Is infrastructure a viable target in a time of war?

[candycorn]

Yes he is, but even so, he is sadly 99% better than the circus he replaced, the same circus that is about to come in and impeach him for the 1000th time.

God help this country.

Nearly every measurable statistic disagrees with you.

 

[the watcher]

Cold war, hot war, police action, whatever you want to call it, Iran has been at war with Israel and the US since their revolution thingy. Neither the US nor Israel wanted such a war, but here it is anyway, so......................................

You just couldn't respond to it without summoning Israel, could you. You maybe tried but just couldn't do it.

 

[Failzero]

If Tanks and Mobile missile Launchers use the Roads / Bridges and Rail then yes and if the Factories making weapons of War use the Grid then Yes

 

[Lesh]

Attacking civilian infra structure is a war crime

It just is.

If he does this he will eventually answer to an international tribunal

 

[1srelluc]

Attacking civilian infra structure is a war crime

It just is.

If he does this he will eventually answer to an international tribunal

But the Ukes hitting bridges and refineries in Russia is just fine to you.

 

[Failzero]

But the Ukes hitting bridges and refineries in Russia is just fine to you.

And Clinton bombing every bridge over the Danube in Serbia was kosher too ( With foot & Vehicle traffic on them at the time )

 

[Votto]

That's because Israel is a serial breaker of international law, but relax, the US always vetos them.

It was deserved.

Show me the resolution and I'll take a look.

What stopped the United States or Israel from tabling a resolution to address that situation in Sudan? Nothing, any member state can draft a resolution for the general assembly or security council to vote on.

Get some books.

Get some books?

All I have to do is look at the regimes around the world like North Korea who starve their citizens so badly, that the average North Korean is like 3 feet shorter than South Koreans due to malnutrition, along with the myriad of never ending genocides around the world that the media and UN seem to ignore like the one in the Sudan like I mentioned.

Sorry, the whole facade of the UN treating all the countries with equal skepticism and equality are over as they spend all their waking hours writing resolutions against Israel while ignoring the rest of the world, and when Israel is at war to defend themselves Legacy media and the international community insists that they are also engaged in genocide themselves while fighting that war is over.

Any reasonable human being who was not an antisemite can see what is going on here.

I mean really, when have colleges around the US and Europe and gay pride groups protested any genocide around the world, but insist on protesting Israel, while shouting from the river to the sea, which is essentially a call of genocide for the Jews of Israel?

Simply asinine

 

[M14 Shooter]

Attacking civilian infra structure is a war crime
It just is.

All you do is lie.
Civilian infrastructure is a perfectly viable operational and strategic target.

If he does this he will eventually answer to an international tribunal

All you do is lie.
Post-war tribunals are held by the winners to punish the losers.

 

[Stryder50]

It is WAR. The intent is to break the will of the adversary. If it done by destroying their infrastructure, denying them food and comfort or wounding and incapacitating them, it works to the same end. Wounded military is as good as dead military--sometimes better as it takes human and real resources to heal those who have been wounded. Lumped together, these methods work to break any civilian will to wage war.

I've known those aspects ~ details for decades now.
My problem is that such methods are rather crude and this is the sort of situation that would be better served with more subtle and less ham-fisted approach.

 

[westwall]

I see it all coming, like a train about to plow into a car but can do nothing to stop it.

Iran is not going to agree to any terms with Trump. In fact, the more Trump wants them to agree to something, the more they will insist that they will not. So, Trump is now faced with going through with his threat to target infrastructure within Iran, simply because he has no more viable military targets to pursue. Personally, I would tell the world what he said before, if you want their oil come get it. And if they don't let you have it by opening the Straits of Hormuz, why not if they are only upset with Israel and the US? But Trump is too preoccupied on the negative effects on the world economy I reckon. Whatever. Really though, it is a prime chance to build a world consensus against Iran so that they all start coming after them, especially the countries that Iran indiscriminately attacked when the US and Israel attacked them.

But getting back to the topic of infrastructure as a valid military target, as in any war, infrastructure is targeted, such as knocking out bridges, and power stations, etc. The difference here is, there are no boots on the ground that this will benefit. How will this benefit the air only attacks on Iran, or is the thinking that it will help further delay them being able to build WMD's?

All I know is that it appears the DNC will take the House in the midterms, and when they do, they will try to impeach Trump for war crimes when he does take out their infrastructure, but does Trump care? Of course, I could be wrong, and they will try and impeach him for something else. I'm not even sure it matters what the reason is. They will either have control of the Senate as well so that they can throw him out after they impeach him or it will be as last time, they will impeach him to help aid their wet dreams. Then again, perhaps the lunatic Left don't even need a reason, so I'm not sure this even matters in that respect. All I know is that the vote in the midterm is only over whether you want Trump impeached or not, as nothing else will get done so vote "D" if you want this to happen or vote "R" if you don't. It really is that simple.

The sad truth is, at the political level, this debate will never be handled to get at the truth, rather, as always those discussing it in the Swamp will have hyper partisan reasons for their political position on the matter. In fact, I'm not even sure you can have a dialogue here about it for the same reason, but it is an interesting topic to discuss.

Of course.

