance against armor and barriers as well as sometimes not expanding correctly. In addition, automatic or semi-automatic weapons capable of reliably feeding hollowpoints are a relatively recent invention. Their upsides is their relatively low chance of [[OneHitPolykill over-penetration]] {{OneHitPolykill overpenetration}} (and hitting something ''[[AccidentalMurder behind]]'' your target) and of course increased stopping effectiveness.

Match grade ammunition (such as Sierra Match-King) Match King) often contains a thin hollow nose for ballistics reasons, but since its wound profile is not noticeably different from a normal FMJ wound, the U.S. military has authorized its use.



Technically not illegal, but strongly discouraged for fear of reprisal with deadly chemical weapons. Oddly enough, use of tear gas is banned in normal warfare but legal for use by civilian law enforcement. It's also legal to tear gas your own troops as part of their training. Citing how common UrbanWarfare is in the modern [[TheWarOnTerror War on Terror]], many U.S. service-members have begun to criticize the arbitrary ban on tear gas, as it would actually save lives lost on both sides in deadly house-to-house fighting by forcing the occupants out into the open where they can be sorted out non-lethally.

to:

Technically not illegal, but strongly discouraged for fear of reprisal with deadly chemical weapons. Oddly enough, use of tear gas is banned in normal warfare but legal for use by civilian law enforcement. It's also legal to tear gas your own troops as part of their training. Citing how common UrbanWarfare is in the modern [[TheWarOnTerror War on Terror]], many U.S. service-members service members have begun to criticize the arbitrary ban on tear gas, as it would actually save lives lost on both sides in deadly house-to-house fighting by forcing the occupants out into the open where they can be sorted out non-lethally.



Once the other side captures you, they are allowed to search you and restrain you. They can confiscate your pack animals (these are still used in less developed parts of the world where motorized transportation has problems, particularly in rugged/mountainous terrain), weaponry and any military documents. However, a prisoner must be permitted to retain his personal protective equipment, such as helmets and gas masks. And, once a prisoner has been captured, his health, safety, and well-being is the responsibility of his captors.

to:

Once the other side captures you, they are allowed to search you and restrain you. They can confiscate your pack animals (these are still used in less developed parts of the world where motorized transportation has problems, particularly in rugged/mountainous terrain), weaponry and any military documents. However, a prisoner must be permitted to retain his personal protective equipment, such as helmets and gas masks. And, once a prisoner has been captured, his health, safety, and well-being wellbeing is the responsibility of his captors.



The only things that you are obliged to tell the people capturing you are your name, rank, serial (or service) number and date of birth. The US permits provision of relevant health and welfare information too (e. g. blood-type, allergies, that kind of thing). Telling more may result in a court-martial if and when you get home. Nevertheless, your captors are permitted to offer positive inducements--better food/living conditions, less/easier work, money--for providing intelligence. They are ''not'' allowed to take you away for interrogation; you must approach them (which means you run the risk of more immediate vigilante punishment from your comrades as well as penalties back home). ''Negative'' inducements are strictly prohibited (see below).

to:

The only things that you are obliged to tell the people capturing you are your name, rank, serial (or service) number and date of birth. The US permits provision of relevant health and welfare information too (e. g. blood-type, blood type, allergies, that kind of thing). Telling more may result in a court-martial court martial if and when you get home. Nevertheless, your captors are permitted to offer positive inducements--better food/living conditions, less/easier work, money--for providing intelligence. They are ''not'' allowed to take you away for interrogation; you must approach them (which means you run the risk of more immediate vigilante punishment from your comrades as well as penalties back home). ''Negative'' inducements are strictly prohibited (see below).



It is a war crime to order soldiers to kill prisoners, and for soldiers to kill prisoners whether ordered to do so or not. An infamous example of this is [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissar_Order#History the 'Commissar Order']], issued to the German military on 6/6/1941 (rescinded on 6/5/1942 when increased Waffen-SS presence made it unnecessary for Wehrmacht personnel to continue handling these actions themselves). Section 2 states:

to:

It is a war crime to order soldiers to kill prisoners, and for soldiers to kill prisoners whether ordered to do so or not. An infamous example of this is [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissar_Order#History the 'Commissar Order']], issued to the German military on 6/6/1941 (rescinded on 6/5/1942 when increased Waffen-SS Waffen SS presence made it unnecessary for Wehrmacht personnel to continue handling these actions themselves). Section 2 states:



