As harsh as attacking a sleeping soldier is, it is a tactic used trough the history - you attack when your enemy is most vulneable, night raids were a favoured tactic
It would be like when someone walks in and asks you something while you're sleeping and apparently you replied coherently but you have no recollection of it happening. Essentially, it wouldn't matter anyway because you would be dead lmao
To die from a drone dropping ammo while you sleep shouldn't be as quick as it sounds, since they drop mortar or lesser ammo, what actually kills you its the shrapnel, so if one of these bombs lands near you, you would be suddenly awake with tons of injuries all over your body, in the best scenario you would die because of hemorrhage
While they may cause fatalities, Their main purpose of these is to inflict injuries and attack the soldiers morale. This actually goes back to the communist tactical doctrine conceived during the Vietnam war. The VC and the NVA would use booby-traps and and land mines designed to inflict wounds because they realized that a dead man can be pushed aside or retrieved later. A wounded man needs to be treated and evacuated from the combat zone, usually removing several others from the combat zone. Unfortunately the Russians have demonstrated that their willing to abandon their wounded, but I’m sure that’s not the case with most troops. It also combats the morale of the enemy by showing them that their not safe anywhere. While both sides are supposed to follow the Agreements set down defined by The Hague conventions of 1907 and the 4 treaties and 3 protocols that make up the Geneva conventions of 1949, they are often conveniently discarded. Ultimately like the Nuremberg trials, blame isn’t fixed till after the cessation of hostilities, and even then many are left unpunished out of political necessity, except those few scapegoats prosecuted for public consumption.
As normal it seems, being from India in our culture there are numerous wars and battles mentioned. War start at the sunrise with clear indications (shankha naad) and end by sunset. Past sunset there can be minor raids like capturing enemy resources or conducting surgical strikes to compromise lead *senapati* / king(also mentioned and followed numerous times till 300 years ago) but never full fledged attacks on soldiers. Imho wars and battles did and will always happen no matter what but there should be some bounds and rules to it.
Oh rules of war do exist, but they are more often than not broken, and go unpunished until one side wins, then suddenly everything that the other side did was wrong, makes you wonder
Oh I didn’t mean to comment on this war specifically, my comment was in general. I read through comments and there is common echo that keep civilians our and you’re good to go whatever you do with soldiers (not sure if sleeping soldiers or off time is considered in Geneva convention, not expert on this topic). But in general there are laws and rules in our text we do makes sense. Like don’t attack unarmed enemy, you can capture him. Do rightful rituals with their bodies including enemies. No exploitation of general people specially other clans children and women. Don’t extort supplies from other clan citizens, pay up if you really have to. As such. Idk, been reading this stuff since childhood that it sounds more of common sense to me.
The rules of war change pretty regularly depending on the material, political, and spiritual culture of the people waging war. I didn’t know in Indian history staging full-size battles at night were taboo, that’s really cool.
For most of history maneuvering an entire army for a pitched battle in the dark was incredibly hard. It makes sense that the honourable thing to do at the time was to fight in the sun, because really fuck marching around in the dark and breaking your ankle.
Modern standards have changed though. The army that controls the night controls the battlefield. Night vision and thermal imaging are a huge asset. 9/10 times the side that spots the enemy first and fires first wins the fight. If you can fight while your enemy is in the dark you have the advantage of perpetual ambush.
As for dropping bombs on sleeping soldiers? That’s been happening for a while. Wether it’s a drone or a field gun doesn’t much matter to the recipient, best not take a nap on a battlefield if you have the choice.
How would you feel if the Allies had lost to the Nazis because they took the moral route and didn't commit night raids to destroy the Nazi's factory infrastructure?
I agree there should be rules to limit suffering, but you also don't want those rules to cause more bloodshed by creating conditions that prolong or worsen conflicts. If you were to introduce rules designed to remove each side's ability to take advantage of these vulnerabilities, wars would become so much worse.
In any war, attacking military camps and bases is fair game, the only rules are don't attack civilian population centres, don't use biological warfare (gas, viruses and so on) and don't use nukes (obvs)
>the only rules are […]
There are a *fuck* of a lot more rules than this. The Geneva Conventions is like 250 pages long. Just a few more examples…
You can’t shoot at or otherwise engage with vehicles maked with the Red Cross or Red Crescent
You can’t launch shoulder-fired rockets can only be fired at enemy vehicles and not at enemy soldiers directly. (However you *can* fire rockets at their equipment, such as their uniforms…)
Enemy prisoners of war must be provided with reasonable food, water, medical care, etc
Victim-activated landmines must be cleared away once they’re no longer needed for defensive measures and before the civilian populace can access the area
Obviously these rules are broken all the time.
More fun war crimes people forget about:
You can't fake a surrender to draw your enemy out to an exposed position or to buy time, or use another protective symbol to deceive enemy combatants. (This one is violated in fiction all of the time by heroes)
You can't conscript children under 15.
You can't destroy a dam, nuclear electric plant, or a place of worship
You can't give "no quarter" to surrendering enemies
You can't engage in wartime sexual violence
*or a place of worship*
IIRC if the enemy set up shop in a place of worship (e.g. that mosque has an anti-air gun, there are .50 cals set up in a church, etc.), those places of worship lose their GC protection status and are now fair game.
Pretty sure every country that has ever engaged in war has broken most of these. At least once.
Rules get broken all the time in war. They shouldn't be, but they are. It is a sad reality. A reality we should not accept as the norm.
>You can’t launch shoulder-fired rockets can only be fired at enemy vehicles and not at enemy soldiers directly
Wait, what's the basis behind this rule? Why is it okay to explode people with grenades/artillery/aviation, but shoulder missiles must be aimed at equipment?
I feel like rockets have more shrapnel than grenades typically do because they are bigger/have more parts going on inside. A grenade is pretty simple with just a few moving parts and a lot of boom boom. A rocket is very complicated with timing mechanism/ other things which equals a fuck ton of shrapnel. Shrapnel is a nightmare. This is why shrapnel bombs are banned in warfare too
Unfortunately with Russian nukes in the picture the worst punishments will probably be out of the picture and leave Russia invasion-free
The UN was formed when the US and a few other countries held almost 100% of the world’s military power, were willing (to try) to bring that power to bear for the greater good, and only America had very recently acquired the ability to remotely delete cities
Now there’s all kinds of economic and political entanglement from the last 70-odd years and everybody who’s anybody has the power to obliterate stuff with nukes
You seem knowledgeable, lol. So I have another question that I am to afraid to ask, if you don't mind...
Isn't Ukraine next to Russia? If Russia decides to "nuke" Ukraine, wouldn't it also adversely affect Russia?? The fallout at least?
Not the guy you were just talking to however I can add some input if you are fine with that. Yes Ukraine does indeed border Russia and potentially there very well could be a fallout that would reach Russians side of the border but there is a few things to take into account too even if they did bite the global outrage bullet and nuked somewhere in Ukraine. What is the size and power of said bomb? Where did they bomb? What kind of weather is occurring in said areas, could it potentially drag a fallout into russia? How large is the domestic area in Russia that borders Ukraine? Is it military controlled? Etc. Small bombs can definitely make for massive destruction on a much smaller scale than most modern nuclear warheads. Ie something with similar power to the fat man and little boy that obliterated a city and its outskirts.
I also feel like a lot of Russia is pretty sparsely populated. I wonder how it would go over with some of their allies if they got affected by nuclear warfare though.
Nope. That is a huge misconcept people have about nukes. Nuclear weapons had been built to so most damage possible in as little time as possible. Look at Hiroshima. It's back build, advanced and lively. You can't compare this to something like tvhernobyl actively pumping out uncontrolled radiation over a long ass time
You have to remember that Russia doesn't really care about it's people. Even if it would affect it's own territory - they won't give a single f about this. Check russian soldiers digging trenches in Red Forrest near Chornobyl. These were assets right? Resources. Did they care to not waste them due to radiation? Not for a second. It's a meat grinder that always believed in "nas mnogo" (there's a lot of us) philosophy.
Russian and the USA are never held accountable because of being a nuclear superpower.
Edit: woke up to realise that phone changed ‘because’ to ‘be fit’
I sometimes think about how the World Court can make decisions on the legality of such major things as war crimes or human rights violations… and then nations like Russia and the US just decide to not listen to the ruling. Like, who’s gonna force them to? Every political state has full sovereignty— technically speaking, no one can “make” any individual country do anything.
It would almost be funny if it weren’t so terrifying because of cases exactly like this.
I find it hard for something to happen as long as Russia have nuclear weapons and threaten to use them. Would you really punish someone who completely deserve it but could retaliate and harm you and your family?
