Conference back40::soapbox

    
      I know intelligent people discuss this.  I can't understand why.
    
      I'm with Sherman.  There is no such thing as humane war.
    
      bb

    True...however, it stands to reason that most wars do eventually end.  
    I know of a POW camp in NH that housed German POWS.  The prisoners and
    guards get together for reunions every few years or so.
    
    If wars end, wouldn't it make sense for the poor soldiers who survive
    atrocities to put it to an end in their lives and get on with living.  
    I believe this is good policy because it could make the difference of
    haveing veterans on both sides become blind for life...or die of cancer
    in their prime.  I don't know, I just think it's smart thinking that's
    all!
    
    -Jack

    
    Jack,
    
      The POW's who were interned here and Canada were treated humanely and
    strictly under the Geneva Convention.
    
      The same could not be said of POW's in Japan, Germany and Italy. Some
    places treated them no better than those in Concentration Camps. 
    
      I can see the rapport between the guards here and German POW's but
    there is no such love for what happened in Europe. It should be
    remembered and reviled as much as the Jews remember and revile...
    

I agree with .1.

The very concept of nations agreeing to abide by a set of rules with respect
to what weapons are ethical to use to annihilate each other is ridiculously
paradoxical. If they can come to that level of agreement, they shouldn't
be involved in an armed conflict to begin with.

That 1st world nations tend to abide by these agreements is most likely
due to the fact that they are generally on the leading edge in weapons
technologies and have enough "new stuff" up their sleeve which they know
they can employ to their advantage before any ruling/agreement is publicly
reached on its applicability.

    > The very concept of nations agreeing to abide by a set of rules with
    > respect to what weapons are ethical to use to annihilate each other is
    > ridiculously paradoxical.
    
    yet such agreements prevented in WWII the repetition of the terrible 
    poison gas attacks in trench warfare experienced by all sides in WWI.
    such agreements are understood to have prevented open use of chemical
    and biological agents in numerous conflicts since, and to lead to
    exhaustive scientific efforts to determine such usage when alleged.
    such agreements were the eventual justification for the United States
    to mothball and eventually destroy its stockpiles of chemical agent
    weaponry.  discovery of violations of such agreements has served in
    several cases to mobilize world opinion against violators.  Initial
    protests against Desert Storm, for example, became far less volatile
    when cbw agents were proven to have been shipped to Iraq by several
    German companies in the mid-80s.
    
    such agreements reached in eras of relatively benign relations
    therefore have proven themselves beneficial in times of heightened
    tensions, in part by providing public support to endorse the quelling
    of dictators who would use them; in part by compelling the world's
    nations to acknowledge that some weapons are too inhumane to use.  I 
    do not understand how you, or others with the same information, can
    fail to acknowledge such value.
    
    DougO

>									  I 
>    do not understand how you, or others with the same information, can
>    fail to acknowledge such value.

Feeling a bit antagonistic today, DougO? Specifically what parts of .4
led you to believe that I failed to acknowldege the value?

    The first paragraph.
    
    DougO

    I expect the point about land mines has to do with distinguishing
    between civilians and combatants. 
    
    So, for example, most nations agree that it's ok to bomb a group of
    soldiers, but not a group of civilians -- even though this consensus is
    often honored in the breach.
    
    Land mines as a means of blowing up soldiers are probably "okay"  and
    no worse than disposing of soldiers some other way. The case is probably
    being made against line mines because there is a much higher likelihood
    that unintended victims (civilians) would get hurt by them than would
    be likely in other types of warfare.
    
    Kit
    

>    The first paragraph.

Did you read the second sentence of it by chance? Did it tend to temper
the whole thought a bit? The first sentence spoke of a paradox. Isn't
it?

    the second sentence provides a faulty analysis to resolve the paradox.
    Thus, it appears you discount the value of such agreements.  Glad to
    hear you don't.
    
    DougO

    
    .8, Kit
    
    >The case is probably
    >being made against line mines because there is a much higher likelihood
    >that unintended victims (civilians) would get hurt by them than would
    >be likely in other types of warfare.
    
    More specifically, I believe the objection to be that the deaths
    continue even after both sides have agreed to discontinue hostilities.
    Unexploded air-to-surface ordinance has a similar drawback, although
    I think this is less common with modern weapons than it was in WW2.
        

    not that i'm drawing a parallel with how allied prisoners were
    treated, but we (U.S. and our allies) did not always treat our
    POW's humanely. information (and veterans on both sides) are just
    beginning to describe some very inhumane treatment ranging anywhere
    from low/no food rations to witholding medical attention.
    
