4 ms·

Do you understand the context? These dolphins are protecting an area claimed by the military. Killing the dolphin would be an act of war. Even doing the same t

by antris 5y ago

Do you understand the context? These dolphins are protecting an area claimed by the military. Killing the dolphin would be an act of war. Even doing the same to non-live military equipment would be. Obviously during wartime the dolphins would be vulnerable. But during peace time you'd think twice before attacking a military dolphin. You don't "just kill" them if you're not in war.

Emma_Goldman 5y ago
This made me laugh. Sabotage, border clashes and airstrikes happen all the time without constituting acts of war that give casus belli to their target. A basic legal condition of a just war is that it is proportionate and embarked upon as a last resort: launching a war because a dolphin you trained was killed is neither of those, as sad as it might be.
- antris 5y ago
  I didn't talk about casus belli, you're just making stuff up. Sure, things happen all the time without a war breaking out. But it's not like you can "just kill" or "just attack" without repercussions. That's ridiculous thought. It's similar to saying "what's the reason to have a security guard in the shop, when you can just take a pistol and kill him". Security isn't about having an impenetrable defense; such a thing isn't possible. Anything can be destroyed in the end. There's always a repercussion for attacking the military, be it diplomatic, economic or a military retaliation.
  - Emma_Goldman 5y ago
    The phrase 'an act of war' means an act which intends to and/or actually does give the target casus belli. I took it for granted that you knew that. See, for example, the OED reference: 'An act by one nation intended to initiate or provoke a war with another nation; an act considered sufficient cause for war.' https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095349259 https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20...
    - antris 5y ago
      Well, war has changed. Russia annexed part of Ukraine without ever declaring war. It's not as black and white today. War is a spectrum, especially at the borders of superpowers. Whether you want to call it an act of war or an escalation or whatever, I don't care. If you want to play definition semantics, I'm not interested as it completely misses the point I was making.
InitialLastName 5y ago
If you are a military diver covertly infiltrating a foreign country's military installation and you get discovered by an agent of that country (be it human, animal or artificial), you are already quickly approaching (if not across the line into) "act of war" territory. Granted, modern international relations has done a solid job of fuzzing the delineation of "acts of war" such that interpretations of acts can serve needs in a geopolitical context, but that will be the case whether you kill the dolphin or not.

by antris 5y ago

Emma_Goldman 5y ago

This made me laugh. Sabotage, border clashes and airstrikes happen all the time without constituting acts of war that give casus belli to their target. A basic legal condition of a just war is that it is proportionate and embarked upon as a last resort: launching a war because a dolphin you trained was killed is neither of those, as sad as it might be.

antris 5y ago
I didn't talk about casus belli, you're just making stuff up. Sure, things happen all the time without a war breaking out. But it's not like you can "just kill" or "just attack" without repercussions. That's ridiculous thought. It's similar to saying "what's the reason to have a security guard in the shop, when you can just take a pistol and kill him". Security isn't about having an impenetrable defense; such a thing isn't possible. Anything can be destroyed in the end. There's always a repercussion for attacking the military, be it diplomatic, economic or a military retaliation.
- Emma_Goldman 5y ago
  The phrase 'an act of war' means an act which intends to and/or actually does give the target casus belli. I took it for granted that you knew that. See, for example, the OED reference: 'An act by one nation intended to initiate or provoke a war with another nation; an act considered sufficient cause for war.' https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095349259 https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20...
  - antris 5y ago
    Well, war has changed. Russia annexed part of Ukraine without ever declaring war. It's not as black and white today. War is a spectrum, especially at the borders of superpowers. Whether you want to call it an act of war or an escalation or whatever, I don't care. If you want to play definition semantics, I'm not interested as it completely misses the point I was making.

InitialLastName 5y ago

If you are a military diver covertly infiltrating a foreign country's military installation and you get discovered by an agent of that country (be it human, animal or artificial), you are already quickly approaching (if not across the line into) "act of war" territory. Granted, modern international relations has done a solid job of fuzzing the delineation of "acts of war" such that interpretations of acts can serve needs in a geopolitical context, but that will be the case whether you kill the dolphin or not.