Humane Concerns Crippling our Army?

[razorraven]

Hello Fellow Newgrounders,I was just watching a show on the B2 bomber and its cluster bombing missions.It prompted me to look up the wide array of cluster bombs used(normal,incendiary,ect ect)
in the bombing raids through out various wars.With wikipedia's many links I soon found a list of "inhumane" weapons and battle tactics that had been abrogated through legislation.It included your run of the mill controversial things such as incendiaries,land mines,cluster bombing,and more primitive things such as booby-traps,ect.Anyways these methods of combat were done away with because the were seen as "inhumane",but how humane is any paraphernalia used to commit murder in the name of war?With that being said,one could make the argument that this futile fight for humanity in an inhumane prospect is limiting our methods in which to defeat an enemy who shares no such conscience,or concerns.An enemy who wouldn't hesitate to go to any extreme to exert their whim,in hopes of gaining a dominant edge.Through showing servant concern and compassion towards such a remorseless,psychotic foe, we may have given some form of advantage to an enemy that would unhesitanly;and by any means,destroy us with no thoughts to the humanity in which they did the deed.

[hrb5711]

The wars now are fought through the media. With embedded reporters, 24/7 news, and online sites that can get news from the war zone to your house in seconds. Civilians can now see the horrors of war, something they don't know how to and can't handle. They get to see the carnage and death through there computers and tvs while eating dinner.

While I can say during my time in Iraq we make every effort to be humane. We won't win this war by killing insurgents, you kill one and then their brother, father, friend join the insurgency. We are trying to win over the people and provide them with security, power, water, etc. So we must be seen as humane even though the enemy is anything but. This does cause us to have to change tactics, such as insurgents shooting RPGs from a school, we can't just call in arty and blow it the fuck up. Instead we have to clear the school room by room losing more Marines in the process. It is the more humane way though because none or few civilians get hurt.

We are also not allowed to use some of our weapons system, as you stated, because they cause unnecessary pain and suffering. So it does limit us in many ways, as it takes away better tactics and weapons, letting us look more humane but losing more service members.

In the end we must take the moral high ground over the enemy and put being humane in front of our own safety. So it does limit us, but I think the benefits out weigh the cost.

[CrazyRussianSniper]

Dude youd be complaining about inhumane tatics if you were a legless civillian.

[hrb5711]

At 7/17/08 12:27 AM, CrazyRussianSniper wrote: Dude youd be complaining about inhumane tatics if you were a legless civillian.

We try our best and sacrifice to keep civilians safe, including putting ourselves in more danger to keep them safe.

And most of the civilians getting killed over there are from insurgent attacks. Not from coalition action.

[evil-clown-12]

At 7/16/08 11:23 PM, razorraven wrote: a remorseless,psychotic foe, we may have given some form of advantage to an enemy that would unhesitanly;and by any means,destroy us with no thoughts to the humanity in which they did the deed.

Your mistake is in assuming that you are fighting evil. Remember that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

[Elfer]

We tend to ban weapons that kill more civilians than combatants. They're not considered inhumane because they're a nasty way to die, they're considered inhumane because they frequently kill people who were minding their own damn business.

For example, 98% of casualties from cluster bombs are civilians.

If you really wanted to wipe out all of your enemies in a given area, why not just use nuclear weapons?

[callofdutyfreak]

At 7/17/08 09:22 AM, Elfer wrote:

If you really wanted to wipe out all of your enemies in a given area, why not just use nuclear weapons?

holy crap because there are never only enemies in an area large enough to nuke without killing a shit load of civilians... but anyway i really don't think we should lower ourselves to the insurgents level to fight them because then we arent any different then they are. As it was stated earlier by the marine we have to try our best to protect innocent live in the war zone- we can't just call in the big guns in the middle of a city without FUBAR all the civilians in the area, which im told, isnt a good thing.

