On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:25:45 -0400, Celejar wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:03:00 +0000 (UTC) Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> ..nukes will often (but not always) be illegal for precisely that >> reason, _excessive_ collateral damage, "a little is ok", a few other >> kindsa weapons are banned for more, I'd say moralistic reasons, e.g. >> poison gas, dum-dum bullets etc, as are mercenaries. >> >> ..arguing how they _should_ be, is completely different to arguing >> against or for the language or the spirit in the Conventions. ;o) > > Fair enough. My point still stands, though, that using WP to kill enemy > soldiers is not, per se, illegal.
..actually, it is, if there are other and more human means to accomplish the same military job|objective|gain etc, Article 35 in Protocol I has roots in rules against dum-dum bullets, grenades smaller than 40mm, poison gas etc, the purpose is to promote peace by setting up rules to promote maximizing the military gain while minimizing suffering to those rendered hors de combat, this will usually leave combattants less hateful and more open to peace. ..even killing the enemy is illegal if you can "just" wound him to put him out of the war, the most effective way is have your snipers plink femurs at balls height. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
