Criticisms of drones don't survive even a cursory deep dive on the history of aviation warfare. Just because put a pilot in the plane does not make the bombing more ethical. It does make for more mistakes and collateral damage though.
The response to this is to talk about accountability. As if pilots were not being shielded from command decisions to begin with.
You’re right. The problem isn’t drones vs manned planes, it’s why are governments bombing people? The U.S. bombed weddings and hospitals and actively obstructed investigations into them, and unilaterally redefined the rules of engagement to treat all deaths as military casualties despite children dying.
Every single bomb was accused of being against a civilian. That's not hyperbole. Not one. It's easy to claim your enemy bombs civilians when you don't wear a uniform. That's why it's considered a war crime, not the other way around.
If the Taliban don’t wear uniforms, it doesn’t mean you get to ignore all rules of engagement and shoot people who look like civilians. It means you still fight under the rules and then charge them with war crimes when you finish. If you feel otherwise then pull out of the Geneva Conventions and stop pretending you’re more moral than you are.
The laws of war go both ways in many cases. (Not all). Often, that is exactly what it means. If the enemy is not signatory to the treaty, the protections do not apply to them. I wish we could outlaw war. War crimes are a completely different thing.
Afghanistan is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions 1-4 so the rules do apply here.
The government of Afghanistan ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1956 as a monarchy. The governmental system has changed seven times since then with insurgent forced under a system that is simultaneously not recognized by the international order and has not recognized the laws of war.
Your assertion is a massive jump and I have to wonder about your agenda here.
Under international law, Afghanistan is still bound by the treaties and their obligations regardless of what government comes after it. That’s the case with all governments even after coups and changes. Just because the Taliban so bad things doesn’t mean the US and other countries can break the international treaties on their end; the conventions even have provisions for how to handle one side breaking the laws (and it’s not to disregard the conventions entirely).
It’s not a massive jump to insist that countries actually adhere to treaties they signed. Minimizing civilian deaths is a worthy agenda, not sure why you’re trying to make it personal.
Mostly because they broke said norms and used that to kill my friends. The second you break those norms, you are not beholden to them. If you want protections of international law, you have to wear a uniform.
Again, the Geneva Conventions spell out what to do if one side doesn’t wear a uniform, and hint: it does NOT say throw all the conventions away and start bombing people without uniforms on. That’s how weddings and hospitals are blown up. Your agenda is clear and you should actually read the conventions and come back to us rather than go in circles.
Hint: You cannot actually back any of this up with any text and you are talking out of your ass. It's impossible to find that which does not exist.
The text definitely covers how to handle uniformed combatant, ununiformed combatant, and mercenary POWs. It also places special importance on identification.
It does not provide protections in the conduct of indirect fires. In fact, as long as there is a military purpose, it's not illegal to intentionally hit targets that will kill civilians. That's defined as collateral damage.
You are welcome to provide some actual text to back up what you are attempting to convey. No more hints implying something you think is convincing. Here's the link.
You are changing the argument. You said above repeatedly that Geneva Convention’s protections don’t apply when the enemy isn’t wearing uniforms, and your own link shows that yes they still apply. Glad you agree with me on that point.
You seem to think that intentional collateral damage is okay, and that’s simply disgusting, but that’s a completely different argument than the earlier one. That just sinks you down to the same level of terrorists.
Every drone strike goes through a legal process to ensure the target is a military target and civilian casualties are minimal. When the target surrounds themselves with human shields it doesn't stop strikes, it just makes strikes more precise.
I prefer my wars more down to earth with that personal touch.
“Drones,” he wrote, “have done their job remarkably well… And they have done so at little financial cost, at no risk to U.S. forces, and with fewer civilian casualties than many alternative methods would have caused.”
Hard disagree. They keep US soldier casualties low and that’s all the politicians care about; preventing bad press. The risk to US forces shouldn’t be zero; they volunteered for the military and dangerous missions while civilians in their homes have not. Civilian casualties are high because they bomb without talking to people on the ground; which leads to hospitals being blown up which wouldn’t happen in other methods.
Diplomacy is what keeps civilians alive, a lack of Diplomacy kills civilians.