[Elfer]

At 7/17/08 10:04 AM, callofdutyfreak wrote:

At 7/17/08 09:22 AM, Elfer wrote:

If you really wanted to wipe out all of your enemies in a given area, why not just use nuclear weapons?

holy crap because there are never only enemies in an area large enough to nuke without killing a shit load of civilians...

Yes I know, that's the point I was making. If you're going to use weapons that kill a very large amount of civilians, you might as well just be bombing everything. I'm not arguing in favour of this sort of tactic.

[Gunter45]

At 7/17/08 09:22 AM, Elfer wrote: We tend to ban weapons that kill more civilians than combatants. They're not considered inhumane because they're a nasty way to die, they're considered inhumane because they frequently kill people who were minding their own damn business.

For example, 98% of casualties from cluster bombs are civilians.

If you really wanted to wipe out all of your enemies in a given area, why not just use nuclear weapons?

It's not even just that. In this day and age, we can decide the exact pore on a person we want to drop a bomb on. Our munitions are getting so much more precise and it's not just because it minimizes civilian casualties. Using precision munitions, we increase the effectiveness of our attacks by enormous margins. Carpet bombing is just getting less and less viable. After all, a bomb dropped on a civilian is a bomb that's not dropped on an enemy.

Using more precise munitions doesn't hinder our military. We would be moving in this direction whether or not killing civilians was a concern. It's simply a matter of efficiency.

[hrb5711]

At 7/17/08 09:22 AM, Elfer wrote: We tend to ban weapons that kill more civilians than combatants. They're not considered inhumane because they're a nasty way to die, they're considered inhumane because they frequently kill people who were minding their own damn business.

For example, 98% of casualties from cluster bombs are civilians.

If you really wanted to wipe out all of your enemies in a given area, why not just use nuclear weapons?

So flamethrowers, hollow points, white phosphorus injure civilians? No. While yes we do ban some weapons that kill civilians, the ones that affect us the most are the ones they ban for use on combatants.

And nuclear weapons is a ridiculous solution to killing your enemy, even if you don't care about civilians in the area. You want to keep the infrastructure as intact as possible so you can use it. There are a lot of other factors with nuclear munitions, but that isn't for this topic.

[Gunter45]

At 7/17/08 03:16 PM, hrb5711 wrote: So flamethrowers, hollow points, white phosphorus injure civilians? No. While yes we do ban some weapons that kill civilians, the ones that affect us the most are the ones they ban for use on combatants.

I believe the phrase "tend to" implies that there are exceptions.

[adrshepard]

I would disagree with hrb5711 on most of what he says, though I can't say I've served in the military. He is right that wars are fought through the media, and I would expand this to say that the American public, not logisitics, strategies, or enemies, is the greatest liability for any US campaign.

Look at Iraq. A hated dictator toppled, an incorrect but widely agreed upon basis for invasion, billions of dollars spent in precision weaponry and technology to protect US forces, an extremely low casualty rate (Only 5-some casualties from 70 attacks daily before the surge!), and yet this war is incredibly unpopular because the public nowadays only accepts bloodless, cheap conflicts. US citizens, whatever can be said about their education, productivity, or entrepeneurism, have no fortitude when it comes to these situations.

That being said, less humane combat would totally work, so long as the target is not a complete defeat and change of lifestyle. If there were to be a WW2 style air campaign against Iran, it wouldn't matter how many people decided to become terrorists or how far oil prices rose; they would capitulate if the terms were the cessation of nuclear research and support for terrorism. Several dozen thousands of Iranians would be killed, their military lacks the capability to defend the country against aerial attack, and with only one policy choice to be altered for a cease-fire, it would not be long before Iran sued for peace.

But we can't do that because the public cares too much about morals and values regarding the lives of completely remote strangers than for the success of the country that has given them everything. People may fear nationalism because of Hitler or the kamikazes, but it is important to realize that it is only dangerous when countries overestimate their capabilities. Germany could not hope to fully takeover the Soviet Union, while Japan could not match the capability of the United States. Our country right now is far more powerful relatively than either of those nations were then, and while we probably couldn't take on the entire world, I think we could handle any small goat-herder Middle-Eastern nation.