 

[Stryder50]

Trump has yet to commit to a major ground offensive like "W" did, so they are not the same. Trump has a better reason for the attack on Iran than "W" because there were no WMD's found in Iraq. Conversely, Iran dangles the nuke threat in the face of the US and the world like the trolls that they are.

And Trump has delivered with so many other things. He put justices in place to overturn Roe vs Wade, as where "W" verbally said he was against abortion, but did not put in justices who would do that. Trump exposed the corruption of USAID, something that "W" was against and never would have done. In fact, I don't recall "W" taking a bullet for anything like Trump did, as they wanted Trump dead more so than "W".

As I've said often, there was at least one WMD found in Iraq, out in plan sight.
It was an environmental WMD and it was the Southern Marshlands/Coastal Marshes which had water flow to them blocked, which dried them up. Caused an environmental destruction in harm to the flora and fauna.
Interestingly, most people would rather ignore that, especially the Left who are always hand wringing about the environment.

 

[Chuz Life]

Is infrastructure a viable target in a time of war?
​

Was this question intended for the IRGC?

 

[Concerned American]

I've known those aspects ~ details for decades now.
My problem is that such methods are rather crude and this is the sort of situation that would be better served with more subtle and less ham-fisted approach.

Like we've used for the past 47 years?

 

[Votto]

As I've said often, there was at least one WMD found in Iraq, out in plan sight.
It was an environmental WMD and it was the Southern Marshlands/Coastal Marshes which had water flow to them blocked, which dried them up. Caused an environmental destruction in harm to the flora and fauna.
Interestingly, most people would rather ignore that, especially the Left who are always hand wringing about the environment.

The funny part is, they say Iraq had no WMD's, yet the world acknowledges that Iraq used a WND to wipe out an entire city of Kurds.

Funny that.

But no, they were no were close to being a threat like Iran is today in terms of WMD's. Nobody denies that.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Well, it turns out that the threat of wiping out their infrastructures seems to be a viable option to get the battered enemy to capitulate.
No bombs dropped last night, and apparently the Strait will be opened
I'm sure the demented LEFT and the Blackpill Brigade will take this news as Trump failing and showing weakness.

The NARRATIVES will be flowing hard today, so here we go...

 

[DonGlock26]

 

[JohnDB]

I see it all coming, like a train about to plow into a car but can do nothing to stop it.

Iran is not going to agree to any terms with Trump. In fact, the more Trump wants them to agree to something, the more they will insist that they will not. So, Trump is now faced with going through with his threat to target infrastructure within Iran, simply because he has no more viable military targets to pursue. Personally, I would tell the world what he said before, if you want their oil come get it. And if they don't let you have it by opening the Straits of Hormuz, why not if they are only upset with Israel and the US? But Trump is too preoccupied on the negative effects on the world economy I reckon. Whatever. Really though, it is a prime chance to build a world consensus against Iran so that they all start coming after them, especially the countries that Iran indiscriminately attacked when the US and Israel attacked them.

But getting back to the topic of infrastructure as a valid military target, as in any war, infrastructure is targeted, such as knocking out bridges, and power stations, etc. The difference here is, there are no boots on the ground that this will benefit. How will this benefit the air only attacks on Iran, or is the thinking that it will help further delay them being able to build WMD's?

All I know is that it appears the DNC will take the House in the midterms, and when they do, they will try to impeach Trump for war crimes when he does take out their infrastructure, but does Trump care? Of course, I could be wrong, and they will try and impeach him for something else. I'm not even sure it matters what the reason is. They will either have control of the Senate as well so that they can throw him out after they impeach him or it will be as last time, they will impeach him to help aid their wet dreams. Then again, perhaps the lunatic Left don't even need a reason, so I'm not sure this even matters in that respect. All I know is that the vote in the midterm is only over whether you want Trump impeached or not, as nothing else will get done so vote "D" if you want this to happen or vote "R" if you don't. It really is that simple.

The sad truth is, at the political level, this debate will never be handled to get at the truth, rather, as always those discussing it in the Swamp will have hyper partisan reasons for their political position on the matter. In fact, I'm not even sure you can have a dialogue here about it for the same reason, but it is an interesting topic to discuss.

 

[ColonelAngus]

So Zelensky committed war crimes when he hit Russian infrastructure?

I did not see the lefties cry too much about that.

 

[Senior]

These International Laws/Accords protect critical infrastructure from indiscriminate targeting and/or destruction:

1. The Geneva Conventions (1949) and Additional Protocols (1977)
The Fourth Geneva Convention focuses on the civilian population. Articles 18, 52, and 54.

2. The Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907)
Parties to a conflict must distinguish between civilian property and military targets.

3. The Nuremberg Principles (1945/1950)
The Nuremberg Principles codified “War Crimes" and “Crimes Against Humanity" into international law. Principle VI defines war crimes to include the wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

4. The United Nations Charter (1945)
The UN Charter provides the legal authority for the UN and its bodies to investigate violations of the laws of war, including the targeting of critical civilian infrastructure like power grids or water systems.

5. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) also known as the Law of Armed Conflict.
Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between enemy combatants and protected persons. Attacks shall be directed solely against legitimate military targets. The principles of distinction, necessity and proportionality are established principles in international humanitarian law.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The Muslims didn't have any qualms about flying into skyscrapers