Rules Of War

[Big Guy]

The OP is making an assumption that such a thing exists as rules of war. I have placed this reference into another thread but I think it may be more appropriate here;

As part of its war, ISIS has created a "computer hackers" division whose job is to investigate the uses of the new technologies in its current war against the coalition of the ...... of which we are part.

They have located and published the names, addresses, phone numbers and photographs of people in the American Air Force and Navy. They are encouraging and "lone wolves" in the USA to take out these folks if they get a chance.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/21/us-mideast-crisis-threat-idUSKBN0MH0QQ20150321

Dropping bombs from a few thousand feet, expecting no resistance and maintaining your anonymity as part of a coalition is one thing. Dropping those bombs and having your name, address (and where your family lives) and photograph published on the Internet is another.

Fighting on the ground, killing and being killed used to be the end of the battle for individuals but now their families can be brought into it.

Is it "fair game" to publish that kind of information on the Internet during a time of war. The closest thing that I can equate that to in the past is the use of spies to target certain individuals from the opposing side.

In the past, if you were involved in a war and it was "over there" then you could be certain that the folks at home were safe. But with the new technologies and the ability to crack data bases your involvement in a conflict can be publicized on the Internet.

I understand that we have been using technologies from drones to communication intercepting devices to gain intelligence on our enemies. Is it then "fair" for them to use these same technologies against us?

Is it "fair" to bring families of those fighting into the conflict?

Edited March 22, 2015 by Big Guy

[Guest]

If an ISIS operative targeted a drone pilot with every intention of killing said pilot without incurring other casualties, I don't see how there could be a complaint, even if there were other casualties.

The only complaint would come from those who complain about collateral damage in other theatres.

Of course, if said operative killed the pilot's family just to get even I would have a problem with it.

Edited March 22, 2015 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

The drone operators, from what I've read, are desk jockeys working inside the US. They could easily go home after their shift and live with their families.

Would you really be ok with people targeting them in American cities ?

[Guest]

It depends what you mean by ok. The OP asked if it would be fair. As I am ok with drones striking the enemy, with a chance that there could be innocent lives lost, I can hardly complain if the same applies over here.

Of course, then I would be ok with any escalation my side decides upon to prevent it happening again.

Edited March 22, 2015 by bcsapper

[Big Guy]

When I read this announcement about the posting of names I felt a chill go down my back. A few years ago I read a novel of "fiction" by Nelson Demille called "The Lion's Game". The story was about a person who as a young man had his whole family killed by an American air strike on Libya against Gaddafi. The Americans missed Gaddafi but the young mans family was "collateral damage."

It took him a few years but he found out the names and addresses of all the pilots involved in that attack, came to the United States and systematically picked off the now mostly retired pilots - and some family members as "collateral damage". The book was on the best seller list and I remember wondering if something like that could ever happen. Looks like it can.

And if it did what would be an "escalation" on our part?

Edited March 22, 2015 by Big Guy

[Guest]

Well, Charles Bronson did it in Death Wish. If I remember rightly it was all collateral damage.

[Derek 2.0]

I think the story referenced in the OP is both overstating the threat, well also acknowledging a type of threat that is hardly new........The concept of force protection for a military has been a shared and practiced concept for centuries......The Romans practiced it for their Legion's baggage caravans against rearguard actions by various barbarian groups several thousand years ago........Likewise, the Canadian Armed Forces practiced it in the 70s & 80s against threats posed by radical Communist terror groups in Germany, continuing into the 90s with threats from the Saddam regime during Desert Shield/Storm, and further increasing protection through the War on Terror, from the USS Cole bombing upwards to last Fall's attacks.

As mentioned in the OP article though, said Service Members names were pulled from media articles, no databases were hacked, as the Americans, like most Western Forces, limit information that could be accessed through the civilian internet.

Aside from nuclear weapons, military families from Western Forces living in military housing are safer statistically then average citizens.......not to say there shouldn't be prudent steps taken......

As to moral implications..........meh, if given the chance, said groups would kill as many non-believing citizens as possible.

[Big Guy]

To Derek 2.0 - Thank you for the civil reply. I do not disagree with anything you have stated since they are conditions of the past. With social media over the last few years it is getting easier and easier to obtain information about military personnel - from facebook, to coverage of departures to biographies in Canadian Legions and American veterans groups.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think the story referenced in the OP is both overstating the threat, well also acknowledging a type of threat that is hardly new........

Agreed.....statistically, military service members past and present face more threats from domestic actions/actors with regard to "collateral damage" revenge killings. Anyone who has served in the armed forces can relate basic conflict with civilians who resent military service and missions directed by the very government they elected.

Questions about fairness are moot and irrelevant.

[Guest]

And if it did what would be an "escalation" on our part?

Sorry, missed this question. By escalation I meant whatever steps my side considers necessary to stem the threat. I wasn't suggesting details.