Criticisms of drones don't survive even a cursory deep dive on the history of aviation warfare. Just because put a pilot in the plane does not make the bombing more ethical. It does make for more mistakes and collateral damage though.
The response to this is to talk about accountability. As if pilots were not being shielded from command decisions to begin with.
You’re right. The problem isn’t drones vs manned planes, it’s why are governments bombing people? The U.S. bombed weddings and hospitals and actively obstructed investigations into them, and unilaterally redefined the rules of engagement to treat all deaths as military casualties despite children dying.
Every single bomb was accused of being against a civilian. That's not hyperbole. Not one. It's easy to claim your enemy bombs civilians when you don't wear a uniform. That's why it's considered a war crime, not the other way around.
If the Taliban don’t wear uniforms, it doesn’t mean you get to ignore all rules of engagement and shoot people who look like civilians. It means you still fight under the rules and then charge them with war crimes when you finish. If you feel otherwise then pull out of the Geneva Conventions and stop pretending you’re more moral than you are.
The laws of war go both ways in many cases. (Not all). Often, that is exactly what it means. If the enemy is not signatory to the treaty, the protections do not apply to them. I wish we could outlaw war. War crimes are a completely different thing.
Afghanistan is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions 1-4 so the rules do apply here.
The government of Afghanistan ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1956 as a monarchy. The governmental system has changed seven times since then with insurgent forced under a system that is simultaneously not recognized by the international order and has not recognized the laws of war.
Your assertion is a massive jump and I have to wonder about your agenda here.
Under international law, Afghanistan is still bound by the treaties and their obligations regardless of what government comes after it. That’s the case with all governments even after coups and changes. Just because the Taliban so bad things doesn’t mean the US and other countries can break the international treaties on their end; the conventions even have provisions for how to handle one side breaking the laws (and it’s not to disregard the conventions entirely).
It’s not a massive jump to insist that countries actually adhere to treaties they signed. Minimizing civilian deaths is a worthy agenda, not sure why you’re trying to make it personal.
Mostly because they broke said norms and used that to kill my friends. The second you break those norms, you are not beholden to them. If you want protections of international law, you have to wear a uniform.
Again, the Geneva Conventions spell out what to do if one side doesn’t wear a uniform, and hint: it does NOT say throw all the conventions away and start bombing people without uniforms on. That’s how weddings and hospitals are blown up. Your agenda is clear and you should actually read the conventions and come back to us rather than go in circles.
Hint: You cannot actually back any of this up with any text and you are talking out of your ass. It's impossible to find that which does not exist.
The text definitely covers how to handle uniformed combatant, ununiformed combatant, and mercenary POWs. It also places special importance on identification.
It does not provide protections in the conduct of indirect fires. In fact, as long as there is a military purpose, it's not illegal to intentionally hit targets that will kill civilians. That's defined as collateral damage.
You are welcome to provide some actual text to back up what you are attempting to convey. No more hints implying something you think is convincing. Here's the link.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/protocol-additional-geneva-conventions-12-august-1949-and
You are changing the argument. You said above repeatedly that Geneva Convention’s protections don’t apply when the enemy isn’t wearing uniforms, and your own link shows that yes they still apply. Glad you agree with me on that point.
You seem to think that intentional collateral damage is okay, and that’s simply disgusting, but that’s a completely different argument than the earlier one. That just sinks you down to the same level of terrorists.
Every drone strike goes through a legal process to ensure the target is a military target and civilian casualties are minimal. When the target surrounds themselves with human shields it doesn't stop strikes, it just makes strikes more precise.
When possible.
Keep warfare artisanal!
I prefer my wars more down to earth with that personal touch.
Hard disagree. They keep US soldier casualties low and that’s all the politicians care about; preventing bad press. The risk to US forces shouldn’t be zero; they volunteered for the military and dangerous missions while civilians in their homes have not. Civilian casualties are high because they bomb without talking to people on the ground; which leads to hospitals being blown up which wouldn’t happen in other methods.
Diplomacy is what keeps civilians alive, a lack of Diplomacy kills civilians.
Drone warfare is the future.