WAR RULES

[cobber]

The logical outcome of 'no rules' is simply to form units like the Dirlewanger Brigade, and set them loose on enemy forces and/or civilians.

With our considerable prison population we could significantly increase our military at little cost, and it wouldn't have the unpleasant side effect of turning respectable citizens into pathological killers.

Think "Dirty Dozen" writ large. Not sure it would be a good place for us to go, though.

 

[strahd71]

The logical outcome of 'no rules' is simply to form units like the Dirlewanger Brigade, and set them loose on enemy forces and/or civilians.

With our considerable prison population we could significantly increase our military at little cost, and it wouldn't have the unpleasant side effect of turning respectable citizens into pathological killers.

Think "Dirty Dozen" writ large. Not sure it would be a good place for us to go, though.

sure why the hell not! lets give them hoodies and mount sights on the side of their guns so they can actually shoot the damb things! and ship them off to some foreign land!

sorry i'll stop now.............. but its an idea who's time has come

jake

 

[churchmouse]

You would have to put shock collars on the worst of them but not a terrible idea.


Its OK Strahd, to much time in that other thread will warp your tender sensibility's...

 

[KLB]

It isn't like Rules of War are anything new, they just get rewritten as time, technology and wills change. The Europeans used to line up in nice lines and shoot each other. Our Civil War brought trench warfare into the picture and showed how the next great war would be fought, changing the rules at that time.

Our pesky forefathers didn't always play by the rules during the Revolution; hiding and shooting from cover, targeting officers, etc. The Brits did a bit of complaining about that.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

so, were fighting against people that dont follow the rules while we DO??? are roadside bombs and suicide bombings considered in this....i can unsderstand the rules for when were fighting another NATION that agrees to and follows them, but why do we have to follow these guidelines in the war on terror...when our enemy is not required to follow the same rules

I really miss Napalm and flamethrowers. They seemed to work very well. Just saying...carry on.

armedindy, I'm not certain what you think would be an appropriate military response to roadside bombs and suicide bombers that we aren't already doing. An INAPPROPRIATE response - and what the terrorists are looking for - would be reprisals or indiscriminate military action against the populace. Historically, (recent history, that is) military reprisals against civilians have strengthened support for rebels rather than curbed it. That's one reason why asymmetric warfare is so difficult to counter; you're damned if you do (exercise overwhelming and ill-targeted force) and damned if you don't (while looking ineffective if ineffective responses are made).

Churchmouse, why would we need area denial weapons like napalm or bunker-busting weapons like flame throwers (almost as dangerous to their wielders as to the enemy) when we have precision guided munitions and cluster bombs for air-to-ground engagements and LAW, HELLFIRE, and other portable munitions to take out hardened positions? In addition to being "unpredictable" in their effects (they don't always land where you aim them - making close air support problematic), they create a great deal of collateral damage around them. If we really need explosive overpressure to eliminate a target, we do have thermobaric weapons in our inventory which work better than napalm, if perhaps not quite so much fun to watch.

 

[strahd71]

You would have to put shock collars on the worst of them but not a terrible idea.


Its OK Strahd, to much time in that other thread will warp your tender sensibility's...

i am sensitive you know? sensitive yet strong..............

jake

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It isn't like Rules of War are anything new, they just get rewritten as time, technology and wills change. The Europeans used to line up in nice lines and shoot each other. Our Civil War brought trench warfare into the picture and showed how the next great war would be fought, changing the rules at that time.

Our pesky forefathers didn't always play by the rules during the Revolution; hiding and shooting from cover, targeting officers, etc. The Brits did a bit of complaining about that.

I think you're referencing two different things. The customs of combat between armies prior to the late 1800s were just that: customs. Even then, they were cultural in nature; the Brits weren't a bit surprised that the Zulus and the Afghans didn't "follow the rules"; they were, after all, uncivilized barbarians. That's much the view they took of the Colonists during the Revolutionary War.

The conventions that set out a codified "Law of War" didn't happen until much later.

 

[churchmouse]

armedindy, I'm not certain what you think would be an appropriate military response to roadside bombs and suicide bombers that we aren't already doing. An INAPPROPRIATE response - and what the terrorists are looking for - would be reprisals or indiscriminate military action against the populace. Historically, (recent history, that is) military reprisals against civilians have strengthened support for rebels rather than curbed it. That's one reason why asymmetric warfare is so difficult to counter; you're damned if you do (exercise overwhelming and ill-targeted force) and damned if you don't (while looking ineffective if ineffective responses are made).

Churchmouse, why would we need area denial weapons like napalm or bunker-busting weapons like flame throwers (almost as dangerous to their wielders as to the enemy) when we have precision guided munitions and cluster bombs for air-to-ground engagements and LAW, HELLFIRE, and other portable munitions to take out hardened positions? In addition to being "unpredictable" in their effects (they don't always land where you aim them - making close air support problematic), they create a great deal of collateral damage around them. If we really need explosive overpressure to eliminate a target, we do have thermobaric weapons in our inventory which work better than napalm, if perhaps not quite so much fun to watch.