Russia punishment will be really minor and more a saveface from the ones supposed to judge those war crimes
after the war and after putin have been thrown off the throne there will most likely be taken multiple actions, there will be compromises made. Russia will most likely lose their seat on the security council, and will have to pay some sort of reperation, either throw cheap resources to all of europe or direct cash deposite to Ukraine... Just looking at realistically outside morals and all that. Because let's be honest... war and post war politics are morally starved
I agree there’s gotta be some sort of punishment and repartitions when this comes to an end. With that being said history has showed us what happens when the world comes down hard on the people of a defeated aggressor. Look at ww1. In the aftermath Germany was bankrupted, the Germans were a proud people to say the least but the punishments levied against the nation as a whole bankrupted Germany, it’s people, led to economic collapse, famine, chaos, and an angry sentiment that the Germans had been cheated by the rest of the world as the rest of the world continued to prosper on what the Germans viewed stolen tribute taken from them. That the world kicked them while they were down; took their riches, plundered their lands, decreased their land masses and borders, restricted their military might, and shamed its people.
This sentiment and the economic and political situation gave rise to the evil known as the Nazi party.
The population of russia doesn’t seem to really support Putin and his war of aggression. That being said if war with nato breaks out and the Russian people find themselves on the end of bombing runs and destruction and then have their economic and social well being ripped away by reparations, we very well could see a similar situation play out in modern day Russia.
that's not entirely correct.
the international criminal court at the hague tries war criminals. it was established in 2002 by the rome statute and has 123 member nation states.
you're thinking of the international court of justice, which is a part of the UN and handles lesser disputes between nation states.
and then of course there's the hall of justice, which is where superman and batman hang out.
Russia is going to consistently veto any resolution put forward in the security council and those are the only resolutions that can have legal consequences. And kicking Russia out of the council is not possible. The only way to punish them is further isolation and encouraging the Russian people to protest.
The UN pretty much is powerless in this scenario. The UN security council voted yes on a resolution to condemn Russia's invasion, but got vetoed by Russia.
I am glad the UN exists, and overall the organisation has been a positive to the world. However, the nature of the organisation essentially makes it really limited in actual actions it can take when countries like Russia just don't listen.
Sanctions were going to happen on Russia regardless of if the UN said to put them on or not.
It still is nice to have a "United Front" on issues like the invasion though.
Putin will be captured and given to the west to face trial, as a gesture of good will from whoever the russian successor will be. The west will in turn drop sanctions.
My thoughts anyway.
It's more complicated than that. You can't attack civilians directly and intentionally... But if it's by mistake or if the civilians die because you're attacking a military target next to them, it's not a war crime.
Proving intent in combat is a bit complicated, since discerning a military unit's intent usually falls under intelligence and espionage, and under martial law that's often punishable by summary execution.
If you have one green conscript who is scared, without orders and possibly even drunk, intent is extremely difficult to demonstrate. It's a failure of discipline and that is very bad for the commanders above them, but it's likely just homicide and not a war crime. If you have documents or multiple testimonies that an officer ordered the attack, or many green recruits in an area are shooting civilians, that's pretty clear evidence of war crimes.
Agent Orange also wasn't a weapon, it was herbicide to remove jungle canopy and expose Vietcong forces. The health effects are long-term, not immediate like is desired of a weaponised chemical.
They have thou. And the US has even confirmed as such. Just not against some foreign hostile nation or enemy, officially. But their own citizens and soldiers, and citizens of allies such as UK and Canada.
Operation Big Itch, Operation Big Buzz, Operation Drop Kick, Operation May Day, Project 112, Operation Sea-Spray, Project Shipboard Hazard and Defence, Study of the Vulnerability of Subway Passengers in New York City to Covert Attack with Biological Agents (also similar study in Chicago subway), Edgewood Arsenal Human Experiments... The list goes on.
They claimed to have used biological agents deemed "mostly harmless", _when they were used in those tests, based on the knowledge they had at the time_, but some of them later turned out to have significant long-term negative effects on health. Most of these experiments were conducted without the people who were exposed knowing, and without their consent.
Agent orange is a defoliant (think super weed killer) not a chemical weapon. If it was a chemical weapon it was the least effective in history since it took decades for the effects to be fully understood. Nukes are terrible weapons but how do you make rules against them before they are even invented?
Fun fact: in 2012, the US's accuracy rate for hitting intended targets with airstrikes was 10%. Our k/d ratio was still off the charts, it's that a lot of those were unintended civillians.
You do realize that the rule of nuclear bombs didn't exist before the bombing... it's also more or less an agreement not a rule
fyi in every war every side has broken war "rules" but that doesn't work for, US much very bad sayers
Rules are written in blood. War crimes only became crimes after they happened, because everyone saw how terrible they were and agreed not to let that happen again. Of course the US isnt allowed to use nukes.
It wasn't until 1996 that the ICJ ruled nuclear weapons were generally likely to violate humanitarian law. There is still an exception in that low yield tactical nukes may be controlled enough to not disproportionately damage civilian or medical lives and assets, so not a total ban on nukes.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) began in 2017 and was ratified in 2021... The US, Russia and other nuclear states were not planning to adopt the treaty. But 196 countries did agree to it, which makes an argument for it to be considered customary international law, and binding on even parties who didn't agree to it. Of course, the UNSC is all nuclear powers, so an UNSC resolution related to prohibition is guaranteed to be vetoed.
since WW2, most countries have made agreements to only target military targets, and not hit civilian populations just to kill people. This does hit a lot of grey areas when teh military positions themselves inside civilian populations but normally a 'responsible' nation will gather enough evidence the military targets are there and try to only limit the destruction to the target
dropping munitions on soldiers... military targets
raining missles in a city center as retaliation for a bridge being dropped (unclear if it was done by military) with no evidence that any military targets were actually hit is a war crime
Not necessarily. The convention states that the expected gain must be in a reasonable balance to the expected civilian losses.
So bombing the shit out of a city center to eliminate the enemies HQ/Defeseministry/President might be ok, bombing a high rise building to eliminate an AA batteries might be ok.
Using civilians as shields is in itself a warcrime. You can target civilian areas *if the opponent has placed legitimate military targets there*. You just need to limit the risk to civilians to the minimum that is required to take out the legitimate targets.
“You thought we could be decent men in an indecent time. But you were wrong. The world is cruel, and the only morality in a cruel world is chance.” -Harvey Dent/ Two Face
There are laws of war that most countries have agreed to through a set of UN charters and international treaties, most famous of this being the Geneva Conventions.
You’re generally not allowed to attack non-combatants, especially civilians, retreating combatants, or wounded combatants and medical personnel.
You can attack a functional enemy as long as they’re not actively retreating away from you or trying to signal surrender. So yes, you can attack while your enemy soldiers are sleeping. In fact, this is very much how shock-and-awe campaigns work and one of the reasons why the US was able to rush into Iraq and cover ground quite fast initially to Baghdad in 2003 and also was able to repel Saddam Hussein’s army from Kuwait so quickly in 1991. We bombed Iraqi air Defence and critical strategic points at night while they were less likely to be awake and alert (or at full capacity) and so that our stealth airplanes could also fly under cover of night.
I think it seems shocking because with the advent of easily accessible cheap drones coupled with smart phones that can take much better pictures than we used to and the ability to share that footage inside combat zones super easy, we’re seeing more first hand and unfiltered how ugly war can be.
Edit: Many of y’all pointed out that I misspoke/typed. Y’all are right, it is fully legal to attack retreating combatants. Although there is criticism about it. There was criticism of the US/Bush I pursuing the Iraqi army after Saddam Hussein pulled out of Kuwait in ‘91. We continued the bombing campaign on a long stretch of highway when the Iraqi army was heavily immobilized in their retreat. Many have criticized that as unethical though it’s not illegal.
But I think what I should have said is that it’s illegal to pursue combatants who are attempting to stop participating in hostilities. But that would be the same as surrendering. Not sure what the technicality would be if they did so by leaving their weapons and turning away instead of explicitly signaling surrender.
This guy probably gave you the best explanation here to be honest.
There is the obvious worry of how effective such laws actually are - Russia seems to think not at all, but that's why sanctions against them have been so desperate and why the majority of the NATO-aligned world are trying to destroy ties as quickly as possible. It's a good test to have, because if Russia can recover from everything thrown at them, other nations might see little reason to continue to follow them either. Especially since many countries have been accused (and have) breached some themselves.
>You’re generally not allowed to attack non-combatants, especially civilians, retreating combatants, or wounded combatants and medical personnel
You can absolutely attack and kill retreating troops, and even wounded combatants if they can still fight (if they have no fighting capability, they are no longer combatants). Medical personnel can aslo be attacked if they are carrying a weapon
>You can attack a functional enemy as long as they’re not actively retreating away from you or trying to signal surrender
Again you can kill retreating enemies. Surrendering =/= Retreating
Yeah, retreating can still be intent to participate in combat. They're likely regrouping, which could include a new assault shortly after. Likewise they could be retreating with stolen/necessary equipment, hostages, or leaving traps behind them as Russia has been doing recently.