[callofdutyfreak]

i don't know... goats are pretty deadly when used properly

[Jaketheclonetrooper]

At 7/17/08 03:16 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

So flamethrowers, hollow points, white phosphorus injure civilians? No. While yes we do ban some weapons that kill civilians, the ones that affect us the most are the ones they ban for use on combatants.

Wait, hollow points are banned now?

Flamethrowers and White Phosphorus still cause a lot of collateral damage, and they probably won't be much use in today's era anyway.

[adrshepard]

Hollow points are banned internationally because they cause really bad wounds from flattening on impact. But domestically, it's perfectly legal and SWAT teams use them all the time.

[callofdutyfreak]

hollow points are stupid on a battlefield anyway. You need FMJ rounds to go through cover and body armor and hollow points just wont cut it. Domestic police forces on the other hand, need a good bit of damage done to bring the target down without cauing alot of collateral damage.

[Shaggytheclown17]

Granted if these "terrorists" actually tried to invade us, the 9/11 attacks were not linked to the war or Osama Binladen at all as our government admits.
The reason for this war they say was Sadam and stabalizing Iraq, they said before there were nuclear weapons there, now saying they may be "pursuing" nuclear weapons.

In this situation I'd say the old saying is true, the best way to combat violence is be as nice as you can to those committing the violence, doing violence back will only encourage them.

Also our army is crippled either way, not becausde of our humanity, they barely supply the troops at all, they have to purchase the supplies themselves also at bullshit prices, a stupid gym bag to a soldier is like 40$
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the government doesn't want to protect our troops or us for that matter, they want us to die.

[Idiot-Finder]

At 7/21/08 03:48 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

You should take some time off.

[ThePretenders]

At 7/21/08 03:49 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 7/21/08 03:48 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

You should take some time off.

He should stop taking crack because he's whacked out of his mind.

[fli]

No war is humaine...
but, there are certainly degrees of it.

Bombs and gases maim and kill several peoples without any descrimintion.
With guns at least...

You can aim at a combatant, and if an aimless bullet goes around randomly... it's harm only few people (and there's a chance that it can miss some innocent person altogether.)

If wars need to be fought... let's at least leave out the massive stuff like bombs.

[hrb5711]

At 7/21/08 05:06 PM, fli wrote: If wars need to be fought... let's at least leave out the massive stuff like bombs.

Without bombs though some operations or even wars wouldn't be winnable. No bombs would lead to a dramatically higher rate of death military service members. If you do it by which kills more people, conventional bombs kill less people then not having bombs at all. It takes 1 bomb to kill 3 "combatants" in a house while it would take 3 military members to kill those same three combatants leaving 6 people dead instead of just 3.

[SHIT-TANK]

I understand where you comming from " All in fair in love and War" and all but the thing is were trying to lead by example here.

Just because our enemy is willing to stap bombs to themselves and blows themselves up does not mean we need to stoop to their level. War is bad enough without children and innocents dieing for no reason.

[Blackhawkdown]

At 7/19/08 10:44 AM, Jaketheclonetrooper wrote:

At 7/17/08 03:16 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

So flamethrowers, hollow points, white phosphorus injure civilians? No. While yes we do ban some weapons that kill civilians, the ones that affect us the most are the ones they ban for use on combatants.

Wait, hollow points are banned now?

Flamethrowers and White Phosphorus still cause a lot of collateral damage, and they probably won't be much use in today's era anyway.

Nope, we can still use hollow points, we still use white phosphorus; and while we don't use flamethrowers it's not because of any sort of ban, but because it the DoD decided it wasn't necessary any more. As far as hollow points are concerned, yeah there's a treaty that banned them, did we sign that treaty? Hell no, but we follow it anyway, for the most part. They're not really useful in most battlefield situations thought a SOF have been known to use them.

