Why are leaders and government never targeted in war

[Parker99]

It always surprises me during these conflicts including ww2 that the leadership is never targeted eg ww2 the palace and the British parliament we not targeted to my knowledge ( the English royals are actually German so that may answer the question about the palace)

The first retaliatory strike by Iran they gave the Israelis 5 hours notice, told them which facilities they would hit and they did, so they obviously have the targeting capabilities so why not drive one into yahoo's and his henchmen's hangout ,same with Putin why not why not go after that shity little actor from Ukraine and his cohorts in the first place .

It may be a simple view and ill-informed but if it was me my first shot would be to remove all the sitting politicians and therefore the survivors if any would be looking for a new club house.

if you wanted to take down a country youd bomb the government buildings not schools and hospitals and apartments buildings.

 

[Votto]

It always surprises me during these conflicts including ww2 that the leadership is never targeted eg ww2 the palace and the British parliament we not targeted to my knowledge ( the English royals are actually German so that may answer the question about the palace)

The first retaliatory strike by Iran they gave the Israelis 5 hours notice, told them which facilities they would hit and they did, so they obviously have the targeting capabilities so why not drive one into yahoo's and his henchmen's hangout ,same with Putin why not why not go after that shity little actor from Ukraine and his cohorts in the first place .

It may be a simple view and ill-informed but if it was me my first shot would be to remove all the sitting politicians and therefore the survivors if any would be looking for a new club house.

if you wanted to take down a country youd bomb the government buildings not schools and hospitals and apartments buildings.

I think it is the same reason why both parties in Congress rarely send anyone to prison who are fellow Congressmen. Charley Rangel is a good example. Here was a man who had about 20 ethics violation, including not paying taxes, and they just gave him a slap on the wrist as he later retired a multi-millionaire.

The rule is, you don't mess with me, then I won't mess with you.

Let all the underlings fight it out and make fools of themselves.

 

[shockedcanadian]

It always surprises me during these conflicts including ww2 that the leadership is never targeted eg ww2 the palace and the British parliament we not targeted to my knowledge ( the English royals are actually German so that may answer the question about the palace)

The first retaliatory strike by Iran they gave the Israelis 5 hours notice, told them which facilities they would hit and they did, so they obviously have the targeting capabilities so why not drive one into yahoo's and his henchmen's hangout ,same with Putin why not why not go after that shity little actor from Ukraine and his cohorts in the first place .

It may be a simple view and ill-informed but if it was me my first shot would be to remove all the sitting politicians and therefore the survivors if any would be looking for a new club house.

if you wanted to take down a country youd bomb the government buildings not schools and hospitals and apartments buildings.

There were many efforts to assassinate Hitler, similar to Castro it either never succeeded, the perfect opportunity didn't arise, the person chickened out or the guy got lucky.

I think the big shift in policy occurred after JFK was assassinated. THe "eye for an eye everyone is blind" theory is probably aptly applied to the reasons for this change, among other concerns.

 

[martybegan]

There were many efforts to assassinate Hitler, similar to Castro it either never succeeded, the perfect opportunity didn't arise, the person chickened out or the guy got lucky.

I think the big shift in policy occurred after JFK was assassinated. THe "eye for an eye everyone is blind" theory is probably aptly applied to the reasons for this change, among other concerns.

I cases of major declared wars, it's usually because you want someone to be able to negotiate a surrender with.

plus, in general, it's pretty damn hard to kill specific people in war. Israel had the advantage of surprise and amazing intelligence on the locations of their targets. They also want to make clear they are trying to topple the current Iranian government, not kill the Iranians themselves. (as much as they can help it)

 

[Parker99]

There were many efforts to assassinate Hitler, similar to Castro it either never succeeded, the perfect opportunity didn't arise, the person chickened out or the guy got lucky.

I think the big shift in policy occurred after JFK was assassinated. THe "eye for an eye everyone is blind" theory is probably aptly applied to the reasons for this change, among other concerns.

Apparently, there is an unspoken agreement between 'warring' nations to not target leaders/cabinet members, unless they are supreme controllers of the military ( Saddam Hussein).

In case Saddam Hussein, Hitler or Castro they head of the military.

 

[Votto]

Apparently, there is an unspoken agreement between 'warring' nations to not target leaders/cabinet members, unless they are supreme controllers of the military ( Saddam Hussein).

In case Saddam Hussein, Hitler or Castro they head of the military.

Obama targeted Gaddafi.

Originally Obama said he was just creating a no-fly zone to protect a local population Gaddafi wanted to go to war with, but the next thing you know Obama was bombing the hell out of his headquarters and everywhere he might be, which eventually led to him being toppled.

 

[Rigby5]

There were many efforts to assassinate Hitler, similar to Castro it either never succeeded, the perfect opportunity didn't arise, the person chickened out or the guy got lucky.

