4 ms·

> Big wars kill large numbers of people (Leaving NBC for a different comment:) Stalingrad had more Allied deaths alone (in ~half year) than Union and Confedera

> Big wars kill large numbers of people (Leaving NBC for a different comment:) Stalingrad had more Allied deaths alone (in ~half year) than Union and Confederate deaths combined of the US Civil War (in ~4 years). To be fair, that was (part of) a big war without medevac, but given (a) the determination of modern actors to ignore Geneva Conventions, and (b) the tech level of the RU/UA war, I'm not sure medevac is still a thing.

Animats 2y ago
> I'm not sure medevac is still a thing. Not the way it was for US troops from Vietnam to Afghanistan. Getting injured people out of the combat zone is much tougher. The combat zone is deeper. The first kilometer is now about as tough as it was before helicopters. Doing something major for a patient in the "golden hour" after injury is often not possible.[1] [1] https://journals.lww.com/journalacs/fulltext/2023/08000/putting_medical_boots_on_the_ground__lessons_from.31.aspx https://journals.lww.com/journalacs/fulltext/2023/08000/putt...
- KineticLensman 2y ago
  Yes. Western ops in Afghanistan and Iraq - where we had total airspace domination - exhibited a best case view of medevac - all the way up to mobile operating theatres in Chinooks flying to the point of need. A full-on high intensity conflict between peer adversaries would be nothing like this.
_carbyau_ 2y ago
I am always amazed by the sheer ego of the "Geneva conventions" or any other "rules of war". Maybe I don't understand how the mentality works but for me, once you are at the point you are killing people - and killing them in the thousands - you are already either crazily desperate and/or have a complete loss of empathy for your opposition. Once you are in this alien mindset, why would you pay attention to any "rules" that might limit your murderous psychopathy?!? And this worries me. Seeing the world increasingly brace itself for war I fear there will be someone who thinks COVID was a great trial run for a bioweapon. And that is my simple unimaginative first grab at horror. I am sure smarter minds than me can think up worse.
- aebtebeten 2y ago
  > why would you pay attention to any "rules" that might limit your murderous psychopathy The theory is, that as war is just a continuation of peace "by other means", one should not start wars without having an idea of the various ways in which one might end them, and (as the NSDP discovered in 1945) it's a whole lot easier to end them if you haven't been doing war crimes (or "war crimes"; if you intend to end a war short of genocide*, de jure or de facto doesn't really matter) during them. (yes, I think we both agree that it'd be better to have a period instead of "without" after "one should not start wars", but if one allows for the existence of hawks, is it not better that they have some limits?) Which part do you consider sheer ego? The distinction between combatants and non-combatants, or the inclusion of medical personnel among the non-combatants? * compare Goebbels' Freudian slip in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportpalast_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportpalast_speech
  - _carbyau_ 2y ago
    The sheer ego is in the idea that all wars are started by gentlemen or aristocrats with options and we should have rules to incentivise them away from the risky inhumane options to the plain inhumane ones. Or that once a war is started the "idea of the various ways in which one might end them" actually holds up in reality after the enemy get their vote. I honestly tell you that if someone invaded my country in the manner of Russia with indiscriminate killing and bombardment of cities literally threatening the survival of those I care about then I will not give a toss what any convention says - what good does obeying a rule someone made up if I/my-loved-ones am/are dead? And at that point, bio/nuke/any-weapons become an option - the rules be damned. I very much know that I shouldn't be trusted with such calls.
    - rightbyte 2y ago
      > I will not give a toss what any convention says - what good does obeying a rule someone made up if I/my-loved-ones am/are dead? Essentially the sunk cost fallacy. Making victims drag other down with them is like 101 Keeping The War Machine Going. Furthermore 'war mongerers without borders' cooperate for atrocities to get out of control. At some point however the victims will blame their elite instead of the elite their elite blame. Also, you usually don't lose everyone you care for in one blow. Losing half of your children might decrease the wish to lose the other half for some people.

Animats 2y ago

> I'm not sure medevac is still a thing. Not the way it was for US troops from Vietnam to Afghanistan. Getting injured people out of the combat zone is much tougher. The combat zone is deeper. The first kilometer is now about as tough as it was before helicopters. Doing something major for a patient in the "golden hour" after injury is often not possible.[1] [1] https://journals.lww.com/journalacs/fulltext/2023/08000/putting_medical_boots_on_the_ground__lessons_from.31.aspx https://journals.lww.com/journalacs/fulltext/2023/08000/putt...

KineticLensman 2y ago
Yes. Western ops in Afghanistan and Iraq - where we had total airspace domination - exhibited a best case view of medevac - all the way up to mobile operating theatres in Chinooks flying to the point of need. A full-on high intensity conflict between peer adversaries would be nothing like this.

_carbyau_ 2y ago

I am always amazed by the sheer ego of the "Geneva conventions" or any other "rules of war". Maybe I don't understand how the mentality works but for me, once you are at the point you are killing people - and killing them in the thousands - you are already either crazily desperate and/or have a complete loss of empathy for your opposition. Once you are in this alien mindset, why would you pay attention to any "rules" that might limit your murderous psychopathy?!? And this worries me. Seeing the world increasingly brace itself for war I fear there will be someone who thinks COVID was a great trial run for a bioweapon. And that is my simple unimaginative first grab at horror. I am sure smarter minds than me can think up worse.

aebtebeten 2y ago
> why would you pay attention to any "rules" that might limit your murderous psychopathy The theory is, that as war is just a continuation of peace "by other means", one should not start wars without having an idea of the various ways in which one might end them, and (as the NSDP discovered in 1945) it's a whole lot easier to end them if you haven't been doing war crimes (or "war crimes"; if you intend to end a war short of genocide*, de jure or de facto doesn't really matter) during them. (yes, I think we both agree that it'd be better to have a period instead of "without" after "one should not start wars", but if one allows for the existence of hawks, is it not better that they have some limits?) Which part do you consider sheer ego? The distinction between combatants and non-combatants, or the inclusion of medical personnel among the non-combatants? * compare Goebbels' Freudian slip in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportpalast_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportpalast_speech
- _carbyau_ 2y ago
  The sheer ego is in the idea that all wars are started by gentlemen or aristocrats with options and we should have rules to incentivise them away from the risky inhumane options to the plain inhumane ones. Or that once a war is started the "idea of the various ways in which one might end them" actually holds up in reality after the enemy get their vote. I honestly tell you that if someone invaded my country in the manner of Russia with indiscriminate killing and bombardment of cities literally threatening the survival of those I care about then I will not give a toss what any convention says - what good does obeying a rule someone made up if I/my-loved-ones am/are dead? And at that point, bio/nuke/any-weapons become an option - the rules be damned. I very much know that I shouldn't be trusted with such calls.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    > I will not give a toss what any convention says - what good does obeying a rule someone made up if I/my-loved-ones am/are dead? Essentially the sunk cost fallacy. Making victims drag other down with them is like 101 Keeping The War Machine Going. Furthermore 'war mongerers without borders' cooperate for atrocities to get out of control. At some point however the victims will blame their elite instead of the elite their elite blame. Also, you usually don't lose everyone you care for in one blow. Losing half of your children might decrease the wish to lose the other half for some people.