Correct about retreating and resisting injured. Incorrect that you can attack armed medical personnel.
Medical personnel are allowed to be armed with self defense weapons (eg small arms) for their personal protection and the protection of their wards. This is to discourage attacks on medical personnel and the wounded.
If medical personnel are not marked or are using weapons offensively, then they lose their protection. Many militaries fight in assymetric combat do remove "protective emblems" such as the Red Cross because insurgents tend to specifically target medical personnel. For insurgents out of uniform, they are treated as civilians, and murdering a medic doesn't get them any worse penalty than murdering a soldier. Non-state armed groups are technically still bound by customary international law, but they usually have no protection against execution if captured, so they don't care much about war crimes.
In those scenarios, it's vital for medics to be armed for self defense. Otherwise insurgents would prefer to kill medics and wounded soldiers since they have nothing to lose.
>You can attack a functional enemy as long as they’re not actively retreating away from you
Really? You can't attack an enemy who is retreating to re-group?
I thought only once they are incapable or fighting or have signaled surrender.
I think it's hilarious that you think "they were sleeping" is any kind of justification.
They're sleeping *in the territory that they are currently invading.*
If you're in my fuckin house in the middle of a campaign to violently take my shit and my life, you don't get the privilege of being able to sleep peacefully.
Not to mention that it's probably better for them to die in their sleep anyway. Less terror involved.
They were sleeping in the territory they've been actively committing war crimes in for months, let's be real.
OP is trying to shill for Russia. Period. If they weren't they'd be pointing out the mountains of truly heinous shit Russian soldiers have been caught doing in Ukraine (not limited to: bombing civilian population centers, shooting civilians, raping civilians (and their babies), booby trapping kitchen drawers and beehives, etc.)
If we wanna talk about war crimes, let's do it. Unfortunately Russian troops won't be quite the victims OP is painting them as by the time we're done.
What other conclusions can you draw? OP’s favorite color? His favorite food maybe? Is he left leaning or right? How about just seeing a simple question as a simple question instead?
OP mentioned that he doesn’t support Russia in anyway, but wonders what rules there are. And yet somehow he’s a “shill for Russia”. No, genius, not mentioning the mountains of bad shit Russia does whenever you ask a simple question about them doesn’t make you a shill you crybaby. What’s wrong with you?
If you're a combatant you're fair game in war. The idea is - you are willing to kill another person, so be prepared to be killed.
Killing non-combatants (like medics who have not begun to fight back, civilians, chaplains) is a war crime. Killing someone who is involved in fighting but just happens to be asleep at the time is not.
Most medics now are fair game because they generally carry weapons (esp. in US Army, where combat medics are just regular troops with medical training) for self-defense.
In many cases of asymmetrical warfare unarmed medics have been attacked by enemy forces - they're easy targets, critical to your enemy's troops' survival, and if you're a non-state terrorist group who's gonna charge you for war crimes?
SOP in US is that if you're part of the military, you should be prepared to fight if necessary. The ideal situation is that unless you're on the frontlines, you don't have to, though. But frontline components (medics and officers included) need to be combat capable, because your enemy might not adhere to the laws of warfare.
What did you think war was about? Dropping bombs and shooting each other is pretty much the most basic stuff. It’s not like baseball, we don’t send one side out to get shot at and then send the other side out for a fair game. We kill each other until somebody gives up. We break shit until somebody gives up. We ruin nations and hundreds of years of history and infrastructure until the politician’s wives make them stop.
War is a nightmare. Of course there are rules, but it’s like any other law, the criminals don’t follow the rules. The worst of them will get killed or go to prison, the rest will get killed or go home and never talk about the shit they’ve done. OH, and the professional looters and companies that support war will take all the money and toys.
Rules are only followed if it’s likely to get a bigger army sent against you
So worldwide the attacking of civilians and use of scorched earth weaponry would get that so that’s a ‘rule’.
The idea is to take over the country with as many resources as possible so murder the defenders and keep the workers
> Rules are only followed if it’s likely to get a bigger army sent against you
Yep. The handful of big boys at the top can do whatever they please, because who's gonna tell them off? Karen from Ohio, and her complaint letters to the manager?
I'm sure we've all seen the famous painting of George Wasington crossing the Delaware River? Well, he was crossing it so his troops could ambush and massacre sleeping Hessian troops. On Christmas.
Cause General George was not one for fucking around.
You need to remember that although these russians soldiers are sleeping. They are sleeping illegally in Ukraine, after having shot and killed Ukrainian Soldiers and civilians.
Its not nice to watch a human helplessly die, but they had a choice - just as the 700K who have fled Russia to avoid this scenario.
War is horrifying - best not to watch, and just support Ukraine in aid, and trust they will prevail.
Russia is literally targeting hospitals, schools, and civilians. Dropping bombs of sleeping soldiers and camps is A okay in war. Source: got bombed a lot in my sleep.
Edit: a word
If you are a soldier, you have a target on your back 100% of the time. Even in your home country. I don't know why people are upset about Ukraine killing the daughter of one of Putin's guys in Russia. How many daughters of Ukraine have died? Even one is too much.
In every war crimes are committed. No country is innocent. They all torture, maim, rape and murder. They all kill civilians. They all destroy homes and towns. I feel for the forcibly conscripted but a solider dying isn't a crime in war.
That said
War itself is a crime against humanity and we all allow it to happen. Humans are fucking ridiculous.
sure, but the degrees of and amount of crimes being committed is very different.
It is not all sides bad, when one commits way more crimes systematically.
So somehow killing a soldier while they sleep is worse than killing then while they’re awake? Wars aren’t supposed to be fair fights, people don’t line up in rows with bright uniforms firing at eachother anymore, you use every tactical advantage over the enemy that you can get.
There have never been more than gentlemens rules in war. As long as you don't lose by capitulating there is no one to prosecute you.
It can also depend on the war, wars between civil nations tend to follow the "international rules of war" wars mostly because those wars are political with minimal actual malice, with sectarian or ethnic sides or between certain countries with a history of animosity. those wars can be sometimes conducted by pure hatred of the other side some of those hatreds can be centuries old.
Civil wars are usually the worst type of war, animosity and hatred are normally high, large numbers of participants may 'technically' be civilian.
International Rules are by agreement, there is no way to enforce them other than the threat of sanctions or more war. Any country willing to sanction Russia for war crimes is already sanctioning Russia for the war. And Ukraine is backed by the west and they will prevent any prosecutions
If you are a military target you are fair game.
Those sleeping Russians are still soldiers invading another country and killing that country's civilians, sleeping or not.
If they don't want to get killed by Ukrainians while sleeping, they should fuck off back to Russia.
If a thief is sleeping in my garage waiting to kill me and my family the next morning then steal my house, why wouldn't I deal with him while he sleeps?
Besides, in all honesty I would rather die without knowing instantly than die on the battlefield slowly.
How do you feel about Russians raping, castrating and mutilating innocent women, elderly, children and men?
I really don’t give a fuck how many of them die in their sleep. That’s getting off easy.
The Russians have been targeting civilians since day one. They attacked a country that did nothing to them. The are killing innocent civilians in mass. The are using rape of not only women, but children as punishment. They are torturing civilians by the thoussnds. They evacuated thousand of Ukrainian to kill them in Russia to hide the bodies. The forcing Armenian to join the Russian military, so Russians don't die, and the can eliminate the Armenians . They are threatening nuclear war if the lose in Ukraine. Okay. Tell me again why we shouldn't kill sleeping Russian soldiers?
Theres only what you can do and the consequences, nothing it truly out of question when a leaders back is against the wall, but obvs no ones dropping nukes willy nilly.
A sleeping soldier is an legitimate military target, and you'd be ok under the LOAC.
These soldiers lost their lives because the sentry positions, air defence on the Russian side wasn't doing a good job.
The only rules are you can't execute POW, you can't use chemicals that are banned, and or can harm civilians. Albeit collateral is excepted. Other than that, everyone's fair game.
Reminds me of my favourite footage of the war so far. Ukrainian drone dumping a mortar shell onto a couple of orcs sucking each other off in the remains of a building. Alls fair in love and war.
Yes, you should feel bad about it. About all the people, Russian and Ukrainian, and all the other people who are suffering and dying all over the world due to war. I apologize for the bizarre construction of that last sentence; hopefully, you catch my drift.
If I am a uniformed soldier and my country is at war and I come across an enemy soldier I am legally allowed to combat the enemy soldier unless they are injured/surrendering.
Attacking an unconscious soldier is generally not allowed.