The history of war is replete with examples where a relatively small-scale breach of the rules regarding the killing of [=POWs=] or shot-out airmen resulted in massive retaliations by the other side. To give a pair of WW2 examples: A Japanese fighter machinegunning a bailed-out [=B-17=] crew and killing eight of the thirteen at Bismarck Sea resulted in the US and Australians sinking the lifeboats and rafts of the convoy after it was destroyed, killing thousands of Japanese soldiers; during the Battle of the Bulge the murder of a group of American prisoners by the SS caused a number of American units to refuse to accept surrenders during the course of the battle, costing hundreds of German lives. Worst of all, public opinion compelled the USA to prosecute the junior SS officers responsible in the postwar trials process. This gave the Soviets a 'foot in the door' when arguing for the prosecution of more senior officers responsible for War Crimes.

to:

The history of war is replete with examples where a relatively small-scale breach of the rules regarding the killing of [=POWs=] or shot-out airmen resulted in massive retaliations by the other side. To give a pair of WW2 examples: A Japanese fighter machinegunning machine gunning a bailed-out [=B-17=] crew and killing eight of the thirteen at Bismarck Sea resulted in the US and Australians sinking the lifeboats and rafts of the convoy after it was destroyed, killing thousands of Japanese soldiers; during the Battle of the Bulge the murder of a group of American prisoners by the SS caused a number of American units to refuse to accept surrenders during the course of the battle, costing hundreds of German lives. Worst of all, public opinion compelled the USA to prosecute the junior SS officers responsible in the postwar trials process. This gave the Soviets a 'foot in the door' when arguing for the prosecution of more senior officers responsible for War Crimes.



Ceasefires take effect at a set time after the agreement, allowing the word to get to troops in the field. In practice, people ''generally'' stop firing once they're told of the ceasefire; no-one wants to be the last to die in a war. Although, this might not be the case when it is unclear whether the ceasefire is the actual end of the war. As a ceasefire usually entails that the battlelines will remain where they are, people might attempt to use the time period to get a favourable positions. Standing orders of the Pakistan Army are that Pakistani forces will continue to jockey for favourable positions until the coming into effect of the ceasefire (although major offensives are forbidden) while the Israeli Army seems to have a policy (if not formal orders)which is similar. This is a risky proposition, the enemy might decide to simply abandon the plan.

to:

Ceasefires take effect at a set time after the agreement, allowing the word to get to troops in the field. In practice, people ''generally'' stop firing once they're told of the ceasefire; no-one no one wants to be the last to die in a war. Although, this might not be the case when it is unclear whether the ceasefire is the actual end of the war. As a ceasefire usually entails that the battlelines will remain where they are, people might attempt to use the time period to get a favourable positions. Standing orders of the Pakistan Army are that Pakistani forces will continue to jockey for favourable positions until the coming into effect of the ceasefire (although major offensives are forbidden) while the Israeli Army seems to have a policy (if not formal orders)which is similar. This is a risky proposition, the enemy might decide to simply abandon the plan.



** Several other Arab states technically declared war on Israel and joined the Arab armistices, but never actually engaged in combat with the IDF. Most if not all of these countries have pledged to sign peace treaties with Israel upon the establishment of a Palestinian state, and some (including the Gulf States and Morocco) have good relations with Israel on the down-low.

to:

** Several other Arab states technically declared war on Israel and joined the Arab armistices, but never actually engaged in combat with the IDF. Most if not all of these countries have pledged to sign peace treaties with Israel upon the establishment of a Palestinian state, and some (including the Gulf States and Morocco) have good relations with Israel on the down-low.down low.
10th Apr '16 7:26:45 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[RapePillageandBurn Deliberately wounding or killing civilians]] is a war crime, as is obeying or issuing orders to wound or kill civilians. This is subject to some fine distinctions, however; if civilians are in or near a legitimate military target, it is not generally considered a war crime to destroy the target in the absence of other options. This is how it was not considered a war crime for the various belligerents during World War II to go around bombing each others' factories--the factories were generally producing either war materiel or other items necessary or useful to the war effort, and thus the fact that the workers were civilians was considered less important than the military character of the goods they produced. Moreover, the rule against killing or wounding civilians does not extend to seizing or destroying their property; examples from the 20th century wars are innumerable, but probably the best example of this in history was Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea that wrecked Georgia in September-December 1864 (and later campaigns in the Carolinas in early 1865) during UsefulNotes/TheAmericanCivilWar (a war fought largely in accordance with the modern rules of war), in which vast quantities of civilian property (including railroad infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, manufactured goods, cotton, private homes, and especially food and slaves) were seized and destroyed (the food was eaten, the slaves were set free, and the rest was either burned or reduced to rubble) while relatively few civilians were actually killed. Sherman's side won, so he would never have been prosecuted for this campaign anyway (instead, they wrote an [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-dzCt2xeSo infuriatingly catchy song about it]]), but if he were magically resurrected and placed on trial before a fair tribunal, it would even today be considered horrifically cruel but not illegal.