[Derek 2.0]

To Derek 2.0 - Thank you for the civil reply. I do not disagree with anything you have stated since they are conditions of the past. With social media over the last few years it is getting easier and easier to obtain information about military personnel - from facebook, to coverage of departures to biographies in Canadian Legions and American veterans groups.

Without a doubt the use of social media makes information more obtainable, but with that, new rules on what members can post/share from their personal accounts.......clearly some don't adhere to said rules, be it through negligence or (more likely) ignorance, but it returns to the adage of:

[Derek 2.0]

Agreed.....statistically, military service members past and present face more threats from domestic actions/actors with regard to "collateral damage" revenge killings. Anyone who has served in the armed forces can relate basic conflict with civilians who resent military service and missions directed by the very government they elected.

Questions about fairness are moot and irrelevant.

Right, but for the most part, domestically, indifference is the name of the game at home or support that is a mile wide, but an inch deep.

[Wilber]

Wars aren't supposed to be fair. What kind of idiot goes to war wanting a fair fight?

[Bob Macadoo]

Wars aren't supposed to be fair. What kind of idiot goes to war wanting a fair fight?

...well the British kinda did in that whole 1776 thing.....big mistake.

[Wilber]

...well the British kinda did in that whole 1776 thing.....big mistake.

No they kinda didn't, they didn't think it would be fair at all and they were right. They just got the winner wrong. Warfare is about trying to gain an advantage then exploiting it. Not fairness.

[Derek 2.0]

...well the British kinda did in that whole 1776 thing.....big mistake.

Not so much as "fair", but implementing the tactics of war from Continental Europe, be it through Redcoats or European mercenaries......The "American" forces, due in part to its smaller size and less modern (and shortages of) weaponry were forced to counter by using differing tactics........of course, as the Americans advanced in the decades ahead, the same tactics used by the British, were also used by the Americans through to the First World War.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[Bob Macadoo]

Not so much as "fair", but implementing the tactics of war from Continental Europe, be it through Redcoats or European mercenaries......The "American" forces, due in part to its smaller size and less modern (and shortages of) weaponry were forced to counter by using differing tactics........of course, as the Americans advanced in the decades ahead, the same tactics used by the British, were also used by the Americans through to the First World War.

....yeah what you said....

[Wilber]

Not so much as "fair", but implementing the tactics of war from Continental Europe, be it through Redcoats or European mercenaries......The "American" forces, due in part to its smaller size and less modern (and shortages of) weaponry were forced to counter by using differing tactics........of course, as the Americans advanced in the decades ahead, the same tactics used by the British, were also used by the Americans through to the First World War.

The British found out what the Americans found out in Viet Nam. They could control the cities but not the countryside so winning the war was not possible.

[eyeball]

Wars aren't supposed to be fair. What kind of idiot goes to war wanting a fair fight?

Joe Public, if the moral gymnastics politicians perform are anything to judge by.

[Guest]

War is like anything else. Business, politics, cards. It's as fair as you want it to be.

[Derek 2.0]

The British found out what the Americans found out in Viet Nam. They could control the cities but not the countryside so winning the war was not possible.

A little more to it then that........fighting the French, Spanish and Dutch during the same period was far more of a factor, fore if they weren't fighting three other "superpowers", the British could have hired even more Germans to fight the 13 colonies.......and the Americans would be speaking Canadian today

[Wilber]

A little more to it then that........fighting the French, Spanish and Dutch during the same period was far more of a factor, fore if they weren't fighting three other "superpowers", the British could have hired even more Germans to fight the 13 colonies.......and the Americans would be speaking Canadian today

A lesson in not getting involved in too many wars at once. Hasn't stopped others from doing it since.

[GostHacked]

The drone operators, from what I've read, are desk jockeys working inside the US. They could easily go home after their shift and live with their families.

Would you really be ok with people targeting them in American cities ?

Why not? Do we have a problem with drones attacking people in cities in foreign countries?

[Big Guy]

I would assume that a question might arise about the hijacking of airplanes and carnage in New York on 9/11.

Was this an outrageous terrorists murder of innocent thousands of people or was this an act of war? Bin Laden, I believe had declared war on America. Is it an act of war to hijack enemy aircraft and fly them into buildings? Is it the same moral equivalent of our aircraft bombing buildings which we know are occupied by civilians in Iraq and Libya?

How about the Japanese "sneak" attack on Pearl Harbor?

How about the Israeli bombers dropping bombs on residential buildings in Gaza knowing that civilians were living there?

How about the American bombers dropping nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki knowing that they will kill hundreds of thousands of civilians?

We have had plenty of anti-Israeli threads already and I hope this does not morph into one.

My question is just what are the rules of war?

Are there any?

Does the end justify the means?

[bush_cheney2004]

"Rules of war" is an oxymoron.