Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Alan MacHett" <machett AT ibiblio.org>]

-----------
Disclaimer:  long, maybe kooky; read only if you're really interested.
-----------

Ah yes, the Geneva Conventions.  As with the US Constitution, the
intentions were noble but the interpretations have sometimes proved ...
interesting.  For instance, bayonets with a triangular cross-section have
been outlawed because they produce wounds that ... get this ... do not
close and are not prone to heal...?  And the purpose of stabbing someone
is what again?  Flechette rounds (needle-like bullets ) were outlawed, I
believe, because they maim rather than kill.  Say again?

And not only do governments seek loopholes, but individual soldiers do as
well.  I once was told by the gunner of a .50-calibre machine gun that it
was against the Conventions to use such a weapon against personnel (I
don't believe that's the case, but...); the weapon presumeably was
intended to destroy equipment and vehicles, so the common solution was to
aim at some piece of equipment, a rifle for instance, that an individual
carried on him.  And I know from experience that US interrogators view Red
Cross personnel as a nuisance rather than humanitarians and upholders of
the Conventions.  No matter how benign, interrogations stop when Red Cross
personnel come around, just in case.

I seriously doubt the Conventions are the motivation behind US military
technological advancement.  I'll use my pointed word again; it's
cowardice.  Not the shaking-in-fear-run-the-other-way sort of cowardice,
but a subtle, take-no-risks-whatsoever sort of cowardice.  It's too bad
the Conventions don't mention anything about completely unbalanced
warfare.

I realize that I have a slightly romanticized view of war, but I'm not
blind to its horrors.  In fact, I think it is a desire for blindness to
the horrors that drives the technology.  "We" don't want "our boys" to
even recognize the enemy as human; they should be images on a video-game
console, some non-descript target tens or hundreds or thousands of miles
away, you press a button and Boom!, there should be no connection between
pressing the button and actual people dying.  It truly disgusts me that we
kill people in such a manner, that people die that way.  I'm no peacenik;
I believe in warfare.  I think it's something we haven't evolved beyond,
in the truest sense; I believe that level of territorial/familial violent
reaction is hard-wired into our mammalian brains (but that's a topic for
another thread).  But I also have a strong sense of fairness.  Does that
perhaps seem paradoxical, fairness when the intention is to kill?  Yes,
perhaps; but if you're going to kill someone, have the courage to face
him, even if it's only with rifles across a battlefield.

I'd like to hear the opinions of WWII vets.  I'd like to know what they
think of the current trend in military technology.

And what I meant by "good", in reference to WWII, was good as in fought
for a truly good cause.  We can't possibly compare Saddam to Hitler or
Emperor Hirohito.  And I meant "good" as in using quotation marks because
there's no such thing as a good war.  I cannot imagine the scary shit
those old-timers must've seen.  And as a result (and to bring the
discussion back around) we got the Geneva Conventions.  I'm glad weapons
like mustard gas and flame throwers were outlawed.  I'm glad we don't
firebomb whole cities anymore.  I'm glad we don't make prisoners dig their
own graves.

But I'm not glad for the level of wholesale slaughter we seek and achieve
with our "surgical" strikes.

the end.
Alan

James Dasher said:
> FWIW, there are actually four Geneva Conventions.  The official site is
> obnoxious to navigate, but the SPJ runs a reference guide at
> <http://www.genevaconventions.org>.  The first two deal with treatment
> of wounded enemy soldiers and sailors.  The third deals with treatment
> of POWs.  The fourth covers the treatment of civilians.  Taken
> together, they are popularly referred to as "The Geneva Convention" -
> mostly because the treaties were all submitted to negotiating
> governments around the same time after WWII.
>
>> /snip/
>
> (Also incidentally, much of the development in US military technology
> is catalyzed by our desire to comply with the Conventions.  Smart
> weapons, battlefield communications technology, laser-guided bombs, and
> so forth, all minimize civilian casualties.  So do Predator drones,
> Global Hawks dropping Hellfire missiles on Yemeni terrorists, and so
> on.  Imagine how much more collateral damage, including civilian
> casualties, we might witness were we to send a tank division through
> every village housing al Qaeda terrorists.)
>

James Dasher said back when:
> I know people who use the calculators on their computers to balance
> their checkbooks.  Surely, for hundreds of dollars less than the price
> of a new computer, these people could by calculators?
>
> Also, battleships were originally designed for naval surface combat.
> Why do we use them for offshore bombardment, when a marine can do the
> job cheaper?
>
>
> Even better: A Marine private makes less in one year than your average
> cruise missile costs US taxpayers.  Factor in the R&D, the cost to
> support the infrastructure to maintain and fire the cruise missile, and
> I'm sure that it would cost less to let a reasonably well-trained
> Marine private die taking a beach than it does to use overwhelming
> force to defeat an enemy and save US lives.
>
>
> "Good" because lots of US soldiers died?  "Good" because lots of
> civilians died?  You started this rant because 9 civilians died.  How
> many civilians do you think died in WWII or Korea?
>
> Also, part of the US force advantage has been and will continue to be
> firepower from a distance.  Rifles that shoot accurately from further
> away (say, an M-14 at 200 yards) are better than rifles that shoot more
> bullets less accurately (e.g., the ever-popular AK-47 at under 50
> yards).
>
> These disparities extend back to the Revolutionary War and the Civil
> War.  For a more recent example, the casualty ration in Somalia
> exceeded 50:1.  I don't have the exact figures with me, but it was
> roughly 17 Americans dead and more than 1,000 Somali combatants dead.
> And all we were trying to do there was feed people.  (Ironically, the
> subsequent investigation into the Battle of Mogadishu hinged around the
> commanding general's request for gunships - the A-10 is a gunship - and
> whether their presence would have saved more US soldiers, and prevented
> our victory from costing so many American dead.)
>
> Cheers -
>