to:

[[RapePillageandBurn Deliberately wounding or killing civilians]] is a war crime, as is obeying or issuing orders to wound or kill civilians. This is subject to some fine distinctions, however; if civilians are in or near a legitimate military target, it is not generally considered a war crime to destroy the target in the absence of other options. This is how it was not considered a war crime for the various belligerents during World War II to go around bombing each others' factories--the factories were generally producing either war materiel or other items necessary or useful to the war effort, and thus the fact that the workers were civilians was considered less important than the military character of the goods they produced. Moreover, the rule against killing or wounding civilians does not extend to seizing or destroying their property; examples from the 20th century wars are innumerable, but probably the best example of this in history was Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea that wrecked Georgia in September-December 1864 (and later campaigns in the Carolinas in early 1865) during UsefulNotes/TheAmericanCivilWar (a war fought largely in accordance with the modern rules of war), in which vast quantities of civilian property (including railroad infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, manufactured goods, cotton, private homes, and especially food and slaves) were seized and destroyed (the food was eaten, the slaves were set free, and the rest was either burned or reduced to rubble) while relatively few civilians were actually killed. Sherman's side won, so he would never have been prosecuted for this campaign anyway (instead, they wrote an [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-dzCt2xeSo infuriatingly catchy song about it]]), but if he were magically resurrected and placed on trial before a fair tribunal, it he would doubtless be acquitted, as his acts would even today be considered horrifically cruel but not illegal.
10th Apr '16 7:24:18 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[RapePillageandBurn Deliberately wounding or killing civilians]] is a war crime, as is obeying or issuing orders to wound or kill civilians. This is subject to some fine distinctions, however; if civilians are in or near a legitimate military target, it is not generally considered a war crime to destroy the target in the absence of other options. This is how it was not considered a war crime for the various belligerents during World War II to go around bombing each others' factories--the factories were generally producing either war materiel or other items necessary or useful to the war effort, and thus the fact that the workers were civilians was considered less important than the military character of the goods they produced. Moreover, the rule against killing or wounding civilians does not extend to seizing or destroying their property; examples from the 20th century wars are innumerable, but probably the best example of this in history was Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea that wrecked Georgia in September-December 1864 (and later campaigns in the Carolinas in early 1865) during UsefulNotes/TheAmericanCivilWar (a war fought largely in accordance with the modern rules of war), in which vast quantities of civilian property (including railroad infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, manufactured goods, cotton, private homes, and especially food and slaves) were seized and destroyed (the food was eaten, the slaves were set free, and the rest was either burned or reduced to rubble) while relatively few civilians were actually killed. Sherman's side won, so he would never have been prosecuted anyway, but if he were magically resurrected and placed on trial before a fair tribunal, his campaign would even today be considered horrifically cruel but not illegal.

to:

[[RapePillageandBurn Deliberately wounding or killing civilians]] is a war crime, as is obeying or issuing orders to wound or kill civilians. This is subject to some fine distinctions, however; if civilians are in or near a legitimate military target, it is not generally considered a war crime to destroy the target in the absence of other options. This is how it was not considered a war crime for the various belligerents during World War II to go around bombing each others' factories--the factories were generally producing either war materiel or other items necessary or useful to the war effort, and thus the fact that the workers were civilians was considered less important than the military character of the goods they produced. Moreover, the rule against killing or wounding civilians does not extend to seizing or destroying their property; examples from the 20th century wars are innumerable, but probably the best example of this in history was Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea that wrecked Georgia in September-December 1864 (and later campaigns in the Carolinas in early 1865) during UsefulNotes/TheAmericanCivilWar (a war fought largely in accordance with the modern rules of war), in which vast quantities of civilian property (including railroad infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, manufactured goods, cotton, private homes, and especially food and slaves) were seized and destroyed (the food was eaten, the slaves were set free, and the rest was either burned or reduced to rubble) while relatively few civilians were actually killed. Sherman's side won, so he would never have been prosecuted anyway, for this campaign anyway (instead, they wrote an [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-dzCt2xeSo infuriatingly catchy song about it]]), but if he were magically resurrected and placed on trial before a fair tribunal, his campaign it would even today be considered horrifically cruel but not illegal.
10th Apr '16 7:21:28 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[RapePillageandBurn Deliberately wounding or killing civilians]] is a war crime, as is obeying or issuing orders to wound or kill civilians. This is subject to some fine distinctions, however; if civilians are in or near a legitimate military target, it is not generally considered a war crime to destroy the target in the absence of other options. This is how it was not considered a war crime for the various belligerents during World War II to go around bombing each others' factories--the factories were generally producing either war materiel or other items necessary or useful to the war effort, and thus the fact that the workers were civilians was considered less important than the military character of the goods they produced. Moreover, the rule against killing or wounding civilians does not extend to seizing or destroying their property; examples from the 20th century wars are innumerable, but probably the best example of this in history was Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea that wrecked Georgia in September-December 1864 (and later campaigns in the Carolinas in early 1865) during UsefulNotes/TheAmericanCivilWar (a war fought largely in accordance with the modern rules of war), in which vast quantities of civilian property (including railroad infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, manufactured goods, cotton, private homes, and especially food and slaves) were seized and destroyed (the food was eaten, the slaves were set free, and the rest was either burned or reduced to rubble) while relatively few civilians were actually killed. Sherman's side won, so he would never have been prosecuted anyway, but even today his campaign would be considered horrifically cruel but not illegal.

