Already been done:Bismarck went under the waves at 10.39 hours that morning. Unaware of the fate of the ship, Group West, the German command base, continued to issue signals to Bismarck for some hours, until Reuters reported news from Britain that the ship had been sunk. In Britain, the House of Commons was informed of the sinking early that afternoon. Dorsetshire and Maori stopped to rescue survivors but a U-boat alarm caused them to leave the scene after rescuing only 110 Bismarck sailors, abandoning the surviving crew in the water. The next morning U-74, dispatched to try and rescue Bismarck's log-book (and which heard sinking noises from a distance), and the German weather ship Sachsenwald picked up 5 survivors. In all, almost 2,100 German sailors had lost their lives.
I asked what YOU would do, hypothetically, if you were the captain. I didn't want an example from history.
Same, my first responsability is the survival my crew and ship, and then only in passing the enemy survivors. No hypothetical about it.
Good hypothetical. And like Buffalo said, The safety of my ship and crew is parramount, If at any time i thought there was a danger i would mark the area somehow so that the enemy could figure out the rest for themselves. I mean what good is a sailor if they don't have a ship to serve on? You sink their ship and they get rescued by their own kind, what good are they going to be after? Rescue what i can without compromising safety and security of my own men
my choice would be a) provided i had the room and wasn't on an extended voyage if i didn't have the room then my choice would be c) i would never exercise option b)
According to published United Nations reports, the USA-led trade "sanctions" against Iraq directly led to the deaths (over ten years) of 500 000 women, old people, and children. But that wasn't a declared war. So I suppose it is not included in this discussion.
Paul thats not what this thread is about, but if your going to make silly comments like that then stop the USA bashing. The so called "USA-led sanctions" that "killed" 500,000 people was an international decision made in the UN security council. There are more than enough countries there that can veto Sanctions, which they didn't. So following that logic, all countries on the security council who voted, or did not veto the sanction are ALL responsible. But back to topic now. Here's another hypothetical. You as a commander of a large formation is experiencing difficulties in your operation (lets say its secure a particular Area). Your intel has determined that the source of all your problems are local civilians who have taken up arms and in an attempt to thwaught your efforts. Intel has also placed the location of the Head of this militia in a residential building that is in a largely populated area (which is friendly to the enemy). You have a large number of troops at your disposal along with aircraft, both fixed and rotary wing. Your course of action, and Rules of Engagement: Personally i would round up the "civilians" (who by coincidence are now called combatants under the Geneva Convention), by ordering agressive patrolling techniques by my troops. I would use the helicopters as Aerial Surveilance of the area, reporting enemy movements to the men on the ground. I would launch a massive shock attack in the area where the Militia headquarters were, and hopefully take the commander. If that were not achieved i would continue rounding up the militia until the enemy commander fled, was found or killed. My rules of engagement would be: Any person who openly shows arms, is now a combatant, however do not fire unless fired upon. Anyone suspect of carrying weapons must be detained and searched, once certain that no weapons are on the person, they may be released.
what are we trying to do here? make war civilized? the primary purpose of the military in war is to completely eliminate the enemies will to fight. another purpose i find important is to eliminate the enemies ability to fight. if the military can acheive either of those objectives then they can win. the first objective is the most desirable.
ya know, don't be arrogant. War is war; haven't you ever heard the phrase "all is fair in love and war"? That is what makes fighting and wars so pointless. It isn't that the smartest, or the best win, but the toughest and ruthless. If we were to forgive the japanese for attacking pearl harbor, or simply to not win our chances for survival would lower immensely. When Going against an oponent who will do ANYTHING (everyone knows of the kamakazee planes) to win, we must take extra precautions. That is why I do not argue with what has been done in the past, but only suggest that in the future we (as a whole on Earth) find other ways to fight. We don't need a weapon capable of destroying an entire country (which is the current ploy). Instead, perhaps try to find a way to make war unnecessary? Life is too simple. Everyone wishes to complicate it would violence and hate.
So....given the chance to nuke 300,000 women and children who are "potential" combatants you'd take it, but given the chance to kill 1,000 enemy sailors (actual combatants), you wouldn't take it, and would in fact, feed them and care for them or failing that let them return to their country to come back on another ship?
What's the difference between a guided missile in modern warfare hitting your ship, and a pilot guiding his plane into your ship? Fuck all, but you don't hear anyone crying these days about guided missiles. I never understood why you all paint kamikaze pilots as so evil and somehow use it as an excuse to kill innocent civilians. How can you say it's fine to use a 30mm cannon on an Apache from 3 miles away to shoot some unarmed terrorists but it's not OK for a man to fly his plane into your ship? It's OK to use cruise missiles to take out civilian infrastructure but it's not OK for a man to take his own life flying his plane into a well-armed ship? Human beings will always fight. We will always form tribes, and we will always need an enemy. Without an enemy, civilisations fall apart. It's human nature. However, that does not mean that war shouldn't (or can't) still have honour. When that's the case, that's when the trouble starts.
i don't know about you but i HAVE forgiven the japanese for one very good reason, we must let go of the anger and move forward. another good reason is that the japanese of today are innocent of the crimes of their forfathers.
who was booby trapping wounded people so that when the US medical corps helped them they got blown to bits? then parade it around the world that america doesn't help the wounded? whose frikken side are you on?
And Paul H, what about all the money in the oil for food program, that was supose to buy food and medical supplies for the people of Iraq, that Saddam used for building new palaces, buying new weapons, bribing UN, Middle Eastern and Europen diginitaries to try and get around the sanctions, dose Saddam or any of these people and countries bear any responsability for these deaths? I would have to say their bear all the responsabilities, if not provide proof why not.
Well no one said Saddam was a great guy. Just like no one said the Japanese militarist government of WWII were great guys. It's just the typical yank argument to go "well the other guy isn't perfect, so that absolves us of all wrongdoing" rather than say, "well, we did something bad" so you can forget about it. That is how children reason.
Mistakes happen in war, if you havn't served in the armed forces then you just wouldn't understand this. War isn't pretty, it never has been, and occasionally there is "Collatoral Damage". Doesn't make it acceptable but it happens. But that pales in comparison to a dictator killing hundreds of thousands of his people, just for a few measely perks in the form of a palace, underground bunkers and bribes.So comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges
"Collateral damage" is a phrase made up by the american military which simply means "We missed and blew up another school. Who gives a fuck?". There is "collateral damage" and there is "reasonable civilian casualties".
I don't call Collateral Damage acceptable, any civilian death in todays wars is unacceptable (depending ofcourse the situation) but like i said, it pales in comparison to a dictator killing his own population.
Yes, collateral damage is supposed to be inadvertent. We missed, or the civilians showed up where we didn't expect them. If you deliberately shoot into an area with civilians because it's the only way to get your target, that's not collateral damage.
