4 ms·
> This Kakhovka dam is a legitimate military target Not under the Geneva Convention "Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes an
by jefftk 4y ago
> This Kakhovka dam is a legitimate military target
Not under the Geneva Convention "Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population." https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule42_sectiona https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul...
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y agoAnd what would be the consequences should, say, Russia attack, say, the Kakhovka dam? Consequences, that is, for the attacker? More sanctions? Direct military action against a major (or any) nuclear power? Condemnation and isolation for decades or longer?
- jefftk 4y agoMy parent was saying that it was a legitimate target. I agree that if Russia decides to give up on the Geneva convention our options aren't great.
- lstodd 4y agoYou know, Geneva Convention can't divert a bomb. Couple of 1000lb bombs misplaced, some confusion and you can't stop it, only watch. Has to be a very unfortunate hit, but shit happens. Compared to that, the Zaporoshya nuclear plant will just shut down as designed even if hit in all its reactors; release maybe a week's worth radiation, completely harmless, and then sit still. And it's just upstream. Think about it. So-called 'green energy' bears so much more hazards.
- pvaldes 4y agoAfter thousands of war crimes identified, Russians have let crystal clear that they piss on the Geneva Convention. They have violated yet the Geneva convention (and its laws that oblige to hummanitary treatment of civils in a war) countless times in a few months, and at a level rarely seen before.