Sarcasm looking for a response. Your's is spot on...........

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Sarcasm looking for a response. Your's is spot on...........

Sorrry. My purple lenses filtered the sarcasm out . . .

 

[Pocketman]

While there is nothing to prove he actually performed such an exercise, Black Jack Pershing's "creative" practice in the Philippines had an effect on quelling the Moro Rebellion.

 

[CarmelHP]

It isn't like Rules of War are anything new, they just get rewritten as time, technology and wills change. The Europeans used to line up in nice lines and shoot each other. Our Civil War brought trench warfare into the picture and showed how the next great war would be fought, changing the rules at that time.

Our pesky forefathers didn't always play by the rules during the Revolution; hiding and shooting from cover, targeting officers, etc. The Brits did a bit of complaining about that.

They had no room to complain.

BANASTRE TARLETON by Janie B. Cheaney

 

[Vic_Mackey]

To me the while thing is bs. The enemy we are currently fighting are not an organized, governmental/country's military. These bastards use whatever they can get, decapitate people, kill medics, shoot at medical transports, and set booby traps. In general, they have broken every single rule of the Geneva Convention, and we are stuck abiding by it.

And that's why we die. I shouldn't have to carry plastic "less lethal" 40mm rounds for my 203. Or a tazer, beanbags, or show any kind of "coddling" to a man that drags my friends burning bodies down the street and behead them.

We shouldn't be bound by ruled that the other team won't follow. I missed the good ol days where a bullet would ping off my truck and the .50 would turn to the direction of fire and just spray whole city blocks until we were gone. Now, some AQ a-hole can shoot at you, drop his gun and walk into a crowd. No chase, no shoot. Lives to fight another day. I had a guy shoot an rpg over the hood of my truck and stare in disbelief that his wonderful Soviet weapon missed (purple broken) the last thing he stared at was the business end of my 240 Bravo. No run, no hide, no fight another day.

We need to get out of there and save what little steam we got left for the bigger stuff that will hit the fan in the near future, where there will be rules, and air to air, tank on tank. And maybe, just maybe, a little humanity and common decency on the enemies part, cuz we will still be the nice guys with tiny bullets and plastic handcuffs.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

To me the while thing is bs. The enemy we are currently fighting are not an organized, governmental/country's military. These bastards use whatever they can get, decapitate people, kill medics, shoot at medical transports, and set booby traps. In general, they have broken every single rule of the Geneva Convention, and we are stuck abiding by it.

And that's why we die. I shouldn't have to carry plastic "less lethal" 40mm rounds for my 203. Or a tazer, beanbags, or show any kind of "coddling" to a man that drags my friends burning bodies down the street and behead them.

We shouldn't be bound by ruled that the other team won't follow. I missed the good ol days where a bullet would ping off my truck and the .50 would turn to the direction of fire and just spray whole city blocks until we were gone. Now, some AQ a-hole can shoot at you, drop his gun and walk into a crowd. No chase, no shoot. Lives to fight another day. I had a guy shoot an rpg over the hood of my truck and stare in disbelief that his wonderful Soviet weapon missed (purple broken) the last thing he stared at was the business end of my 240 Bravo. No run, no hide, no fight another day.

We need to get out of there and save what little steam we got left for the bigger stuff that will hit the fan in the near future, where there will be rules, and air to air, tank on tank. And maybe, just maybe, a little humanity and common decency on the enemies part, cuz we will still be the nice guys with tiny bullets and plastic handcuffs.

While I disagree with you, I understand your feelings and sympathize with you.

 

[churchmouse]

To me the while thing is bs. The enemy we are currently fighting are not an organized, governmental/country's military. These bastards use whatever they can get, decapitate people, kill medics, shoot at medical transports, and set booby traps. In general, they have broken every single rule of the Geneva Convention, and we are stuck abiding by it.

And that's why we die. I shouldn't have to carry plastic "less lethal" 40mm rounds for my 203. Or a tazer, beanbags, or show any kind of "coddling" to a man that drags my friends burning bodies down the street and behead them.

We shouldn't be bound by ruled that the other team won't follow. I missed the good ol days where a bullet would ping off my truck and the .50 would turn to the direction of fire and just spray whole city blocks until we were gone. Now, some AQ a-hole can shoot at you, drop his gun and walk into a crowd. No chase, no shoot. Lives to fight another day. I had a guy shoot an rpg over the hood of my truck and stare in disbelief that his wonderful Soviet weapon missed (purple broken) the last thing he stared at was the business end of my 240 Bravo. No run, no hide, no fight another day.

We need to get out of there and save what little steam we got left for the bigger stuff that will hit the fan in the near future, where there will be rules, and air to air, tank on tank. And maybe, just maybe, a little humanity and common decency on the enemies part, cuz we will still be the nice guys with tiny bullets and plastic handcuffs.

I can only try and understand how you feel as I have not experienced these things. Sitting safely in front of my computer in the air conditioning I can only imagine. Can not say ya or nay....stay the course and be safe.