    Generally, we probably did better than most nations, but we're not
    without sin.
    
    Chip 

        More specifically, I believe the objection to be that the deaths
        continue even after both sides have agreed to discontinue
    hostilities.
        Unexploded air-to-surface ordinance has a similar drawback,
    although
        I think this is less common with modern weapons than it was in WW2.
    -------------------------------------
    
    Exactly the point I was making.  I firmly agree the treatment of POWs
    was not in parity on both sides.  I was just saying that if for example 
    Billy goes to Vietnam and gets hit with Agent Orange...the war is long
    over but his son dies of brain cancer due to his dads exposure, then in
    essence, the war is still bringing casualties...twenty five years after
    the fact!
    
    -Jack

    	So what do we do to enemies who are using illegal weapons
    	in war against us?  Declare war on them again?

    
    
    We take the leash off the Israelis....
    

    I don't have an answer for that Joe...wish I did!

    With more and more warfare being waged by guerilla groups, whose
    members are seldom professional soldiers, such agreements have
    an air of futility. A guerilla group will fight with whatever
    it can get its hands on... guns, land mines, mortars... these
    groups are unlikely to dispose of potential "resources" because
    they don't comply with the Geneva Conventions.
    
    -b

    ...they are also less likely to have the exotic/sophisticated
    weaponry outlawed by the GC. guerillas are usually very dependent
    on recoveries or creativity with limited/expensed materials.
    
    Chip

    
    
    	re: exotic/sophisticated weaponry
    
    	what, like hollowpoint bullets and poisonous chemicals?
    
    
    

    ...guerillas are unlikely to get their hands on poison chemicals
       and fashion weapons from them.
    
       hollowpoints are home-makeable i guess but what is gained by the
       guerilla?
    
       anything is possible but history bears out simplicity as a rule.
    
       that's the only (IMO) point i was trying to make, Jim.
    
       Chip

>                    <<< Note 242.20 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    ...guerillas are unlikely to get their hands on poison chemicals
>       and fashion weapons from them.

BBWWAAAAHHAAAAAHHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
Check out your local; Hardware store, supermarket, feed and grain store.
get copies of books with titles like "Anarchist cookbook" or "improvised
munitions" or the U.S. Army Special Forces field manuals on guerilla warfare
then get back to us.

    
>       hollowpoints are home-makeable i guess but what is gained by the
>       guerilla?
    
Fear, Intimidation, more-severely wounded enemy personel,
if you don't see the value in that go read the books on the phillipines war
circa 1940-45

Amos

    yup... i can see the Chechens running down to the local Bookcorner
    and getting the past issues of Soldier of Fortune and... never mind.
    
    please re-read my notes... yes, of course, guerillas have (and still)
    devise very nasty anti-personnel stuff. always have and always will.
    their best offense is their creativity. i was point toward a more
    standard method of offense/defense operation and ordinance.
    
    thanks,
    
             Chip

    > A show I saw last night put forward the viewpoint that landmines were
    > unacceptable weapons of war due to their indiscriminate nature;
    
    Wow, I suppose we can junk our arsenal of GP bombs and all our
    artillery.  
    
    Shesh, maybe we should give these boys capguns and nintendos.
    Wouldn't want to hurt anybody now, would we.
    

    
    >Shesh, maybe we should give these boys capguns and nintendos.
    >Wouldn't want to hurt anybody now, would we.
    
    Not such a bad idea.  Fight wars with card games or something 8^).

    
    
    	I used to able to stick cards in the wall by throwing them...was
    pretty accurate too. Hockey cards worked best....:*)
    
    
    

    Stop this, stop this, this has gotten silly! What started out as a nice
    little idea about banning land mines in conventional warfare has now
    turned into a discussion of killing each other with hockey cards. We
    all know that the violence in hockey is minimal and that the use of
    tactical missiles by players is almost entirely deprecated.
    
    				Brig. Arthur Snookems (Mrs.)

    This troubles me.
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Glenn (In a white wine sauce with shallots mushrooms and garlic)

    ...are those smart or ballistic mushrooms?
    
    Chip

    High Altitude Theater Specific Shallots Or Intercontinental Ballistic
    Shallots?  Tactical Area Wide Tubers?  
    
    Brian

    This truffles me.
    
    |-{:-)