3 ms·

Civilian infrastructure and housing are decidedly no legitimate milotary targets. Never have been, and this makes air power such a bad choice when fighting insu

by hef19898 3y ago

Civilian infrastructure and housing are decidedly no legitimate milotary targets. Never have been, and this makes air power such a bad choice when fighting insurgencies, it is to indiscriminate.

bawolff 3y ago
Whether or not it is a legit legal military target depends on if it is being used for a military purposes and how "porportional" the military benefit of targeting it is relitive to the civilian damage targeting it would cause. The idea that if someone converts a house into an ammunition store depot it can never be targeted ever under international law is just straight up wrong. Of course how that translates to what is being done on the ground is very complex. Which is why numerically approaches are wrong - you have to put every incident in appropriate context to judge it
- hef19898 3y ago
  You make the point about fighting insurgencies and guerilla opponents being so damn hard very well, I think. Not the least beimg, that said insurgents do not really count as an armed opponent. Regarding the house being an ammunition depot: Sure, legitimate target. Blowing up the whole highrise, debatable. Blowing up the neighbouring highrise, even more debatable. And airstrikes are nowhere precise enough for that kind of work.
  - xdennis 3y ago
    > that said insurgents do not really count as an armed opponent Insurgents are people who are fighting their own government (with guns) so they are armed, but they're not fighting Hamas, they're fighting Israel, so they're not insurgents. Many of them don't even wear military uniforms in combat, that makes them unlawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions and don't have rights. They almost always attack civilians, so they're terrorists.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Yeah, isurgents, partisans and whatever you wanna call them are not regular combatants. You what that means? That the rule of land warefare don't apply to them. That makes fighting them a police action, one that has to follow basic human rights (detention, fair trials, the works). Unless you are fine being the baddy, in which case go full out Soviet Uniom in Afghanistan, USA in Vietnam or SS on the Eastern Front rear areas. You know what that doesn't mean? That those people, and everyone in their vincinity, forfeit all, every and each right they ever had. Last time I checked, the IDF had pretty decent rules of engagement around that very question. On paper, and unfortunately rather loosly respected, but still.
      - bawolff 3y ago
        > Yeah, isurgents, partisans and whatever you wanna call them are not regular combatants. You what that means? That the rule of land warefare don't apply to them ??? I don't think that follows. What is your basis for this.
        ignoramous 3y ago
        (not my view) What OP means is you don't bring an airforce and a navy and an army to a gang fight, unless of course you're okay with destruction of urban areas.

Civilian infrastructure and housing are decidedly no legitimate milotary targets. Never have been, and this makes air power such a bad choice when fighting insurgencies, it is to indiscriminate.

bawolff 3y ago

Whether or not it is a legit legal military target depends on if it is being used for a military purposes and how "porportional" the military benefit of targeting it is relitive to the civilian damage targeting it would cause. The idea that if someone converts a house into an ammunition store depot it can never be targeted ever under international law is just straight up wrong. Of course how that translates to what is being done on the ground is very complex. Which is why numerically approaches are wrong - you have to put every incident in appropriate context to judge it

hef19898 3y ago
You make the point about fighting insurgencies and guerilla opponents being so damn hard very well, I think. Not the least beimg, that said insurgents do not really count as an armed opponent. Regarding the house being an ammunition depot: Sure, legitimate target. Blowing up the whole highrise, debatable. Blowing up the neighbouring highrise, even more debatable. And airstrikes are nowhere precise enough for that kind of work.
- xdennis 3y ago
  > that said insurgents do not really count as an armed opponent Insurgents are people who are fighting their own government (with guns) so they are armed, but they're not fighting Hamas, they're fighting Israel, so they're not insurgents. Many of them don't even wear military uniforms in combat, that makes them unlawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions and don't have rights. They almost always attack civilians, so they're terrorists.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Yeah, isurgents, partisans and whatever you wanna call them are not regular combatants. You what that means? That the rule of land warefare don't apply to them. That makes fighting them a police action, one that has to follow basic human rights (detention, fair trials, the works). Unless you are fine being the baddy, in which case go full out Soviet Uniom in Afghanistan, USA in Vietnam or SS on the Eastern Front rear areas. You know what that doesn't mean? That those people, and everyone in their vincinity, forfeit all, every and each right they ever had. Last time I checked, the IDF had pretty decent rules of engagement around that very question. On paper, and unfortunately rather loosly respected, but still.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      > Yeah, isurgents, partisans and whatever you wanna call them are not regular combatants. You what that means? That the rule of land warefare don't apply to them ??? I don't think that follows. What is your basis for this.
      - ignoramous 3y ago
        (not my view) What OP means is you don't bring an airforce and a navy and an army to a gang fight, unless of course you're okay with destruction of urban areas.