The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Some of these rules of modern warfare are a little ridiculous
Poast new message in this thread
Date: April 8th, 2026 10:19 AM Author: Peach Excitant Church Nowag Since when are bridges off limits? These rules only really apply to countries like the United States and I'm sure posters are fine with taking out bridges or whatever in Russia or whoever their acceptable enemy is (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5854971&forum_id=2#49803368) |
 |
Date: April 8th, 2026 10:23 AM Author: wine hyperventilating becky fat ankles they're off limits if its indiscriminately targeted. the idea is in theory that you can't just fire bomb a large civilian infrastructure or population.
there's still some military application because they're still giving 'aid and comfort' to the enemy as a friendly population center. if you dont have limits then its easy to go to Mongol horde levels of brutality. logically, using human shields, executing civilians, follows |
|
Date: April 8th, 2026 10:54 AM Author: honey-headed tanning salon alpha This is actually an important modern development, because even now, no government actually seems to be responsive to its governed. Why should civilians get massacred for the shit their governments do against their will?
Hopefully one day we get to the point where government officials can just bet their own dumb lives |
|
Date: April 8th, 2026 11:31 AM Author: wine hyperventilating becky fat ankles The fabric of the global world order comes apart too if we resort to no holds barred war.
For instance, if say we bombed Iran back to the stone age and then a huge % of the 90M population become refugees, does the civilized world then accept them? Do we let them just die if they run out of food, water, etc?
You have to go full Barbarian if you throw out the rules of war. The logical end point is to just let them all die. I suppose you can do that but then you open society up to a new level of lawlessness. Terrorism and other forms of resistance would be morally justified against the USA
Islamists would be morally justified setting a nuke off in Israel for instance. It would not be a good world to live in, even for Jewish supremacists who'd prefer to live in a world without any neighbors (except as slaves) |
|
Date: April 8th, 2026 11:38 AM Author: honey-headed tanning salon alpha Agree with this. Wasn't being expansive in my reply
Honest take: if you start a preemptive war and create a serious humanitarian crisis, it is a moral obligation to not let the civilian population wither to death
If you defend yourself and create strife in your attacker, there is not a moral imperative, particularly if you need to use your resources to rebuild yourself and take care of your people |
|
Date: April 8th, 2026 11:46 AM Author: wine hyperventilating becky fat ankles I would agree there isn't a moral imperative. But real life gets complicated. Also I think there is something to be said, that results in the empowerment of one's position, about forgiving ones enemies.
There was a similar plan to basically let Germany flounder after WW2 based on this latter logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan
With the termination of hostilities, the mood of suppression gave way to ambivalence – in the West. Germany needed to be punished for wrongdoing, but it was also essential to revive the German economy for its necessary contribution to European recovery.
The irony of all this is that if the vengeful (((Morgenthau Plan))) went through, Globohomo would have lost a big cheerleader. Empowering Germany has led them to become some of the biggest cuckqueens to the (((World Order))) |
|
Date: April 8th, 2026 11:50 AM Author: honey-headed tanning salon alpha I didn't say to keep attacking the aggressor you vanquished. I simply said taking care of the people of an aggressor, over those of my own, is not a moral obligation
It's not that those people in an objective sense necessarily deserve whatever they get (as I said above, I don't think any government really puts its people first). But the defensive victor in particular doesn't have the burden for figuring out how to help absent some kind of unusual one-sided response (bioweapons, nukes, etc.)
These types of principles help limit the attractiveness of war |
|
Date: April 8th, 2026 11:32 AM Author: Vigorous really tough guy resort no one actually thinks bridges are off limits, libs just decide anything they don't like is a war crime. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5854971&forum_id=2#49803521) |
|
Date: April 8th, 2026 11:35 AM Author: wine hyperventilating becky fat ankles ((((decadent faggot))) who thinks executing women and children is based) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5854971&forum_id=2#49803531) |
|
Date: April 8th, 2026 11:51 AM Author: Vigorous really tough guy resort How is bombing a bridge "executing women and children." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5854971&forum_id=2#49803604) |
|
Date: April 8th, 2026 11:53 AM Author: honey-headed tanning salon alpha I think he's talking about consequential eventualities. It would depend on the bridge, but if you blew up the only way to truck in food and medicine for an immobile population, it's pretty clear to see where that goes (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5854971&forum_id=2#49803609) |
Date: April 8th, 2026 10:21 AM Author: bright hairy legs cuckoldry "Rules" exist only to benefit powerful countries. They are not subject to them and they can label their enemies as "terrorists" and "war criminals" for violations. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5854971&forum_id=2#49803371) |