The US is quietly arming Taiwan to the teeth
Vqhm @ Vqhm @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 84Joined 2 yr. ago
Vqhm @ Vqhm @lemmy.world
Posts
0
Comments
84
Joined
2 yr. ago
Cannon fodder?
To quote Patton
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
It's a good thing this near-peer BS is thrown around about armies that can barely keep their troops fed in their own countries where we have the logistics to feed our troops around the world.
I'm sure there will always be a roll for infantry. The problem of the last few wars has been using infantry to hold ground and as a police force.
You don't win a conflict by holding on to a hill of dirt. You win by removing your enemies ability or will to fight.
Ukraine is a bad example as they're playing by other people's rules. Europe and the West won't provide them weapons if they use them in Russia. Russia won't give up ground if Ukraine cannot reach inside of Russia to remove their will or ability to fight.
It's trench warfare stalemate a la WWI all over again.
If there is a WWIII it'll be marked by hybrid war, hacking, air defense reacting to missle and drone attacks and the deployment of decentralized weapons.
It's not a stretch to imagine hundreds of thousands of civilians could be killed by killware in a hacking attack without a single traditional weapon system being involved.
People aren't going to line up in pretty little lines fire salvos at each other. If anyone starts digging a fucking trench let them have that ground. They are no immediate threat to the factories, production, and training centers. Let them dig in. Send a bomb run later to clear them out when they come out to play.
This is actually a good question.
Law of War is often referred to as the law of armed conflict (LOAC). This is what is permissively legal to do, if you are engaged in conflict.
The Rules of Engagement (ROE) are directives regarding the exact circumstances United States (US) forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement.
Has the hostage takers used force such as firing a weapon to take the hostage? Did they fire at US forces? Did they deploy munitions of any type? Has there been an escalation of combat or have they disarmed? Is there an immediate threat to the hostage? Have they threatened to kill the hostage? Are they retreating or advancing? Are the hostages prisoners of war? Are they being provided the required treatment for POWs?
All of these and many more can determine the rules of engagement for US forces.
The ROE is separate to the rules of war and not all forces have the same methodology. In fact some nonUS forces may receive no training for LOAC or ROE.
Finally, the current interpretation post 9-11 is that those that do not follow the LOAC are not legally combatants and therefore do not have to be provided the protections that they would if they were legally combatants. So, if they engage in war in a way that does not follow the legal methods they may not hide behind the protections.
Drafts have not won recent wars. Wars are not PVP.
The US has made an effort to maintain a highly trained and extremely specialized fighting force. It can take over a year of training in certain specialities before you even get to the last school house.
There's a focus on making advanced weapon systems easy to use through human factors analysis and that's slowly transitioning into killbots that do everything but pull the trigger and need a human in the loop to authorize the kill.
During WWII there was a massive increase in manufacturing which was beyond the enemies reach. If you got drafted to do anything it'd likely be work in a plant making drones or something logistical such as transporting drones.
The rules of war aren't about perfection, they're very much a do not let perfect be the enemy of good, and filled with compromises to do less evil.
If you want protections for medical staff you have to clear a section of ground for them that isn't used for war.
It's important to realize these rules were agreed to in order to try to prevent total war. Where carpet bombs flattened entire cities like what happened in Dresden.
War is horrific. Those that wage war unleash hell. We cannot make war logically or compassionate. We can try to afford safety nets for those to help others and reduce harm in war. However, the rules do not elimt harm for "innocents." They simply offer a way to have less civilian casualties by doing things like not running a command center out of a hospital.
The rules of war do not state it has to be used exclusively to commit attacks to be a legal target.
Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy.
the protection of medical units ceases when they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. This exception is provided for in the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions and in both Additional Protocols.[37] It is contained in numerous military manuals and military orders.[38] It is also supported by other practice.[39]
While the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols do not define “acts harmful to the enemy”, they do indicate several types of acts which do not constitute “acts harmful to the enemy”, for example, when the personnel of the unit is armed, when the unit is guarded, when small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick are found in the unit and when wounded and sick combatants or civilians are inside the unit.[40] According to the Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, examples of acts harmful to the enemy include the use of medical units to shelter able-bodied combatants, to store arms or munitions, as a military observation post or as a shield for military action.[41]
Yea this depends on the state law. In the state I'm talking about they have to let you leave for 4 hours if you ask for it at least a day ahead of time.
