Treespeaker wrote:
When has any international resolution really been observed except when it was convienient to do so?
you weren't in the Fifth Marines by any chance were you?
as I noted above, the Conventions and Protocols tend to have a very limited application and by their nature are able to be sneaked around, the main idea, however, is not to gain any big advantage by cheating, but to make sure that your enemy has no chance of calling a foul and rejecting international law because of it, a "you shot Pvt Cameljocky with a .50, thus I'm allowed to use bio weapons on your medical corps" one bad turn deserves another escalation
note in
this article a few historical 'rules' of warfare are mentioned
Quote:
The ancient Hindu laws of Manu prohibited the use of barbed arrows because they exacerbated the injury upon their removal. The Romans considered the use of poisoned weapons to be unlawful. During the Middle Ages, the Pope condemned the crossbow, noting the appalling injuries it caused.
the latter popish rule had more to do with the fact that a barely trained commoner issued with a crossbow could kill a highly trained and armoured noble knight in one shot, not good for the stability of the classes at all, but it was brought into general effect in Europe with excommunication as the punishment for disobeying it
however some Free Companies, often with few if any knights involved couldn't care less about excommunication when the advantages of harsh weapons and unrestricted warfare were, really, their advantage, so they happily celebrated their excommunication by going after churches and bishops, practically relishing their outcaste status
but anyway, on the above article, although it relates to non-lethal weapons, it's a pretty good summary of the current state of international law with regards the physical conduct of war (the Geneva Convention is more a 'how to treat prisoners' after all) including results of the Nuremberg trial
another example is the use of exploding bullets by allied aircraft in WW1. the idea was to equip aircraft with exploding bullets when they went out on anti-spotter balloon and Zeppelin killing missions, both of their targets being highly flammable provided a great target for small explosives
Quote:
while a 50- to 100-round burst of machine-gun fire would cause major structural failure in a contemporary airplane, it had little effect on an airship. Zeppelins were large enough to soak up enormous quantities of the standard .303-in (7.7 mm) ball ammunition without serious damage.
With this fact in mind, the Woolwich arsenal developed a theoretically more lethal anti-airship round: the "flaming" bullet. This contained an incendiary compound sufficient to ignite the hydrogen in a Zeppelin. But the amount required was so large that it would not fit the high-velocity, .303-in service bullet. Instead, the obsolete, .45-in caliber Martini-Henry bullet had to be used. This had been developed for a single shot, lever-actuated, breech-loading rifle that had preceded the .303 Lee-Enfield SMLE as the standard infantry weapon. This used a short-range, low-velocity cartridge designed originally for black powder. The Woolwich flaming bullet was too temperamental for use in machine guns (it was prone to exploding in a hot barrel), even if the only weapon chambered for it, the obsolete, .45-in Navy-pattern Maxim gun, had been light enough for aircraft use. So aircrew were issued with Martini-Henry cavalry carbines. Trying to hit a moving, airborne target at long range with a single-shot carbine while flying an unstable light plane was hardly a promising tactic, even if the Woolwich round had not proved incapable of piercing Zeppelin fabric at combat ranges (British authorities came away convinced that the Zeppelin featured a double hull containing inert engine exhaust as a fire suppressant). Incendiary and explosive bullets were also contrary to the Hague Conventions, which were still being observed in Britain at this time
note this 'failed' due to it not working *and* being against the Hague Conventions, it would not have even been tested had the international law been first in their minds, as you'll note in the
article that quote came from they invented crazy weapons to sort out the little problems of lethality and legality in short order, the best being the "unlikely-sounding and worse-looking Farnborough Fiery Grapnel"
but i digress, the 'rules' are there and only really work if both sides observe them, note from my previous
linkthat when both sides end up abiding by so many rules and conventions that:
Quote:
According to Niccolo Machiavelli, the battle of Zagonara in 1424 was a "defeat, famous throughout all Italy, [in which] no death occurred except those of Lodovico degli Obizi and two of his people, who, having fallen from their horses, were drowned in the mire." Several reasons have been extended for this low lethality. One of the more plausible reasons was the simple fact that the armor of the day was much superior to most offensive weaponry. A more personal reason is the fact that the surest way for a mercenary to lose his source of livelihood was for the condottieri to obliterate his enemies. As a result, mercenaries rarely sought setpiece battles, choosing instead to fight relatively minor and extended campaigns. Engagements between mounted warriors often resembled jousts and those between infantry often turned into shoving matches.
that is surely the most civilised form of war?
*shoves*