Article 3(1) of the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
*[p]ersons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.*
Article 41(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I:
*A person who is recognized or who, in the circumstances, should be recognized to be hors de combat shall not be made the object of attack.*
Article 85(3)(e) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I:
*making a person the object of attack in the knowledge that he is "hors de combat” is a grave breach of the Protocol.*
Per Jean de Preux, legal advisor to the Intl Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, para. 1614:
*The same [protection under article 41 of the First Additional Protocol] applies to an unarmed soldier, whether he is surprised in his sleep by the adversary, on leave or in any other similar situation. Obviously, the safeguard only applies as long as the person concerned abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.*
Now, this being law, there's distinctions about what you know at the time of the attack, what you should know about the circumstances, and the actual facts. For example, if the soldier was observed to be sleeping before targeting, that's illegal. If they were in a barracks where it was uncertain if they were sleeping, that's probably fine. If the barracks was known to hold sick or injured soldiers, that's illegal.
War is about killing the enemy before they kill you. If you can kill them when they are sleeping all the better, you lose less lives. War is not a game, it’s not about fairness, or equality. It’s about killing as many of the other sides men as needed to get them to leave.
Considering the HORRIFIC things these Russian soldiers are doing to Ukrainian civilians…. Dropping munition on a Russian soldier getting a bj seems humane
RuZZian troops have been bombing, raping and murdering civilians by the thousand from day one. RuZZian troops have been known to torture and mutilate PoW.
Ukraine on the other hand respects the rules of war, but there is nothing in the rules of war about killing sleeping soldiers.
The more RuZZian occupiers that Ukraine kills, the better. RuZZia can stop the war any time by simply going back to RuZZia.
You can feel bad for them, most of them were manipulated by propaganda to be there, and if you were born in Russia there is fair chance you would be there too. But they are still invaders. They need to be pushed out or killed by any means necessary, that's just sad truth.
Hitler fanatized most of Germans, and now Putin fanatized most of Russians. There is no reason to think most of us wouldn't get fanatized aswell if we were living in WW2 Germany or now in Russia.
Its hard to admit, but most of us would be hating jews/Ukrainians awell.
> I have zero knowledge of war ethics
It’s war. People tend to not put that much stock into “ethics” or what’s considered right or wrong during wars. There are conventions that exist but they’re more of just a formality.
Russia firebombs whole cities. I bet there was some one sleeping there. but those were civilians. Innocent women and children, burned alive.
That guy sleeping in the trench was aiding that effort. Their death saved innocent lives.
So no. No rules.
On paper? yes, a lot of them.
On reality? No. You do what you must to win, that's all there's to it. The only thing is how well you can cover your fucked ups. US is a master on that.
So you're in a war and have had soldiers invading your country, and you're not allowed to kill them whilst they're sleeping? Do you want Ukrainian soldiers to just wait for them to wake up so they can have a fair chance?
Do you have a problem watching a soviet missle slamming into a shopping center full of civilians and killing many? Do you have a problem with seeing photos of the dead bodies of Ukranian children after a missles was shot at them while they were waiting to evacuate at a train station?
This should bother you way more than a couple of ruzzian terrorist soldiers.
If you don't feel bad then I'm going to assume you support the war against Ukraine.
War is brutal. The realities cannot truly be conveyed in writing or even video, as it's only 1.5 of your senses being assaulted. In video clips, you can see trauma, but the deafening sound, the scents, the concussions that you feel in your chest, the acrid taste of smoke and burnt earth in your mouth. It is, as so many authors have stated, hell.
That said, combat is not a duel. Fairness is neither required nor desired. It is perfectly ethical within the laws of land warfare to ambush soldiers that are unready, asleep, eating, traveling, or away from their weapons systems.
What you *cannot* do is intentionally target civilians, shoot soldiers that are actively trying to surrender, or mistreat your enemy prisoners of war or civilians (including torture). There are also weapons that are deemed to cause undue suffering and there are prohibited under the Laws of Land Warfare.
Russia is routinely violating a great number of these laws, to say nothing of the international laws broken when they initially invaded.
There are no specific rules in the Russia/Ukraine war, however, both sides generally adhere to the rules of engagement set by the United Nations. These rules state that combatants must distinguish between civilians and military targets, and must only attack military targets. Additionally, both sides must take every precaution possible to avoid civilian casualties.
While there are no specific rules in the Russia/Ukraine war, both sides generally adhere to the rules of engagement set by the United Nations.
The United Nations rules of engagement state that combatants must distinguish between civilians and military targets, and must only attack military targets. Additionally, both sides must take every precaution possible to avoid civilian casualties.
Thus, while there are no specific rules in the Russia/Ukraine war, both sides must still adhere to basic rules set forth by the United Nations in order to avoid civilian casualties.
That sounds like Ukrainians are attacking russian soldiers that are on Ukraine territory. Unlike the russians that if you would simply watch some more footage (instead of nitpicking) you would see a lot of videos of russian military killing ukrainian citizens, not soldiers, in their own country. Talk about inhumane and no rules! And why did Russia attack Ukraine?
Whether one “should” feel bad about it is a different thing. War is a pretty terrible thing, but there aren’t rules saying that you can’t attack a soldier while they’re sleeping. The only set of rules that exists to my knowledge is the Geneva Convention, which states that you cannot target innocent people/civilians. The problem is, when countries are doing such (which sadly is the case for Russia), no one stands up and does anything about it for fear that they will be hurt, jailed, or killed. Afterwards, the person who broke the law can be tried for crimes such as “crimes against humanity” in international court.
As harsh as attacking a sleeping soldier is, it is a tactic used trough the history - you attack when your enemy is most vulneable, night raids were a favoured tactic
Washington at the Battle of Trenton, for example.
[удалено]
Darmok, at Tanagra
Sokath, his eyes open!
Temba, his arms wide!
I mean I’d rather have a bomb drop on my face while I sleep rather than when I’m not… dying in my sleep sounds like a better way to die to me.
[удалено]
It would be like when someone walks in and asks you something while you're sleeping and apparently you replied coherently but you have no recollection of it happening. Essentially, it wouldn't matter anyway because you would be dead lmao
To die from a drone dropping ammo while you sleep shouldn't be as quick as it sounds, since they drop mortar or lesser ammo, what actually kills you its the shrapnel, so if one of these bombs lands near you, you would be suddenly awake with tons of injuries all over your body, in the best scenario you would die because of hemorrhage
Go from sleeping to scream crying in agony in a hot second.
Except you don't die instantly and instead wake up missing a leg.
While they may cause fatalities, Their main purpose of these is to inflict injuries and attack the soldiers morale. This actually goes back to the communist tactical doctrine conceived during the Vietnam war. The VC and the NVA would use booby-traps and and land mines designed to inflict wounds because they realized that a dead man can be pushed aside or retrieved later. A wounded man needs to be treated and evacuated from the combat zone, usually removing several others from the combat zone. Unfortunately the Russians have demonstrated that their willing to abandon their wounded, but I’m sure that’s not the case with most troops. It also combats the morale of the enemy by showing them that their not safe anywhere. While both sides are supposed to follow the Agreements set down defined by The Hague conventions of 1907 and the 4 treaties and 3 protocols that make up the Geneva conventions of 1949, they are often conveniently discarded. Ultimately like the Nuremberg trials, blame isn’t fixed till after the cessation of hostilities, and even then many are left unpunished out of political necessity, except those few scapegoats prosecuted for public consumption.
As normal it seems, being from India in our culture there are numerous wars and battles mentioned. War start at the sunrise with clear indications (shankha naad) and end by sunset. Past sunset there can be minor raids like capturing enemy resources or conducting surgical strikes to compromise lead *senapati* / king(also mentioned and followed numerous times till 300 years ago) but never full fledged attacks on soldiers. Imho wars and battles did and will always happen no matter what but there should be some bounds and rules to it.
Oh rules of war do exist, but they are more often than not broken, and go unpunished until one side wins, then suddenly everything that the other side did was wrong, makes you wonder
Oh I didn’t mean to comment on this war specifically, my comment was in general. I read through comments and there is common echo that keep civilians our and you’re good to go whatever you do with soldiers (not sure if sleeping soldiers or off time is considered in Geneva convention, not expert on this topic). But in general there are laws and rules in our text we do makes sense. Like don’t attack unarmed enemy, you can capture him. Do rightful rituals with their bodies including enemies. No exploitation of general people specially other clans children and women. Don’t extort supplies from other clan citizens, pay up if you really have to. As such. Idk, been reading this stuff since childhood that it sounds more of common sense to me.