I wouldn't be so worried about our use of weapons causing the deaths of our troops then the media inadvertently causing the death of soldiers. A lot of guys in the military are on edge and can't do their job right because they're afraid the media will start labeling them murders if they screw up. I just recently heard a story about this from somebody who was over there, I'll see if I can't dig up the story's details and post them here.

[zekeet]

Things are not that black and white.... it is all shades of gray..... cluster bombs kill the enemy, yes. and they kill non-combatant civilians that are needed to rebuild the country so it would be counter productive to use cluster bombs

[MultiCanimefan]

The very fact that we have rules on how to conduct war (Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the Geneva Protocol) and what war crimes are (Nuremberg Principles) leads me to believe that Humane Concerns are concerns nonetheless. War may be bloody, savage, destructive and not to mention inhumane, but we still appear to be stuck in a paradox of some kind: War is inhumane, yet we developed humane ways of fighting it, all gentlemen like.

[Jaketheclonetrooper]

At 7/22/08 12:19 AM, Blackhawkdown wrote:

they're afraid the media will start labeling them murders if they screw up. I just recently heard a story about this from somebody who was over there, I'll see if I can't dig up the story's details and post them here.

This is one of the most messed up things today, not only with military forces but also police.

Since when do you get criticized for doing your job? Why does the media say it's part of a cop's job to get punched and beaten but it's police brutality when they hit back?

[Jormundgandr]

At 7/22/08 07:29 AM, Jaketheclonetrooper wrote:

At 7/22/08 12:19 AM, Blackhawkdown wrote:

they're afraid the media will start labeling them murders if they screw up. I just recently heard a story about this from somebody who was over there, I'll see if I can't dig up the story's details and post them here.

This is one of the most messed up things today, not only with military forces but also police.

Since when do you get criticized for doing your job? Why does the media say it's part of a cop's job to get punched and beaten but it's police brutality when they hit back?

Because when you're in the police or the military, you're supposed to be held to a standard higher than what you would hold an average person to, especially when they're on the job. Police certainly have to use violent force in a variety of situations they could potentially be exposed to, but they're also expected to know how to restrain themselves from using more force than what is absolutely necessary. When someone in the military kills a civilian, it's no less murder than if some who isn't in the military does.

[adrshepard]

At 7/22/08 07:56 AM, Jormundgandr wrote: Because when you're in the police or the military, you're supposed to be held to a standard higher than what you would hold an average person to, especially when they're on the job. Police certainly have to use violent force in a variety of situations they could potentially be exposed to, but they're also expected to know how to restrain themselves from using more force than what is absolutely necessary. When someone in the military kills a civilian, it's no less murder than if some who isn't in the military does.

I think most people would think it reasonable to give more benefit of the doubt for someone's discretion who could be in immediate danger of having his head blown off rather than to a civilian who lives in peace. You want a perfectly objective, calm-headed soldier that always follows the rules, get one of those little robots. Otherwise, realize that shit happens in war and it may not be anyone's fault.

[SmilezRoyale]

Humane concerns clamping down on advancements in military Technology = Bad in most cases

Humane concerns clamping down on old forms of military technology as well as new ones that work with collateral damage = Fine

Modern warfare is about precision IMO, not a quest to create the most powerfull explosive.

[TonyTostieno]

At 7/21/08 03:24 PM, callofdutyfreak wrote: hollow points are stupid on a battlefield anyway. You need FMJ rounds to go through cover and body armor and hollow points just wont cut it. Domestic police forces on the other hand, need a good bit of damage done to bring the target down without cauing alot of collateral damage.

And what if there's only some cover and no body armor? FMJ can punch through things and that's awesome if you want to hit someone who's behind light cover, but that's the problem, it punches straight through causing much less damage then it would if, like a hollow point, it mushroomed out and just bounced around inside the body.

But I'm not going to disagree with you, against targets who can and do get a hold of body armor and some good cover, which is what is normally faced in battlefield conditions, FMJ is definitely much better. But, do most of the terrorists even have body armor?