Well they couldn't have sent them an email.
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
76 points (100.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
400 readers
47 users here now
Militaria shitposting central! Post memes, tasteless jokes, and sexual cravings for military equipment and/or nuclear self-destruction!
Rules:
- Posts must abide by Piefed.social terms and conditions
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
!forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
For the other, slightly less political NCD, !noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
Indeed, the email hasn't been invented (or implemented) before 1971.
So… fax, then?
I mean, they are an enemy. They just attacked civilians. They didnt declare war. And it sounds like theyre in territory you are internationally recognised to own.
Im not saying napalm is the best choice, i historically look down in fire + civilians. But given the circumstances, im not saying it was the worst choice either. Mostly depends on proportionality of response. If they kidnapped some women, then you decided to bomb every single hospital, kill all surgeons, leave 60% of their population starving, literally go full pirate and just start hijacking and sinking humaitarian aid ships, drop white phosphorous on the civilians, literally defend one of your soldiers raping a childs corpse, and shoot the young in crippling areas but not lethal so the adults come out to try and rescue them and you can shoot the adults? That would be unproportional.
Hey, let's not be antisemitic here!
I mean, they are an enemy. They just attacked civilians. They didnt declare war. And it sounds like theyre in territory you are internationally recognised to own.
Generally, "They attacked our civilians so we're going to attack their civilians" is looked down on post-WW2.
Yeah, from here on im just playing devils advocate, but how does that work when "the enemy" is legally part of your own populace? I don't remember anything significant happening when syria used chemical weapons on their civilians. And the US police use chemical weapons all the time.
The only reason i think devils advocate needs to be mentioned here is because, being an uncontacted tribe, its going to be impossible to get them to stick to international law or even local law. As such, it will be nearly impossible to identify combatants from noncombatants. Thats the whole thing that upsets me here, is that there WILL be retaliation, and without subscribing to international laws, the village has no protections. If you dont identify your combatants, afaik everyone becomes a combatant. Thats why international law is so important.
Yeah, from here on im just playing devils advocate, but how does that work when “the enemy” is legally part of your own populace?
Being a citizen of a polity does not exempt people from the laws of war; targeting civilians of one's own polity or an enemy polity with military action is subject to the same restrictions.
I don’t remember anything significant happening when syria used chemical weapons on their civilians.
Because no one had the stomach to enter into the Syrian Civil War to hold anyone accountable, not because it was legal. Assad still has a warrant out for his arrest for that very reason.
And the US police use chemical weapons all the time.
Chemical weapons are banned in military actions as a means of mutual disarmament. Chemical weapons in civilian and policing contexts are banned only in the context of excessive force, violation of human rights, etc.
If US police used nerve gas instead of tear gas, it would be illegal by international law.
The only reason i think devils advocate needs to be mentioned here is because, being an uncontacted tribe, its going to be impossible to get them to stick to international law or even local law.
And?
International law is clear that one side failing to adhere to international law does not absolve their opponents of the responsibility to adhere to international law. Only limited forms of retaliation are permitted in response to even total violation of international law by one side.
The Nazis performing genocide does not give the Allies permission to perform a little genocide, as a treat. The Nazis performing genocide means that after the war they get hanged. It does not change the standards of behavior expected of adherents of international law.
As such, it will be nearly impossible to identify combatants from noncombatants.
Distinction between combatants and noncombatants is made all the time in conflicts against groups which do not adhere to international law.
Thats the whole thing that upsets me here, is that there WILL be retaliation, and without subscribing to international laws, the village has no protections. If you dont identify your combatants, afaik everyone becomes a combatant. Thats why international law is so important.
That's not even close to true. That's some Israeli-level bullshit that has never stood up in any court of international law.
The closest claimed I can think of would be the GWOT Bush Administration, claiming that a failure to clearly designate combatants marked captured enemy combatants as 'unprivileged', a distinction that was not recognized in international law. Even the braindead bloodthirsty Bush admin did not attempt to argue that civilians were combatants because of the failure of enemy fighters to clearly mark themselves.
I havent looked into this, its primarily derived from my readings into the iraq war and vietnam. I appreciate your response as well.
How would a country go about fighting a seperate country when they wont id their combatants? I, just logically, cant see a way beyond "everyones a combatant/no one is a conbatant"
Is it really as simple as "if theyre not wearing combat gear, you cant shoot them until theyve shot at you"? That seems... absurd, when you know the enemy is mixed into the civilian populace.
I havent looked into this, its primarily derived from my readings into the iraq war and vietnam. I appreciate your response as well.
If I seemed hostile, I do apologize. I was politically aware during the GWOT, and while much more conservative at the time, even at that point in my political development, justifications for violations of the laws of war... rankled. I'm somewhat 'on-guard' about such topics for that reason.
How would a country go about fighting a seperate country when they wont id their combatants? I, just logically, cant see a way beyond “everyones a combatant/no one is a conbatant”
Is it really as simple as “if theyre not wearing combat gear, you cant shoot them until theyve shot at you”? That seems… absurd, when you know the enemy is mixed into the civilian populace.
It depends on the exact goals of the 'organized' force.
Forces attempting to preserve local support (or domestic PR) typically go through pretty thorough identification processes for enemy combatants who do not clearly ID themselves. These are generally covered by what are known as 'RoE' - 'Rules of Engagement' - which are distributed to troops in combat zones outlining when they are allowed to fire on a target. In Afghanistan, for example, during much of the low-intensity conflict, when it was uncertain whether rando militiamen in the mountains were friend or foe, RoE could be very strict, requiring soldiers to not fire on a target even firing on them until they were clearly ID'd. While this may seem absurd, the last thing an occupying power wants is to end up icing allied fighters just because they're dumbass trigger-happy locals - that would be a quick way to convert allied fighters to enemy fighters.
In the broadest sense, though, the obligation is just for a military to make a reasonable attempt to differentiate between civilians and non-combatants - ie indiscriminately shelling a town for the crime of being a town in enemy territory would not pass muster, but "There are armed foot mobiles spotted that aren't our's" would often be enough for a targeted strike.
The capabilities of the force for precision and identification are also taken into account. If you're dropping bombs with gear that has a 1-mile radius of accuracy, not launched until hours after the first intel reports of enemy activity come in... well, first, update that WW2 fucking equipment, but second, you aren't going to be held to high standards for whether your bomb falls directly on the head of enemy troops. On the other hand, if you've got a remote-guided hellfire missile that can choose which door of a moving car to hit, and you gib a bunch of civilians with it instead, you're gonna have to have a pretty clear answer beyond "They were in the AO" for why you didn't have a clear ID on enemy combatants before making the decision to strike.
I wrote out a comment and my app deleted it so heres the footnotes, sorry im not going to bother going into depth.
Thank you! I didnt think about the actual goal, more specifically that there are options other than "kill all the enemies" (lots of context lost here, oof)
As for the attitude, i dont mind. Regardless of your tone, you were willing to engage in discussion and that all I ask. Being uncivil is only a problem if you abandon the discussion in favor of personal attacks imo.
This wasnt in my original message but I hate civility politics. If I am clearly deranged or arguing in false faith, you should absolutely be lambasting me on a personal level. You should also engage my argument, if nothing else than for the onlookers to the discussion. But by treating malicious people as genuine, that only dignifies their maliciousness. If you viewed me as maliciously spreading fake news or an evil agenda, you shouldve treated me exactly as you did.
I did some websearching and didn't find any thing about this. Do you have any source for this?
Did you try watching Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring?
So in the end, this was another example of a subjugated indigenous people exploited for natural resources trying to fight back and in turn getting slaughtered.
Me playing stellaris.