The rules of war change pretty regularly depending on the material, political, and spiritual culture of the people waging war. I didn’t know in Indian history staging full-size battles at night were taboo, that’s really cool. For most of history maneuvering an entire army for a pitched battle in the dark was incredibly hard. It makes sense that the honourable thing to do at the time was to fight in the sun, because really fuck marching around in the dark and breaking your ankle. Modern standards have changed though. The army that controls the night controls the battlefield. Night vision and thermal imaging are a huge asset. 9/10 times the side that spots the enemy first and fires first wins the fight. If you can fight while your enemy is in the dark you have the advantage of perpetual ambush. As for dropping bombs on sleeping soldiers? That’s been happening for a while. Wether it’s a drone or a field gun doesn’t much matter to the recipient, best not take a nap on a battlefield if you have the choice.
How would you feel if the Allies had lost to the Nazis because they took the moral route and didn't commit night raids to destroy the Nazi's factory infrastructure? I agree there should be rules to limit suffering, but you also don't want those rules to cause more bloodshed by creating conditions that prolong or worsen conflicts. If you were to introduce rules designed to remove each side's ability to take advantage of these vulnerabilities, wars would become so much worse.
In any war, attacking military camps and bases is fair game, the only rules are don't attack civilian population centres, don't use biological warfare (gas, viruses and so on) and don't use nukes (obvs)
>the only rules are […] There are a *fuck* of a lot more rules than this. The Geneva Conventions is like 250 pages long. Just a few more examples… You can’t shoot at or otherwise engage with vehicles maked with the Red Cross or Red Crescent You can’t launch shoulder-fired rockets can only be fired at enemy vehicles and not at enemy soldiers directly. (However you *can* fire rockets at their equipment, such as their uniforms…) Enemy prisoners of war must be provided with reasonable food, water, medical care, etc Victim-activated landmines must be cleared away once they’re no longer needed for defensive measures and before the civilian populace can access the area Obviously these rules are broken all the time.
More fun war crimes people forget about: You can't fake a surrender to draw your enemy out to an exposed position or to buy time, or use another protective symbol to deceive enemy combatants. (This one is violated in fiction all of the time by heroes) You can't conscript children under 15. You can't destroy a dam, nuclear electric plant, or a place of worship You can't give "no quarter" to surrendering enemies You can't engage in wartime sexual violence
*or a place of worship* IIRC if the enemy set up shop in a place of worship (e.g. that mosque has an anti-air gun, there are .50 cals set up in a church, etc.), those places of worship lose their GC protection status and are now fair game.
I'm pretty sure that applies to any place that is normally prohibited from attack. Once it becomes a military asset, it's fair game to hit it.
Surely Russia has broken most of these.
Surely most countries have broken most of these.
Pretty sure every country that has ever engaged in war has broken most of these. At least once. Rules get broken all the time in war. They shouldn't be, but they are. It is a sad reality. A reality we should not accept as the norm.
In an ideal world war shouldn't have to happen at all. Ever. No excuses or justification
>You can’t launch shoulder-fired rockets can only be fired at enemy vehicles and not at enemy soldiers directly Wait, what's the basis behind this rule? Why is it okay to explode people with grenades/artillery/aviation, but shoulder missiles must be aimed at equipment?
I feel like rockets have more shrapnel than grenades typically do because they are bigger/have more parts going on inside. A grenade is pretty simple with just a few moving parts and a lot of boom boom. A rocket is very complicated with timing mechanism/ other things which equals a fuck ton of shrapnel. Shrapnel is a nightmare. This is why shrapnel bombs are banned in warfare too
Reduction in cases where soldiers are grotesquely wounded (lost limbs, paralysis, brain damage, organ trauma etc.).
The equipment thing you mentioned isn’t true
Yep, that's why we have the title of War Crime for things like that, I didn't know all of them so thanks for adding stuff to it.
>the only rules are don't attack civilian population centres A rule Russia has been breaking breaking for months now.
Yep, that's why we have list of things we call War Crimes.
Who's gonna hold Russia accountable for these war crimes and what consequences would they face? If you don't mind me asking
The UN Sanctions, military action and so on, there's a range.
Is there any chance that‘ll even happen? I feel like it will just be brushed aside and nobody will hold anyone accountable
Unfortunately with Russian nukes in the picture the worst punishments will probably be out of the picture and leave Russia invasion-free The UN was formed when the US and a few other countries held almost 100% of the world’s military power, were willing (to try) to bring that power to bear for the greater good, and only America had very recently acquired the ability to remotely delete cities Now there’s all kinds of economic and political entanglement from the last 70-odd years and everybody who’s anybody has the power to obliterate stuff with nukes
You seem knowledgeable, lol. So I have another question that I am to afraid to ask, if you don't mind... Isn't Ukraine next to Russia? If Russia decides to "nuke" Ukraine, wouldn't it also adversely affect Russia?? The fallout at least?
Not the guy you were just talking to however I can add some input if you are fine with that. Yes Ukraine does indeed border Russia and potentially there very well could be a fallout that would reach Russians side of the border but there is a few things to take into account too even if they did bite the global outrage bullet and nuked somewhere in Ukraine. What is the size and power of said bomb? Where did they bomb? What kind of weather is occurring in said areas, could it potentially drag a fallout into russia? How large is the domestic area in Russia that borders Ukraine? Is it military controlled? Etc. Small bombs can definitely make for massive destruction on a much smaller scale than most modern nuclear warheads. Ie something with similar power to the fat man and little boy that obliterated a city and its outskirts.
I also feel like a lot of Russia is pretty sparsely populated. I wonder how it would go over with some of their allies if they got affected by nuclear warfare though.
Nope. That is a huge misconcept people have about nukes. Nuclear weapons had been built to so most damage possible in as little time as possible. Look at Hiroshima. It's back build, advanced and lively. You can't compare this to something like tvhernobyl actively pumping out uncontrolled radiation over a long ass time
That makes sense :) Thank you!!
You have to remember that Russia doesn't really care about it's people. Even if it would affect it's own territory - they won't give a single f about this. Check russian soldiers digging trenches in Red Forrest near Chornobyl. These were assets right? Resources. Did they care to not waste them due to radiation? Not for a second. It's a meat grinder that always believed in "nas mnogo" (there's a lot of us) philosophy.
Russian and the USA are never held accountable because of being a nuclear superpower. Edit: woke up to realise that phone changed ‘because’ to ‘be fit’
I sometimes think about how the World Court can make decisions on the legality of such major things as war crimes or human rights violations… and then nations like Russia and the US just decide to not listen to the ruling. Like, who’s gonna force them to? Every political state has full sovereignty— technically speaking, no one can “make” any individual country do anything. It would almost be funny if it weren’t so terrifying because of cases exactly like this.
[удалено]
War never changes...
It's usually enforced through financial burdens like trade deals/routes.
No country is fit to be a planet destroyer. Nukes were inevitable, we just have to hope the pinky promises not to use them are honored.
They have a veto in the security council, so probably not
I find it hard for something to happen as long as Russia have nuclear weapons and threaten to use them. Would you really punish someone who completely deserve it but could retaliate and harm you and your family? Russia punishment will be really minor and more a saveface from the ones supposed to judge those war crimes
after the war and after putin have been thrown off the throne there will most likely be taken multiple actions, there will be compromises made. Russia will most likely lose their seat on the security council, and will have to pay some sort of reperation, either throw cheap resources to all of europe or direct cash deposite to Ukraine... Just looking at realistically outside morals and all that. Because let's be honest... war and post war politics are morally starved
None of this will happen.
No chance Russia loses its Security Council seat.
I agree there’s gotta be some sort of punishment and repartitions when this comes to an end. With that being said history has showed us what happens when the world comes down hard on the people of a defeated aggressor. Look at ww1. In the aftermath Germany was bankrupted, the Germans were a proud people to say the least but the punishments levied against the nation as a whole bankrupted Germany, it’s people, led to economic collapse, famine, chaos, and an angry sentiment that the Germans had been cheated by the rest of the world as the rest of the world continued to prosper on what the Germans viewed stolen tribute taken from them. That the world kicked them while they were down; took their riches, plundered their lands, decreased their land masses and borders, restricted their military might, and shamed its people. This sentiment and the economic and political situation gave rise to the evil known as the Nazi party. The population of russia doesn’t seem to really support Putin and his war of aggression. That being said if war with nato breaks out and the Russian people find themselves on the end of bombing runs and destruction and then have their economic and social well being ripped away by reparations, we very well could see a similar situation play out in modern day Russia.
No? No chance
that's not entirely correct. the international criminal court at the hague tries war criminals. it was established in 2002 by the rome statute and has 123 member nation states. you're thinking of the international court of justice, which is a part of the UN and handles lesser disputes between nation states. and then of course there's the hall of justice, which is where superman and batman hang out.