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
How can us older folks explain concern trolling and that among the old out of touch frontman both sides always choose, you can set aside single issues, and just pick the one that will do the least harm?
I hear a lot of black and white ultimatums and statements boiling down to if you don't do impossible I won't vote tantrums. Sounds exactly like the trash before, people won't vote for a woman. Gore came out slightly critical of Iraqi war and the media ate him alive as a antiwar idiot peace nut. He tried to transition to climate change but got called a boring and stiff despite being passionate about environmental activism.
There's always an ultimatum. Being slightly critical of a blank check for war after 9-11 was an express ticket to no where.
The Democrats, even if they have some fresh ideas behind closed doors, are always running a terrible campaigns with mixed messages : "more of the same" mantra to big business; latest identity politics hot button issues for the people.
But past all the terrible policy that can't be quickly changed and flat messages one party constantly comes in with a plan to exploit, fucks shit up, dig a deeper hole, and hold onto power. While the other at least seems like they're trying to act in good faith and approach some issues.
I feel like there's always a bunch of trolls identitying a single issue and saying, well because there's some war you can't have reproductive rights cuz I won't vote .
Or because some fetuses aren't fit to live but I like cute babies you have to have even worse and more war, cuz I hate reproductive rights.
For fucks sake nothing is black and white. It's complex and voting for those that listens to science and lean into harm reduction is a real platform.
Is this the same young voters that don't turn up to the elections anyway?
Overhead a young coworker, "they have to give you time off during your shift to go vote, right?"
Me, Yes, but the state law says you have to ask for that time off at least 1 day in advance.
"Oh well. Maybe next year..."
Me, Set a calendar notification for next year!
...
Several presidents have put tax dollars to work on medical research. For example the The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) paved the way for money for the PreP trials in 2005.
Obama kicked off precision medicine and gene research.
Obama's HITECH Act reformed HIPAA in a way that improved outcomes for patients and the industry.
But yea, everything is black and white. Conflicts in Africa and the middle east are the only concern I could ever have.
I especially do not care at all about any medical advancements or harm reductions.
Everyone must survive and no one can ever be harmed or everything is lost.
You know you sound just like the every sperm is sacred anti abortion activists.
War = so bad we must sabotage anyone involved in war and trade all our liberties, freedoms, health, etc just to not have war!
There's very few things I can only get at target. Or that are vastly cheaper at target.
Even if I can get it at target, if it's locked and I need to wait a long time for a worker, who keeps bitching on the radio that he needs to finish the shift and clock out.. I just kinda get the feeling that target isn't worth it.
They no longer stock unique things. They treat their stores with ALDI level of staff but keep things locked up.
Why not just shop at Wegmans, LIDL, IKEA, Trader Joe's, Meijer, or at least Fred Meyer/Kroger.
Fuck if I really need convenience the experience of picking shit up and just walking out of Amazon go is addictive compared to locked shelves and long lines.
Cry me a river.
In cut throat retail innovate or die.
I let perfect be the enemy of good.
I'm doing my part, for the Republicans!
People are always ready with some morality test but the cold hard truth is trying to enforce your absolutes on others is not going to work out. It just backs you into a corner supporting a turd sandwich. Compromises suck though. Can't have that. You do you.
I hope they at least had a unauthorized use warning aka Login Banner.
https://security.tennessee.edu/login-banners/
This need for a warning login banner is sometimes called a myth in INFO SEC. But if it is a myth it's a VERY old one.
1990 NIST - Defense Data Network Security Bulletin:
b. A court recently threw out a suit against a computer system intruder because the logon prompt was preceded with "Welcome to...".
https://ftp.st.ryukoku.ac.jp/pub/security/ciac/secdocs/ddn/ddn-9004.txt ftp://ciac.llnl.gov/pub/ciac/secdocs/ddn/ddn-9004.txt
They finally hit a stride right there at the end!
If they had 26 episodes then it would have evened out and there'd be more gems. It can't be easy write, get the episodes thru the board, get the actors to do it well, and still have good content after composing with executives and panels. But if they made more it'd be easier to overlook.
