tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
Posts: 9,118
Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65
|
 |
« on: October 14, 2015, 12:36:19 PM » |
|
|
« edited: October 14, 2015, 12:44:40 PM by tpfkaw »
|
Actual answer: That's for the winner to decide, isn't it?
My personal opinion:
1-2: Ok.
3: Acceptable collateral damage, ok to take prisoner, ok to specifically target if an officer or other high-value target, not ok to specifically target if an ordinary enlisted man.
4-10: Ok, should attempt to minimize civilian casualties to the greatest extent reasonably possible.
11: Acceptable collateral damage, not ok to specifically target.
12-13: Given your description, ok, but should attempt to minimize non-combatant casualties to the greatest extent reasonably possible. The enemy forces are violating the First Geneva Convention by staging military actions from a hospital.
14: Ok, should attempt to minimize civilian casualties to the greatest extent reasonably possible. The level of acceptable force also depends on the ratio of soldiers to civilians in the hotel; it's not ok to blow up hundreds of civilians to get a handful of soldiers.
15: Depends on whether the rock-throwing constitutes lethal or dangerous force, whether the soldiers having rocks thrown at them are engaged in combat, and the dangerousness of the civilian in question (a military-aged male is obviously more dangerous than a small child).
16-17: Yes, and as non-uniformed combatants they are not entitled to the protections of international law.
|
Poll