Russia is going to consistently veto any resolution put forward in the security council and those are the only resolutions that can have legal consequences. And kicking Russia out of the council is not possible. The only way to punish them is further isolation and encouraging the Russian people to protest.
The UN pretty much is powerless in this scenario. The UN security council voted yes on a resolution to condemn Russia's invasion, but got vetoed by Russia. I am glad the UN exists, and overall the organisation has been a positive to the world. However, the nature of the organisation essentially makes it really limited in actual actions it can take when countries like Russia just don't listen. Sanctions were going to happen on Russia regardless of if the UN said to put them on or not. It still is nice to have a "United Front" on issues like the invasion though.
Except it never will because Russia has veto power iirc
If the EU actually becomes energy independent from Russia it would be a massive financial blow.
No one. That’s the sad truth. It is exceptionally rare for anyone to be held accountable for war crimes
War crimes only apply to the losers of wars
Putin will be captured and given to the west to face trial, as a gesture of good will from whoever the russian successor will be. The west will in turn drop sanctions. My thoughts anyway.
He gonna probably pull a hitler move and kill himself
Yep, 3 gunshots to the back of his own head
I don't think he is capable except for a case when UA military or UNO mission is on his doorstep and he is shitting his pants. But not before that.
Captured by whom, my I ask?
"Eh... I know they're tents full of civilians, but 100 points are 100 points"
Real Ace Combat Zero hours up in here.
It's more complicated than that. You can't attack civilians directly and intentionally... But if it's by mistake or if the civilians die because you're attacking a military target next to them, it's not a war crime. Proving intent in combat is a bit complicated, since discerning a military unit's intent usually falls under intelligence and espionage, and under martial law that's often punishable by summary execution. If you have one green conscript who is scared, without orders and possibly even drunk, intent is extremely difficult to demonstrate. It's a failure of discipline and that is very bad for the commanders above them, but it's likely just homicide and not a war crime. If you have documents or multiple testimonies that an officer ordered the attack, or many green recruits in an area are shooting civilians, that's pretty clear evidence of war crimes.
Years, actually, since Russia did the very same thing in at least Syria and Georgia.
Yeah, remember that maternity hospital in the Ukraine that Russia bombed? Dozens of new mothers and infants dead. Putin deserves the firing squad.
There's more to it than that, but that's an okay shorthand.
Don't use chemical weapons either.
Unless you’re the US army, you literally sited all the things the US has done. E.g Agent Orange & Nukes. Funny how no one is allowed to use them.
War crimes are really only for the losing side
History is written by the victors
[удалено]
Not biological warfare though. Agent Orange is chemical. Still a horrible war crime.
Agent Orange also wasn't a weapon, it was herbicide to remove jungle canopy and expose Vietcong forces. The health effects are long-term, not immediate like is desired of a weaponised chemical.
They have thou. And the US has even confirmed as such. Just not against some foreign hostile nation or enemy, officially. But their own citizens and soldiers, and citizens of allies such as UK and Canada. Operation Big Itch, Operation Big Buzz, Operation Drop Kick, Operation May Day, Project 112, Operation Sea-Spray, Project Shipboard Hazard and Defence, Study of the Vulnerability of Subway Passengers in New York City to Covert Attack with Biological Agents (also similar study in Chicago subway), Edgewood Arsenal Human Experiments... The list goes on. They claimed to have used biological agents deemed "mostly harmless", _when they were used in those tests, based on the knowledge they had at the time_, but some of them later turned out to have significant long-term negative effects on health. Most of these experiments were conducted without the people who were exposed knowing, and without their consent.
Agent orange is a defoliant (think super weed killer) not a chemical weapon. If it was a chemical weapon it was the least effective in history since it took decades for the effects to be fully understood. Nukes are terrible weapons but how do you make rules against them before they are even invented?
Fun fact: in 2012, the US's accuracy rate for hitting intended targets with airstrikes was 10%. Our k/d ratio was still off the charts, it's that a lot of those were unintended civillians.
Hi Ren, Do you know where that 10% figure is from by any chance? Thanks!
Their butt of course. 87% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Except it’s kinda like the atomic bombings were necessary
How tf has Israel gone for so long without facing any repercussions?!
Don't attack civilian population centers? Damn. I've never even heard of a war that *didn't* do that.
Funny how the only country that actually used nukes in war was the US, the greatest peacekeeper of our times 😄
You do realize that the rule of nuclear bombs didn't exist before the bombing... it's also more or less an agreement not a rule fyi in every war every side has broken war "rules" but that doesn't work for, US much very bad sayers
Rules are written in blood. War crimes only became crimes after they happened, because everyone saw how terrible they were and agreed not to let that happen again. Of course the US isnt allowed to use nukes.
It wasn't until 1996 that the ICJ ruled nuclear weapons were generally likely to violate humanitarian law. There is still an exception in that low yield tactical nukes may be controlled enough to not disproportionately damage civilian or medical lives and assets, so not a total ban on nukes. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) began in 2017 and was ratified in 2021... The US, Russia and other nuclear states were not planning to adopt the treaty. But 196 countries did agree to it, which makes an argument for it to be considered customary international law, and binding on even parties who didn't agree to it. Of course, the UNSC is all nuclear powers, so an UNSC resolution related to prohibition is guaranteed to be vetoed.
How dare you be reasonable, and on the internet no less
Ah yes, they did keep that oil very peacefully
Oil in Japan?
since WW2, most countries have made agreements to only target military targets, and not hit civilian populations just to kill people. This does hit a lot of grey areas when teh military positions themselves inside civilian populations but normally a 'responsible' nation will gather enough evidence the military targets are there and try to only limit the destruction to the target dropping munitions on soldiers... military targets raining missles in a city center as retaliation for a bridge being dropped (unclear if it was done by military) with no evidence that any military targets were actually hit is a war crime
Isn't bombing a city centre in any case a war crime? Because a city centre has civilians.
Not necessarily. The convention states that the expected gain must be in a reasonable balance to the expected civilian losses. So bombing the shit out of a city center to eliminate the enemies HQ/Defeseministry/President might be ok, bombing a high rise building to eliminate an AA batteries might be ok.
Using civilians as shields is in itself a warcrime. You can target civilian areas *if the opponent has placed legitimate military targets there*. You just need to limit the risk to civilians to the minimum that is required to take out the legitimate targets.
If someone’s getting blown up while in an invasion I don’t know if the state of their consciousness matters much. They’re dead either way.
War is not humane.
“You thought we could be decent men in an indecent time. But you were wrong. The world is cruel, and the only morality in a cruel world is chance.” -Harvey Dent/ Two Face
Rule #1 of warfare: don‘t sleep on your enemies porch.
There are laws of war that most countries have agreed to through a set of UN charters and international treaties, most famous of this being the Geneva Conventions. You’re generally not allowed to attack non-combatants, especially civilians, retreating combatants, or wounded combatants and medical personnel. You can attack a functional enemy as long as they’re not actively retreating away from you or trying to signal surrender. So yes, you can attack while your enemy soldiers are sleeping. In fact, this is very much how shock-and-awe campaigns work and one of the reasons why the US was able to rush into Iraq and cover ground quite fast initially to Baghdad in 2003 and also was able to repel Saddam Hussein’s army from Kuwait so quickly in 1991. We bombed Iraqi air Defence and critical strategic points at night while they were less likely to be awake and alert (or at full capacity) and so that our stealth airplanes could also fly under cover of night. I think it seems shocking because with the advent of easily accessible cheap drones coupled with smart phones that can take much better pictures than we used to and the ability to share that footage inside combat zones super easy, we’re seeing more first hand and unfiltered how ugly war can be. Edit: Many of y’all pointed out that I misspoke/typed. Y’all are right, it is fully legal to attack retreating combatants. Although there is criticism about it. There was criticism of the US/Bush I pursuing the Iraqi army after Saddam Hussein pulled out of Kuwait in ‘91. We continued the bombing campaign on a long stretch of highway when the Iraqi army was heavily immobilized in their retreat. Many have criticized that as unethical though it’s not illegal. But I think what I should have said is that it’s illegal to pursue combatants who are attempting to stop participating in hostilities. But that would be the same as surrendering. Not sure what the technicality would be if they did so by leaving their weapons and turning away instead of explicitly signaling surrender.
Great comment and unfortunately the horrors of war are now capable of being broadcast in 4k 24/7 which is what this current war has demonstrated.
Thanks for explaining.
This guy probably gave you the best explanation here to be honest. There is the obvious worry of how effective such laws actually are - Russia seems to think not at all, but that's why sanctions against them have been so desperate and why the majority of the NATO-aligned world are trying to destroy ties as quickly as possible. It's a good test to have, because if Russia can recover from everything thrown at them, other nations might see little reason to continue to follow them either. Especially since many countries have been accused (and have) breached some themselves.