Not disagreeing with you.
China did sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) committing to nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament.
But they're just saying they are not expanding, just modernizing!
https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/china-nuclear-disarmament/
They are however expected to expand by about double.
Nuclear weapons are expensive and complicated to maintain. The military has been bitching for many years that the price to maintain old nuclear munitions is rapidly increasing.
Instead of seeing this as working as intended, and trying to get everyone to agree not to develop new nuclear weapons... The military strategists decided that since China was making 500 new nuclear weapons we needed to make new ones too and pulled out of the agreement with Russia not to develop new nukes.
I would have thought that if it was hard for us to maintain the nuclear weapons with a massive budget that Russia might fail at that task. Which would be good for everyone.
But there's always been more money in star wars and missile defense then diplomacy.
Unfortunately based on the rules of was the medical staff do not have to cooperate, or even be aware, simply storing weapons, or a command center, or staging armed soldiers for war next to a hospital removes the protections.
The rules of war aren't about making things perfect, they're very much a do not let perfect be the enemy of good and filled with compromises.
If you want protections for medical staff you have to clear a section of ground for them that isn't used for war.
I didn't make these rules. These rules were agreed to in order to try to prevent total war. Where carpet bombs flattened entire cities like what happened in Dresden.
I mean, are you incapable of having any sympathy for individuals that walked into what seemed to be peaceful but turned into a warzone?
Sure, the Israel Palestine conflict has been going on since 1948 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict
But if your work told you to go on a quick in and out trip to Jamaica would you know there's an older persistent conflict that could cause you harm? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaican_political_conflict
Shit Sudan and Myanmar both have higher body counts so far. You check with the state department and lists of all armed conflicts before all your trips?
Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy.
the protection of medical units ceases when they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. This exception is provided for in the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions and in both Additional Protocols.[37] It is contained in numerous military manuals and military orders.[38] It is also supported by other practice.[39]
While the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols do not define “acts harmful to the enemy”, they do indicate several types of acts which do not constitute “acts harmful to the enemy”, for example, when the personnel of the unit is armed, when the unit is guarded, when small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick are found in the unit and when wounded and sick combatants or civilians are inside the unit.[40] According to the Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, examples of acts harmful to the enemy include the use of medical units to shelter able-bodied combatants, to store arms or munitions, as a military observation post or as a shield for military action.[41]
You're absolutely right. Nothing good is going to come.
Last chance I thought of any chance of good coming died with Rachel Corrie.
Wrong about the life tho. I'm a disabled veteran and lived in more countries than I have fingers to count with. Hardship is a part of life. Chop wood, carry water.
Both sides have backed themselves into a corner with no winners and my sympathy has run out after interacting with those that claim they are the innocents but actually support Hamas behind closed doors.
If there was a way to erase the mind virus of racism and religion maybe that could end this conflict. But short of God coming down or aliens showing up and saying the holy books are myth and having time travel to prove it how could that be done? It's the world we live in and it is going to get worse before it gets better.
If you want to go trench by trench or door by door go ahead.
The future of war is not dirt. But instead information.
If Australian warnings for Perl Harbor had been heeded we wouldn't have had to build so many boats. We built 9000 boats in WWII and we'll build more than that many drones in WWIII.
But what good are drones without information? Without targets? Without information what to they do?
Targets, tactics is only one kind of information. Real time surveillance, biometrics, the ability to strike command and control. To cut the head off the snake is worth more than clearing a city.
If you need to clear a city, you need infantry.
Did we go island hoping all the way to Japan and then go door to door? Or did we break the enemies will to fight and force a surrender?
Is it always worth going door to door and holding worthless land? Trading bodies and bullets for what? Dirt?
What would it be worth however to cripple the enemies Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber, and Intelligence? Do we really need to take land in future wars as much as force a surrender out of idiots that want to start shit.
There's a terrific documentary about how the Air Force planned to win a nuclear war before ICBMs. It's called the power of decision. It's not about going door to door or trench by trench however. It's about a different kind of war where you win by removing your enemies ability to fight in a flash. Unfortunately similar can be done today in cyberspace without the assurance of MAD or the early warning of an ICMB launch.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?426926-1/the-power-decision#