That may well be - what little formal training I have on the topic is a good 15 years old!
1 Like
Regarding weapons that main but do not kill. Waaaaaay back when I was a Midshipman, we were taught that weapons that cause undue suffering / maiming but do not kill are prohibited, IIRC by the US, per Geneva and/or Hague Conventions. I found this on line:
This principle is based in the Hague Conventions restrictions against using arms, projectiles, or materials calculated to cause suffering or injury manifestly disproportionate to the military advantage realized by the use of the weapon for legitimate military purposes.
https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/Annex_3-60/3-60-D33-Target-LOAC.pdf
Basically you are allowed to use a weapon that is meant to kill. Period.
That said, if a weapon, i.e. a hand grenade, happens to blind or disfigure a combatant, that is considered legal since the intent of using said hand grenade is to kill the combatants it is tossed at.
I will be the first to admit that this sounds ridiculous, but if you think about it, it makes sense. The objective of combat is not to essentially torture the enemy, but rather to eliminate their resistance.
(OK, if you want to get technical about it, " The logical purpose of war is to make the opponent comply with one’s will." - Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz, 1780-1831)
So, shooting a laser (“laser”) that is meant to blind a pilot is contrary to the rules of armed conflict. To use a laser that will blow that pilot’s plane out of the sky, is regarded as permitted. The fact that that laser may blind the pilot in the process of destroying his aircraft is essentially a consequence of combat.
5 Likes
Of course, in any conflict where at least one side feels it is existentially threatened, the rules fly right out the window. First for that side, then the other. Punji sticks → My Lai.
A weapon that maims can be very efficient, especially if your opponent gives a duck about human life. If not, eh, better use a flamethrower.
YMMV
2 Likes
3 Likes
So the current crop of verbiage is “less-lethal” for anything that might even have a remote chance of death. “Less than lethal” for those things that are pretty much incapable of causing injuries incompatible with life. The later is the official marketing speak term that replaced “non-lethal.”
3 Likes
This one surprised me because I clicked on it expecting something more vintage, but was instead greeted by something from the late 80s! Some quick research showed that the ANG was flying the F-106 until 1988!
7 Likes
As a kid I remember these guys flying along the beach when we would go to the Jersey Shore.
1 Like
Sexy turboprop is sexy…
7 Likes
rrrrrAWR! The view from that pit must be great. Look how far ahead they sit, and how low the canopy rail is.
1 Like
But will hit haul Prawns?
But the heat…the heat in Las Vegas in that greenhouse…
Isnt that what God gave us airco for?
1 Like
One of the reasons I really miss my Bronco X for FSX…the view!
2 Likes
I want for DCS!
1 Like
Are you a graduate of the Naval War College? Your point is spot on. 
A couple things I learned at the NWC:
1 - The Rules or Laws of war are not actual rules or laws. Internationally they are a codified in treaties that signatories agree to abide by. Not a signatory (like the VC in Vietnam)? Then really noting to be said. Besides, Punj sticks are potentially lethal when speared with dung; albeit inflicting "suffering or injury manifestly disproportionate to the military advantage realized by the use of the weapon for legitimate military purposes. "
2 - When fighting an enemy whose resources are greatly inferior to yours–especially if such a conflict is an existential one for that enemy–one should expect “asymmetric” threats; Punji sticks in Vietnam, IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. During the American Revolution, the practice of our fighting from cover and concealment was considered “not cricket” by the British…
There is a film that was recommended while Was in the NWC titled The Battle for Algiers. It describes the guerrilla warfare/terrorist attacks in Algiers against the French. The method of attack was to carry/leave a bomb in a handheld showing basket, common in the area and era. When the rebel/terrorist leader is caught, he is asked why they are employing bombs in baskets. He notes that the French have war planes that are used to bomb rebel villages and states something like, “If you give us your planes, we will give you our baskets.”
EDIT: Added a link to the film mentioned.
2 Likes
Am not. Took a minor in polemology (the study of war and peace) in college and have been interested in these issues since I learned to read. Si vis pacem para bellum etc.
I wouldn’t mind discussing issues of asymmetry in warfare at length but fear this forum is not the place for it.
2 Likes
You would probably enjoy the one trimester that covers war form Sun Tzu up through the current age - emphasis on the Peloponnesian War (the Whale (Athens) vs the Elephant (Sparta) and a focus on the Sicilian Campaign–similarities with the US in Vietnam), the rise of German military power in the late 19th / early 20th century, and Mao’s revolution in China. It uses the old school lecture and seminar format. Nothing classified; just history and Clausewitz . I took my Dad to a lecture when he was visiting. He enjoyed it.
Well…I could develop a DCS mission or two that might involve a bit of asymmetry…you can do a lot with triggers.
…but yeah, you are right, I’ve already probably pushed the limits for this forum. IMHO, once you get by the whole “Terrorist or Freedom Fighter” conversation, it is all just a tactics discussion but no need to go there.
2 Likes