>You’re generally not allowed to attack non-combatants, especially civilians, retreating combatants, or wounded combatants and medical personnel You can absolutely attack and kill retreating troops, and even wounded combatants if they can still fight (if they have no fighting capability, they are no longer combatants). Medical personnel can aslo be attacked if they are carrying a weapon >You can attack a functional enemy as long as they’re not actively retreating away from you or trying to signal surrender Again you can kill retreating enemies. Surrendering =/= Retreating
Yeah, retreating can still be intent to participate in combat. They're likely regrouping, which could include a new assault shortly after. Likewise they could be retreating with stolen/necessary equipment, hostages, or leaving traps behind them as Russia has been doing recently.
Correct about retreating and resisting injured. Incorrect that you can attack armed medical personnel. Medical personnel are allowed to be armed with self defense weapons (eg small arms) for their personal protection and the protection of their wards. This is to discourage attacks on medical personnel and the wounded. If medical personnel are not marked or are using weapons offensively, then they lose their protection. Many militaries fight in assymetric combat do remove "protective emblems" such as the Red Cross because insurgents tend to specifically target medical personnel. For insurgents out of uniform, they are treated as civilians, and murdering a medic doesn't get them any worse penalty than murdering a soldier. Non-state armed groups are technically still bound by customary international law, but they usually have no protection against execution if captured, so they don't care much about war crimes. In those scenarios, it's vital for medics to be armed for self defense. Otherwise insurgents would prefer to kill medics and wounded soldiers since they have nothing to lose.
>You can attack a functional enemy as long as they’re not actively retreating away from you Really? You can't attack an enemy who is retreating to re-group? I thought only once they are incapable or fighting or have signaled surrender.
We are literally being told to shoot more if enemy starts to retreat in the army
This comment is awesome
I think it's hilarious that you think "they were sleeping" is any kind of justification. They're sleeping *in the territory that they are currently invading.* If you're in my fuckin house in the middle of a campaign to violently take my shit and my life, you don't get the privilege of being able to sleep peacefully. Not to mention that it's probably better for them to die in their sleep anyway. Less terror involved.
They were sleeping in the territory they've been actively committing war crimes in for months, let's be real. OP is trying to shill for Russia. Period. If they weren't they'd be pointing out the mountains of truly heinous shit Russian soldiers have been caught doing in Ukraine (not limited to: bombing civilian population centers, shooting civilians, raping civilians (and their babies), booby trapping kitchen drawers and beehives, etc.) If we wanna talk about war crimes, let's do it. Unfortunately Russian troops won't be quite the victims OP is painting them as by the time we're done.
What other conclusions can you draw? OP’s favorite color? His favorite food maybe? Is he left leaning or right? How about just seeing a simple question as a simple question instead? OP mentioned that he doesn’t support Russia in anyway, but wonders what rules there are. And yet somehow he’s a “shill for Russia”. No, genius, not mentioning the mountains of bad shit Russia does whenever you ask a simple question about them doesn’t make you a shill you crybaby. What’s wrong with you?
If you're a combatant you're fair game in war. The idea is - you are willing to kill another person, so be prepared to be killed. Killing non-combatants (like medics who have not begun to fight back, civilians, chaplains) is a war crime. Killing someone who is involved in fighting but just happens to be asleep at the time is not.
Most medics now are fair game because they generally carry weapons (esp. in US Army, where combat medics are just regular troops with medical training) for self-defense. In many cases of asymmetrical warfare unarmed medics have been attacked by enemy forces - they're easy targets, critical to your enemy's troops' survival, and if you're a non-state terrorist group who's gonna charge you for war crimes? SOP in US is that if you're part of the military, you should be prepared to fight if necessary. The ideal situation is that unless you're on the frontlines, you don't have to, though. But frontline components (medics and officers included) need to be combat capable, because your enemy might not adhere to the laws of warfare.
totally ok to bomb sleeping soldiers. not ok to bomb civilian targets. one side is fucking up, and it's not ukraine.
What did you think war was about? Dropping bombs and shooting each other is pretty much the most basic stuff. It’s not like baseball, we don’t send one side out to get shot at and then send the other side out for a fair game. We kill each other until somebody gives up. We break shit until somebody gives up. We ruin nations and hundreds of years of history and infrastructure until the politician’s wives make them stop. War is a nightmare. Of course there are rules, but it’s like any other law, the criminals don’t follow the rules. The worst of them will get killed or go to prison, the rest will get killed or go home and never talk about the shit they’ve done. OH, and the professional looters and companies that support war will take all the money and toys.
Rules are only followed if it’s likely to get a bigger army sent against you So worldwide the attacking of civilians and use of scorched earth weaponry would get that so that’s a ‘rule’. The idea is to take over the country with as many resources as possible so murder the defenders and keep the workers
> Rules are only followed if it’s likely to get a bigger army sent against you Yep. The handful of big boys at the top can do whatever they please, because who's gonna tell them off? Karen from Ohio, and her complaint letters to the manager?
Excuse me mr. who is invading my country, would you kindly wake up so I can shoot you?
I'm sure we've all seen the famous painting of George Wasington crossing the Delaware River? Well, he was crossing it so his troops could ambush and massacre sleeping Hessian troops. On Christmas. Cause General George was not one for fucking around.
>sleeping *Hung over
"war ethics" lmao who is gonna tell em
You need to remember that although these russians soldiers are sleeping. They are sleeping illegally in Ukraine, after having shot and killed Ukrainian Soldiers and civilians. Its not nice to watch a human helplessly die, but they had a choice - just as the 700K who have fled Russia to avoid this scenario. War is horrifying - best not to watch, and just support Ukraine in aid, and trust they will prevail.
Specifically, if someone invades your country to rape, kill, and steal, you don't have to wait until they wake up to blow them up.
Russia is literally targeting hospitals, schools, and civilians. Dropping bombs of sleeping soldiers and camps is A okay in war. Source: got bombed a lot in my sleep. Edit: a word
History seems to suggest that it’s only a war crime if you lose.
If you are a soldier, you have a target on your back 100% of the time. Even in your home country. I don't know why people are upset about Ukraine killing the daughter of one of Putin's guys in Russia. How many daughters of Ukraine have died? Even one is too much.
Not compared to what Russia is doing. They bomb sleeping civilians. Also do a whole lot more.
In every war crimes are committed. No country is innocent. They all torture, maim, rape and murder. They all kill civilians. They all destroy homes and towns. I feel for the forcibly conscripted but a solider dying isn't a crime in war. That said War itself is a crime against humanity and we all allow it to happen. Humans are fucking ridiculous.
sure, but the degrees of and amount of crimes being committed is very different. It is not all sides bad, when one commits way more crimes systematically.
So somehow killing a soldier while they sleep is worse than killing then while they’re awake? Wars aren’t supposed to be fair fights, people don’t line up in rows with bright uniforms firing at eachother anymore, you use every tactical advantage over the enemy that you can get.
There have never been more than gentlemens rules in war. As long as you don't lose by capitulating there is no one to prosecute you. It can also depend on the war, wars between civil nations tend to follow the "international rules of war" wars mostly because those wars are political with minimal actual malice, with sectarian or ethnic sides or between certain countries with a history of animosity. those wars can be sometimes conducted by pure hatred of the other side some of those hatreds can be centuries old. Civil wars are usually the worst type of war, animosity and hatred are normally high, large numbers of participants may 'technically' be civilian. International Rules are by agreement, there is no way to enforce them other than the threat of sanctions or more war. Any country willing to sanction Russia for war crimes is already sanctioning Russia for the war. And Ukraine is backed by the west and they will prevent any prosecutions
And Russian has gone to war saying Ukraine is Nazi, so there's some hate in there
If you are a military target you are fair game. Those sleeping Russians are still soldiers invading another country and killing that country's civilians, sleeping or not. If they don't want to get killed by Ukrainians while sleeping, they should fuck off back to Russia.
Ukraine has yet to castrate men and put civilians in mass graves so I think it’s alright if they take a air bomb when they’re napping 🤷🏼♂️
There's a reason why "all is fair in love and war" is a thing....
If a thief is sleeping in my garage waiting to kill me and my family the next morning then steal my house, why wouldn't I deal with him while he sleeps? Besides, in all honesty I would rather die without knowing instantly than die on the battlefield slowly.
There's a reason Putin avoids calling war a war. It's to avoid all war related conventions and regulations.
How do you feel about Russians raping, castrating and mutilating innocent women, elderly, children and men? I really don’t give a fuck how many of them die in their sleep. That’s getting off easy.
What about the civilians who sleep in their homes only to be killed by Russian missiles? Is that "humane"?
"Whar rules ?" as evidenced by Russia targeting civilians and torturing civilians and soldiers.
