Is infrastructure a viable target in a time of war?

[Senior]

And it was not a war crime for the allies to attack bridges and rail hubs / marshaling yards all across western France in the months leading up to the invasion in Normandy; these attacks were perfectly legit.

Most of the codices regarding the conduct of modern warfare were not created until after WWII.

Thus, doing so today is not a war crime.

The ICC has prosecuted numerous charged war criminals. International war crimes warrants exist today for both Vladimir Putin (March 17, 2023) and Benjamin Netanyahu (November 21, 2024). Neither Russia nor Israel signed and ratified the Rome Statute. However, this does not relieve these individuals of responsibility and they can be tried in absentia.

if all you can do is scream "war crime!!" and have no capacity to enforce it, your screams don't mean anything. The legal reality is international law in enforced by those with the physical power to enforce them.

The ICC does not have jurisdiction in all territories of the world. Countries such as Bahamas, Cuba, Chile, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Grenada, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Suriname, and the United States signed the agreement in the first instance, but did not ratify their adherence to the final treaty. China, India, Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, and Russia, are among 60 other countries that openly reject the interference of the ICC in their territories.

The US is not party to the treaties which created the ICC and thus is not under its jurisdiction.

As I noted in Post #99.

The US is not a signatory to the Rome Statute.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Most of the codices regarding the conduct of modern warfare were not created until after WWII.

And none of them describe what we did in western France as a war crime.
Why? All of the targets were legitimate military targets.

The ICC has prosecuted numerous charged war criminals. International war crimes...

The ICC will not prosecute Americans.
The fact the ICC has not prosecuted Putin or Netanyahu demonstrate its absence of any real power to enforce 'the law'.
Thus:
if all you can do is scream "war crime!!" and have no capacity to enforce it, your screams don't mean anything. The legal reality is international law in enforced by those with the physical power to enforce them.

 

[Concerned American]

Past examples are precedent. Nothing has changed which makes what the allied sis before the Normandy invasion a crime under the rules of war, because no no nation would agree to any such rules.

The legal reality is international law in enforced by those with the physical power to enforce them.

Hmmm, Might makes Right. I've heard that before. Bottom line is, rules of war is a stupid concept. For crying out loud, one group is killing another group. There are no rules in war. That is exemplified by war crimes tribunals. They are always held by the victors with the same result. The loser is convicted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hmmm, Might makes Right. I've heard that before.

Where international law is concerned, that is exactly correct.
If someone breaks a treaty they have with you, and you do not have the physical power to enforce the provision of said treaty, the offending party suffers no consequence.

Bottom line is, rules of war is a stupid concept. For crying out loud, one group is killing another group. There are no rules in war.

There are.
You get caught killing prisoners of war, you get put against the wall.

 

[ColonelAngus]

All those tank traps on Omaha beach phucked up some good surfing waves.

WAR CRIME FOR SURE.

 

[Concerned American]

Where international law is concerned, that is exactly correct.
If someone breaks a treaty they have with you, and you do not have the physical power to enforce the provision of said treaty, the offending party suffers no consequence.

There are.
You get caught killing prisoners of war, you get put against the wall.

Has anyone ever caught the victor? SMH. Every country that has ever gone to war has killed POWs. The idea is silly. If a combatant is killed on a battlefield, all is well and good. But if that same combatant is wounded on the battlefield -- he is protected from being killed. Rules of war are a democrat construct that they don't even follow.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Has anyone ever caught the victor?

Funny thing about war crimes - the winner never has to answer for them.

Rules of war are a democrat construct that they don't even follow.

Close - they are a means to criticize Republican Presidents when they order military action, because they know they can prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Democrats will not take the House. Even their base doesn't agree with their nasty tactics.

 

[eagle1462010]

Total War is the only answer unless the protesters can take over the country.

Like Iraq, they may be slaughtered if they do. Sadam slaughtered those willing when Bush said rise up.

Did we learn from this?

 

[task0778]

Well, let's see: we put US boots on the ground and invade Iran, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths in another Afghanistan-type war. Or, we don't invade and instead blowup their power grid, bridges, etc., resulting in far fewer casualties. Or, we take the democrat approach and do nothing that eventually leads to the creation and use of atomic weapons by Iran that sooner or later results in hundreds of thousands of deaths somewhere. Maybe even millions, leading to WWIII.

I kinda prefer option 2. The added benefit is that the rest of world gets an object lesson in what happens when you screw with the US.

 

[eagle1462010]

Well, let's see: we put US boots on the ground and invade Iran, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths in another Afghanistan-type war. Or, we don't invade and instead blowup their power grid, bridges, etc., resulting in far fewer casualties. Or, we take the democrat approach and do nothing that eventually leads to the creation and use of atomic weapons by Iran that sooner or later results in hundreds of thousands of deaths somewhere. Maybe even millions, leading to WWIII.

I kinda prefer option 2. The added benefit is that the rest of world gets an object lesson in what happens when you screw with the US.

It avoids the house to house IED trap alternative.

Only thing is the protesters may turn. They would be massively affected.

But...the MULLAHS NEED TO GO. So BOMBS AWAY

 

[task0778]

It avoids the house to house IED trap alternative.

Only thing is the protesters may turn. They would be massively affected.

But...the MULLAHS NEED TO GO. So BOMBS AWAY

I don't know that we should eliminate the mullahs. We just need to remove the possibility of creating and exporting nuclear weapons and terrorism elsewhere.

 

[Concerned American]

Democrats will not take the House. Even their base doesn't agree with their nasty tactics.

I'm not so sure the base makes that decision. When I look at the parallels to 2020 that seem to be occurring in this go around, I think the DNC and some shady players are controlling that.

 

[task0778]

Democrats will not take the House. Even their base doesn't agree with their nasty tactics.

I think it's 50-50. There are a lotta repubs that ain't too crazy about Trump and his tactics too. I imagine it'll come down to the economy like it usually does, and how things are going in October. Which way will the Indies go, hard to say at this point.

 

[eagle1462010]

I don't know that we should eliminate the mullahs. We just need to remove the possibility of creating and exporting nuclear weapons and terrorism elsewhere.

As long as they are in power they will start that back up.

 

[eagle1462010]

I think it's 50-50. There are a lotta repubs that ain't too crazy about Trump and his tactics too. I imagine it'll come down to the economy like it usually does, and how things are going in October. Which way will the Indies go, hard to say at this point.

Pocket book will probably decide. Always does.

 

[task0778]

As long as they are in power they will start that back up.

Yes, and then we blow it up again.

 

[HikerGuy83]

What do you mean "could"?

View attachment 1240676

Not by a long shot.