Quote:
Originally posted by Felix The Assassin:
Skunk, you failed to acknowledge two very vital pieces of information in your scenario.
1. We need to know what our ROE (Rule of Engagement) are.
2. What is our policy on the use of retalitory Chemical weapons.
If this were to be current as in todays time of US ROE and ChemStrike we would be facing International treason, Atrocity, and Failing to abide by the ROE.
Our current ROE is the protection of civilians and non-combatants, therefore the ROE justifies not striking.
Our current ChemStrike is for retalitory operations unto the "Known" enemy. Therefore using it on non enemy, and Non-Combatants is not justifiable.
|
The rules of engagement tend to be whatever the military wants it to be and, in wartime, are as flexible as the wind and as blind as neccesary. That is reality.
When the slaughter of 500 men, women and children occured in the Vietmanese village of My Lai in 1968, did the military immediately bring those responsible for trial? No, it took a lot of effort by an ex-serviceman for the case to even be heard in a court and only one man was prosecuted, a lowly lieutenant who only served six years for the deaths of 500. In war-time, the military doesn't want to hear about war-crimes that it's own side is committing, so the rules of engagement really don't matter - unless its your own side that suffers - and even then it might be covered up for reasons of 'home-morale'.
The US policy on the use of Chemical Weapons was outlined by Bush himself in the run-up to the Iraq war - "use them and we nuke you". This is despite the fact that the NPT calls for no-first use of nukes, not no first WMD use.
Then of course, nations will 're-define' the rules in their favour. Napalm (Chemical weapon) was not used in Iraq, no the US used MK-77 bombs. OK, it might look like Napalm, it might behave like Napalm and those using it might call it Napalm - but it isn't, it's MK-77...
Pow's have rights, agreed? So we'll call them 'illegal non-combatents' and lock them up in GM Bay without giving them the rights that are due to POW's...
'Rules of Engagement' and 'Policy' are put aside when waging war. They exist only to make the population sleep well at night 'knowing' that they're the good guys when in reality, RoE and policy are bypassed if it hinders military objectives.
Hence the reason why old war dogs are only for military action as a last resort. Rules of war? Don't make me laugh.
There is only winning and losing.