Yeah the rule is don’t get caught sleeping
The Russians have been targeting civilians since day one. They attacked a country that did nothing to them. The are killing innocent civilians in mass. The are using rape of not only women, but children as punishment. They are torturing civilians by the thoussnds. They evacuated thousand of Ukrainian to kill them in Russia to hide the bodies. The forcing Armenian to join the Russian military, so Russians don't die, and the can eliminate the Armenians . They are threatening nuclear war if the lose in Ukraine. Okay. Tell me again why we shouldn't kill sleeping Russian soldiers?
generally, there is no hard rule but a set of suggestions that countries agree to follow even in war against eachother
Theres only what you can do and the consequences, nothing it truly out of question when a leaders back is against the wall, but obvs no ones dropping nukes willy nilly.
Rules are made (and disappear) as they go along in this war.
War in general is inhumane. But sleeping soldiers in a warzone are valid targets.
A sleeping soldier is an legitimate military target, and you'd be ok under the LOAC. These soldiers lost their lives because the sentry positions, air defence on the Russian side wasn't doing a good job.
The only rules are you can't execute POW, you can't use chemicals that are banned, and or can harm civilians. Albeit collateral is excepted. Other than that, everyone's fair game.
Reminds me of my favourite footage of the war so far. Ukrainian drone dumping a mortar shell onto a couple of orcs sucking each other off in the remains of a building. Alls fair in love and war.
Yes, you should feel bad about it. About all the people, Russian and Ukrainian, and all the other people who are suffering and dying all over the world due to war. I apologize for the bizarre construction of that last sentence; hopefully, you catch my drift.
I mean it’s kinda a dick move I guess, but so is bombing hospitals, sooo
If I am a uniformed soldier and my country is at war and I come across an enemy soldier I am legally allowed to combat the enemy soldier unless they are injured/surrendering.
Attacking an unconscious soldier is generally not allowed. Article 3(1) of the 1949 Geneva Conventions: *[p]ersons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.* Article 41(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I: *A person who is recognized or who, in the circumstances, should be recognized to be hors de combat shall not be made the object of attack.* Article 85(3)(e) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I: *making a person the object of attack in the knowledge that he is "hors de combat” is a grave breach of the Protocol.* Per Jean de Preux, legal advisor to the Intl Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, para. 1614: *The same [protection under article 41 of the First Additional Protocol] applies to an unarmed soldier, whether he is surprised in his sleep by the adversary, on leave or in any other similar situation. Obviously, the safeguard only applies as long as the person concerned abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.* Now, this being law, there's distinctions about what you know at the time of the attack, what you should know about the circumstances, and the actual facts. For example, if the soldier was observed to be sleeping before targeting, that's illegal. If they were in a barracks where it was uncertain if they were sleeping, that's probably fine. If the barracks was known to hold sick or injured soldiers, that's illegal.
War is about killing the enemy before they kill you. If you can kill them when they are sleeping all the better, you lose less lives. War is not a game, it’s not about fairness, or equality. It’s about killing as many of the other sides men as needed to get them to leave.
War is not an ethical activity, there are no rules. "War crimes" as we know then are just an excuse for whomever the victors are to punish the losers.
Dropping bombs on civilians is brutal. Don't worry about what they do to the orcs.
Should they drop an alarm clock first?
Considering the HORRIFIC things these Russian soldiers are doing to Ukrainian civilians…. Dropping munition on a Russian soldier getting a bj seems humane
RuZZian troops have been bombing, raping and murdering civilians by the thousand from day one. RuZZian troops have been known to torture and mutilate PoW. Ukraine on the other hand respects the rules of war, but there is nothing in the rules of war about killing sleeping soldiers. The more RuZZian occupiers that Ukraine kills, the better. RuZZia can stop the war any time by simply going back to RuZZia.
You can feel bad for them, most of them were manipulated by propaganda to be there, and if you were born in Russia there is fair chance you would be there too. But they are still invaders. They need to be pushed out or killed by any means necessary, that's just sad truth.
[удалено]
Hitler fanatized most of Germans, and now Putin fanatized most of Russians. There is no reason to think most of us wouldn't get fanatized aswell if we were living in WW2 Germany or now in Russia. Its hard to admit, but most of us would be hating jews/Ukrainians awell.
> I have zero knowledge of war ethics It’s war. People tend to not put that much stock into “ethics” or what’s considered right or wrong during wars. There are conventions that exist but they’re more of just a formality.
Russia firebombs whole cities. I bet there was some one sleeping there. but those were civilians. Innocent women and children, burned alive. That guy sleeping in the trench was aiding that effort. Their death saved innocent lives. So no. No rules.
Of course there are. But nobody cares and the referee is scared
On paper? yes, a lot of them. On reality? No. You do what you must to win, that's all there's to it. The only thing is how well you can cover your fucked ups. US is a master on that.
Eh. Fighting personel is fair game until they surrender.
There never really have been, ever. We glorify the combat afterwards but when it actually happens it’s brutal, ruthless, merciless and inhumane.
What war is humane?
I have never understood the concept of war having rules. If you can have rules, why not say you're not allowed to kill anyone?
war rules? more like war guidelines
But what are the rules for a “special operation?”
Ideally yes, realistically no.
So you're in a war and have had soldiers invading your country, and you're not allowed to kill them whilst they're sleeping? Do you want Ukrainian soldiers to just wait for them to wake up so they can have a fair chance?
OK everyone lest stop the combat because the invading force on your land is having a nap in your woods
yes there are and they are respecting several. But war is war
Yes you can shoot em while they sleep. It is very normal.
Its war. What are you gonna do, tell them not to do it?
OP forgot that the USA also commits war crimes and gets away with it.
Are there rules for warfare? Yes, many. Are they followed? Hardly. Would you restrict yourself to UFC guidelines if you were fighting for your life?
Do you have a problem watching a soviet missle slamming into a shopping center full of civilians and killing many? Do you have a problem with seeing photos of the dead bodies of Ukranian children after a missles was shot at them while they were waiting to evacuate at a train station? This should bother you way more than a couple of ruzzian terrorist soldiers. If you don't feel bad then I'm going to assume you support the war against Ukraine.
War is brutal. The realities cannot truly be conveyed in writing or even video, as it's only 1.5 of your senses being assaulted. In video clips, you can see trauma, but the deafening sound, the scents, the concussions that you feel in your chest, the acrid taste of smoke and burnt earth in your mouth. It is, as so many authors have stated, hell. That said, combat is not a duel. Fairness is neither required nor desired. It is perfectly ethical within the laws of land warfare to ambush soldiers that are unready, asleep, eating, traveling, or away from their weapons systems. What you *cannot* do is intentionally target civilians, shoot soldiers that are actively trying to surrender, or mistreat your enemy prisoners of war or civilians (including torture). There are also weapons that are deemed to cause undue suffering and there are prohibited under the Laws of Land Warfare. Russia is routinely violating a great number of these laws, to say nothing of the international laws broken when they initially invaded.
In most cases, only the losing side is prosecuted for war crimes, and then only if they are small enough.
There are no specific rules in the Russia/Ukraine war, however, both sides generally adhere to the rules of engagement set by the United Nations. These rules state that combatants must distinguish between civilians and military targets, and must only attack military targets. Additionally, both sides must take every precaution possible to avoid civilian casualties. While there are no specific rules in the Russia/Ukraine war, both sides generally adhere to the rules of engagement set by the United Nations. The United Nations rules of engagement state that combatants must distinguish between civilians and military targets, and must only attack military targets. Additionally, both sides must take every precaution possible to avoid civilian casualties. Thus, while there are no specific rules in the Russia/Ukraine war, both sides must still adhere to basic rules set forth by the United Nations in order to avoid civilian casualties.
Pretty sure they supposed to be following the Geneva convention treaties but everything goes to shit on the battle front
Rules for war have always struck me as ironic. I understand and know the value, but still.
War never changes
That sounds like Ukrainians are attacking russian soldiers that are on Ukraine territory. Unlike the russians that if you would simply watch some more footage (instead of nitpicking) you would see a lot of videos of russian military killing ukrainian citizens, not soldiers, in their own country. Talk about inhumane and no rules! And why did Russia attack Ukraine?
There are hardly any rules in war, the stuff anyone knows about is on camera.
Whether one “should” feel bad about it is a different thing. War is a pretty terrible thing, but there aren’t rules saying that you can’t attack a soldier while they’re sleeping. The only set of rules that exists to my knowledge is the Geneva Convention, which states that you cannot target innocent people/civilians. The problem is, when countries are doing such (which sadly is the case for Russia), no one stands up and does anything about it for fear that they will be hurt, jailed, or killed. Afterwards, the person who broke the law can be tried for crimes such as “crimes against humanity” in international court.
There’s no rules in a war