I think the big shift in policy occurred after JFK was assassinated. THe "eye for an eye everyone is blind" theory is probably aptly applied to the reasons for this change, among other concerns.

Wrong.
The Allies never tried to assassinate anyone except Admiral Yamamoto.
That is because it would be suicidal for anyone to do that, since then they would for sure be targeted.

 

[Rigby5]

I cases of major declared wars, it's usually because you want someone to be able to negotiate a surrender with.

plus, in general, it's pretty damn hard to kill specific people in war. Israel had the advantage of surprise and amazing intelligence on the locations of their targets. They also want to make clear they are trying to topple the current Iranian government, not kill the Iranians themselves. (as much as they can help it)

Its trivial to kill specific people and even easier these days with video drones.
You don't do it because it is so easy, that the one who does it is ensured of death in retaliation.

 

[Votto]

Its trivial to kill specific people and even easier these days with video drones.
You don't do it because it is so easy, that the one who does it is ensured of death in retaliation.

No, in the case of Gaddafi, Obama had little to fear of retaliation.

It is easy to pick on the little guy

Now would Obama mess with Putin, for example, or anyone who could fight back?

Hell no, he would be too chicken sh$t.

At his core, Obama is a coward.

 

[Rigby5]

Obama targeted Gaddafi.

Originally Obama said he was just creating a no-fly zone to protect a local population Gaddafi wanted to go to war with, but the next thing you know Obama was bombing the hell out of his headquarters and everywhere he might be, which eventually led to him being toppled.

No, it was the French we used to bomb his troops out of existence, that caused Qaddafi to be murdered by a Benghazi convoy of US mercenaries.

 

[Votto]

No, it was the French we used to bomb his troops out of existence, that caused Qaddafi to be murdered by a Benghazi convoy of US mercenaries.

The UN enlisted the help of the US to oversee the entire operation.

Believe what you must based on your partisan leanings, but it is what it is.

They payment to do Europe dirty work for them was them giving Obama the Nobel Peace prize.

I reckon the more people that die in the world the more at peace the world becomes, so there is that.

 

[Rigby5]

No, in the case of Gaddafi, Obama had little to fear of retaliation.

It is easy to pick on the little guy

Now would Obama mess with Putin, for example, or anyone who could fight back?

Hell no, he would be too chicken sh$t.

At his core, Obama is a coward.

No, Qaddafi had been picked by the elders of the Hill tribes, and they would have retaliated if Obama had assassinated Qaddafi.
What the US did instead was bribe the French into wiping out Qaddafi's troops, and then bribe mercenaries from Benghazi to invade and murder Qaddafi.
We stayed hidden from the overt actions.

 

[Rigby5]

The UN enlisted the help of the US to oversee the entire operation.

Believe what you must based on your partisan leanings, but it is what it is.

They payment to do Europe dirty work for them was them giving Obama the Nobel Peace prize.

I reckon the more people that die in the world the more at peace the world becomes, so there is that.

I don't remember it as the UN being involved as much as it was a NATO operation, and we all know how corrupt NATO is.

And since Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace prize only 11 days after being sworn in, I doubt it was for anything he actually did.

{...
The winner is selected by the Nobel Committee from nominations submitted by committee members and others. Nominations for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize closed just 11 days after Obama took office.
...}
2009 Nobel Peace Prize - Wikipedia

But the point really is that murdering Qaddafi was likely a really bad idea.
It not only was an illegal precedent, but put Libya into chaos that is still not resolved.

 

[Votto]

No, Qaddafi had been picked by the elders of the Hill tribes, and they would have retaliated if Obama had assassinated Qaddafi.
What the US did instead was bribe the French into wiping out Qaddafi's troops, and then bribe mercenaries from Benghazi to invade and murder Qaddafi.
We stayed hidden from the overt actions.

They are all so damned clever, arn't they?

But the point is, Obama had little to fear from Gaddafi, as we see today.

 

[Votto]

I don't remember it as the UN being involved as much as it was a NATO operation, and we all know how corrupt NATO is.

And since Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace prize only 11 days after being sworn in, I doubt it was for anything he actually did.

{...
The winner is selected by the Nobel Committee from nominations submitted by committee members and others. Nominations for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize closed just 11 days after Obama took office.
...}
2009 Nobel Peace Prize - Wikipedia

But the point really is that murdering Qaddafi was likely a really bad idea.
It not only was an illegal precedent, but put Libya into chaos that is still not resolved.

All I know is that the populace of Libya had the highest standard of living in all of Africa, including Egypt and South Africa.

The people loved him.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Wrong.
The Allies never tried to assassinate anyone except Admiral Yamamoto.
That is because it would be suicidal for anyone to do that, since then they would for sure be targeted.

The British worked their intelligence channels within Germany and France to ensure there was resistance within the population and in Hitlers circle.

There were numerous plans to assassinate Hitler, one in particular which I recall reading which I believe involved a U.S soldier though I could be wrong and he may have been British but something in my grey matter points to American in origin (though perhaps planned by the Brits).