to:

[[RapePillageandBurn Deliberately wounding or killing civilians]] is a war crime, as is obeying or issuing orders to wound or kill civilians. This is subject to some fine distinctions, however; if civilians are in or near a legitimate military target, it is not generally considered a war crime to destroy the target in the absence of other options. This is how it was not considered a war crime for the various belligerents during World War II to go around bombing each others' factories--the factories were generally producing either war materiel or other items necessary or useful to the war effort, and thus the fact that the workers were civilians was considered less important than the military character of the goods they produced. Moreover, the rule against killing or wounding civilians does not extend to seizing or destroying their property; examples from the 20th century wars are innumerable, but probably the best example of this in history was Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea that wrecked Georgia in September-December 1864 (and later campaigns in the Carolinas in early 1865) during UsefulNotes/TheAmericanCivilWar (a war fought largely in accordance with the modern rules of war), in which vast quantities of civilian property (including railroad infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, manufactured goods, cotton, private homes, and especially food and slaves) were seized and destroyed (the food was eaten, the slaves were set free, and the rest was either burned or reduced to rubble) while relatively few civilians were actually killed. Sherman's side won, so he would never have been prosecuted anyway, but even today if he were magically resurrected and placed on trial before a fair tribunal, his campaign would even today be considered horrifically cruel but not illegal.
10th Apr '16 7:19:55 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[RapePillageandBurn Deliberately wounding or killing civilians]] is a war crime, as is obeying or issuing orders to wound or kill civilians. This is subject to some fine distinctions, however; if civilians are in or near a legitimate military target, it is not generally considered a war crime to destroy the target in the absence of other options. This is how it was not considered a war crime for the various belligerents during World War II to go around bombing each others' factories--the factories were generally producing either war materiel or other items necessary or useful to the war effort, and thus the fact that the workers were civilians was considered less important than the military character of the goods they produced. Moreover, the rule against killing or wounding civilians does not extend to seizing or destroying their property; examples from the 20th century wars are innumerable, but probably the best example of this in history was Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea that wrecked Georgia in September-December 1864 (and later campaigns in the Carolinas in early 1865) during UsefulNotes/TheAmericanCivilWar (a war fought largely in accordance with the modern rules of war), in which vast quantities of civilian property (including railroad infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, manufactured goods, cotton, private homes, and especially food and slaves) were seized and destroyed (the food was eaten, the slaves were set free, and the rest was either burned or reduced to rubble) while relatively few civilians were actually killed.

to:

[[RapePillageandBurn Deliberately wounding or killing civilians]] is a war crime, as is obeying or issuing orders to wound or kill civilians. This is subject to some fine distinctions, however; if civilians are in or near a legitimate military target, it is not generally considered a war crime to destroy the target in the absence of other options. This is how it was not considered a war crime for the various belligerents during World War II to go around bombing each others' factories--the factories were generally producing either war materiel or other items necessary or useful to the war effort, and thus the fact that the workers were civilians was considered less important than the military character of the goods they produced. Moreover, the rule against killing or wounding civilians does not extend to seizing or destroying their property; examples from the 20th century wars are innumerable, but probably the best example of this in history was Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea that wrecked Georgia in September-December 1864 (and later campaigns in the Carolinas in early 1865) during UsefulNotes/TheAmericanCivilWar (a war fought largely in accordance with the modern rules of war), in which vast quantities of civilian property (including railroad infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, manufactured goods, cotton, private homes, and especially food and slaves) were seized and destroyed (the food was eaten, the slaves were set free, and the rest was either burned or reduced to rubble) while relatively few civilians were actually killed. \n Sherman's side won, so he would never have been prosecuted anyway, but even today his campaign would be considered horrifically cruel but not illegal.
10th Apr '16 7:17:56 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[RapePillageandBurn Deliberately wounding or killing civilians]] is a war crime, as is obeying or issuing orders to wound or kill civilians. This is subject to some fine distinctions, however; if civilians are in or near a legitimate military target, it is not generally considered a war crime to destroy the target in the absence of other options. This is how it was not considered a war crime for the various belligerents during World War II to go around bombing each others' factories--the factories were generally producing either war materiel or other items necessary or useful to the war effort, and thus the fact that the workers were civilians was considered less important than the military character of the goods they produced. Moreover, the rule against killing or wounding civilians does not extend to seizing or destroying their property; examples from the 20th century wars are innumerable, but probably the best example of this in history was Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea that wrecked Georgia in September-December 1864 (and later campaigns in the Carolinas in early 1865) during UsefulNotes/TheAmericanCivilWar (a war fought largely in accordance with the modern rules of war), in which vast quantities of civilian property (including railroad infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, manufactured goods, cotton, and especially food and slaves) were seized and destroyed (the industrial stuff and cotton was burned and broken, the food was eaten, and the slaves were set free).

to:

[[RapePillageandBurn Deliberately wounding or killing civilians]] is a war crime, as is obeying or issuing orders to wound or kill civilians. This is subject to some fine distinctions, however; if civilians are in or near a legitimate military target, it is not generally considered a war crime to destroy the target in the absence of other options. This is how it was not considered a war crime for the various belligerents during World War II to go around bombing each others' factories--the factories were generally producing either war materiel or other items necessary or useful to the war effort, and thus the fact that the workers were civilians was considered less important than the military character of the goods they produced. Moreover, the rule against killing or wounding civilians does not extend to seizing or destroying their property; examples from the 20th century wars are innumerable, but probably the best example of this in history was Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea that wrecked Georgia in September-December 1864 (and later campaigns in the Carolinas in early 1865) during UsefulNotes/TheAmericanCivilWar (a war fought largely in accordance with the modern rules of war), in which vast quantities of civilian property (including railroad infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, manufactured goods, cotton, private homes, and especially food and slaves) were seized and destroyed (the industrial stuff and cotton was burned and broken, the food was eaten, and the slaves were set free).free, and the rest was either burned or reduced to rubble) while relatively few civilians were actually killed.
10th Apr '16 7:15:52 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[RapePillageandBurn Deliberately wounding or killing civilians]] is a war crime, as is obeying or issuing orders to wound or kill civilians. This is subject to some fine distinctions, however; if civilians are in or near a legitimate military target, it is not generally considered a war crime to destroy the target in the absence of other options. This is how it was not considered a war crime for the various belligerents during World War II to go around bombing each others' factories--the factories were generally producing either war materiel or other items necessary or useful to the war effort, and thus the fact that the workers were civilians was considered less important than the military character of the goods they produced. Moreover, the rule against killing or wounding civilians does not extend to seizing or destroying their property; examples from the 20th century wars are innumerable, but probably the best example of this in history was Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea in September-December 1864 (and later campaigns in the Carolinas in early 1865) during UsefulNotes/TheAmericanCivilWar (a war fought largely in accordance with the modern rules of war), in which vast quantities of civilian property (including railroad infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, manufactured goods, cotton, and especially food and slaves) were seized and destroyed (the industrial stuff and cotton was burned and broken, the food was eaten, and the slaves were set free).

to:

[[RapePillageandBurn Deliberately wounding or killing civilians]] is a war crime, as is obeying or issuing orders to wound or kill civilians. This is subject to some fine distinctions, however; if civilians are in or near a legitimate military target, it is not generally considered a war crime to destroy the target in the absence of other options. This is how it was not considered a war crime for the various belligerents during World War II to go around bombing each others' factories--the factories were generally producing either war materiel or other items necessary or useful to the war effort, and thus the fact that the workers were civilians was considered less important than the military character of the goods they produced. Moreover, the rule against killing or wounding civilians does not extend to seizing or destroying their property; examples from the 20th century wars are innumerable, but probably the best example of this in history was Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea that wrecked Georgia in September-December 1864 (and later campaigns in the Carolinas in early 1865) during UsefulNotes/TheAmericanCivilWar (a war fought largely in accordance with the modern rules of war), in which vast quantities of civilian property (including railroad infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, manufactured goods, cotton, and especially food and slaves) were seized and destroyed (the industrial stuff and cotton was burned and broken, the food was eaten, and the slaves were set free).
This list shows the last 10 events of 167. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.TheLawsAndCustomsOfWar