They planned to kill him when he was walking the path at his cottage home with one of his usual private communications with generals. There was plenty of security there except for a key blind spot in a heavily wooded area for which he was susceptible to a sniper attack.

They decided against it since it was as it turns out, it was late in the war and the risk was too high of being caught. They had it planned it out to the last step. This is just one of many at the top of my head.

There were numerous attempts by the allies either directly or more often then not, through influence of Germans. You can just imagine just how many have never been disclosed and have long died with the planners. There was a far stricter code of silence in those original OSS spies.

One attempt even came quite close to fruition just a month or so before the famous bombing at his military bunker for which he was saved by the heavy leg of a table (covered in the movie Valkyrie with Tom Cruise, a well done movie as it was quite accurate to the real story). They had a bomb parcel which was to be loaded on Hitlers plan. In one case, a "gift" from a trusted adviser.

There were always reasons why the plan was not executed, much to the chagrin of those many souls who died when peace never arrived.

I don't wish to do the research at the moment but I assure you there were many attempts.

In fairness, the Germans were just as committed. They were pursuing a very audacious plan to kidnap Churchill from his home. Some even suggesting they would go further to the point of him being neutralized.

This was a time of survival of nations and the technology isn't as it is today where it is near impossible to assassinate a well protected VIP.

 

[toobfreak]

It always surprises me during these conflicts including ww2 that the leadership is never targeted eg ww2 the palace and the British parliament we not targeted to my knowledge ( the English royals are actually German so that may answer the question about the palace)
The first retaliatory strike by Iran they gave the Israelis 5 hours notice, told them which facilities they would hit and they did, so they obviously have the targeting capabilities so why not drive one into yahoo's and his henchmen's hangout ,same with Putin why not why not go after that shity little actor from Ukraine and his cohorts in the first place . It may be a simple view and ill-informed but if it was me my first shot would be to remove all the sitting politicians and therefore the survivors if any would be looking for a new club house.

The answer is simple and can be summed up in one word: globalism.

Every country is now so interdispersed and so interdependent, and weapons so powerful and effective that normal military conflicts are becoming difficult to do anymore.

It is difficult now attacking another country without in some way, hurting yourself--- if you don't lose something directly in your dealings with this country, you lose something indirectly through some other country you need or value who IS negatively impacted as well!

And the smaller countries team up with Big Brother:

• The EU learned long ago there is strength in numbers.
• Most other small countries buddy up either with the USA, Russia or China. So, if you pick on them, they have their big brother there to help protect them.

Military hardware is becoming a thing of the past to be relegated to the position of deterrent, and in time, all future combat between countries will increasingly take the form of espionage, intelligence gathering, and economic sabotage via computer/software attacks.

You will have to really piss someone off or go far out of your way to get someone to actually load up boats and planes and men and tanks and come kicking down your door.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Why are leaders and government never targeted in war

Ever notice how fast they go from ''we'' to ''you?"

 

[Mushroom]

It always surprises me during these conflicts including ww2 that the leadership is never targeted eg ww2 the palace and the British parliament we not targeted to my knowledge ( the English royals are actually German so that may answer the question about the palace)

Holy run-on sentence!

Actually they are, there were multiple attempts to kill leaders from Hitler to Saddam, and none of them work.

That is why many leaders use body doubles, maintain tight secrecy where they are at, move locations often, and only make very select public appearances.

A good example of the latter was in 1990, when right after invading Kuwait Saddam Hussein pretty much stopped appearing in public. That is, other than when he was making propaganda appearances with the foreign human shields he had placed around key strategic locations. Because he knew that no matter how badly the coalition wanted him, he was safe so long as he was surrounded by hundreds of foreign hostages.

 

[Mushroom]

Apparently, there is an unspoken agreement between 'warring' nations to not target leaders/cabinet members, unless they are supreme controllers of the military ( Saddam Hussein).

Not really, although it might be done for various reasons.

For one, because there might arise an issue when it comes to who will be in charge next. Killing the leader of a nation you are at war with can have many unforeseen consequences, like who is going to take charge next. Eliminating the top leadership can cause a collapse, or it might result in the strengthening of the resolve to continue fighting no matter what.

That is why Emperor Showa and Tokyo was specifically not a target of the atomic bombs. The plan was to continue to bomb key strategic points in Japan, for at least the first 4 bombs. But by the time of the 5th bomb, it would have been obvious that Japan would not have surrendered, so dropping the bomb with the Imperial Palace as "Ground Zero" might have resulted in a change in leadership that would understand their position was hopeless.

And a lot of this can depend on the nations themselves being fought. For some like Germany or Italy, enough of the population saw the occupation as liberation that such resolve was simply not there. The same thing in Iraq. But in Japan, the few times an island was invaded that had a significant civilian population, mass suicides resulted.