RE: [Epic] Happy Weapons (was Tank Armor)

From: Chris White <chris_at_...>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 10:16:18 -0700

At 11:35 AM 9/15/97 +0930, you wrote:
>I find it to be one of the most bizzare ideas ever ...
>
>That is, an organisation which bans different types of weapons (rounds,
>whatever). How can an army respect this while still trying to blow their
>enemy into little bity pieces. Surely it's an all or nothing affair.
>
>If they can ban weapons why can't they ban other things like tanks,
>aircraft etc. I am not military so could someone explain the logic behind
>it all.
>
>Cheers
>
        <snip extra info>

        The Geneva Convention was born from the hideous wastes of WWI, or the
Great War as they referred to it then. Mustard Gas was one of the chief
prods, but there were also concerns over how prisoners were treated, etc.

        But it was made at a time when killing each other wholesale was still
considered "gentlemanly" if one did it correctly. To us it may seem like an
absurd idea, and in a way it is. But I'm sure many ex-POWs are thankful for
it, even though there are many recorded instances of simply ignoring the
Convention.

        Probably the most useful part of it is that it allows a soldier who might
not like what is going on some avenue of protest through official channels.
There is no real way to enforce the Convention, IMHO. Usually an agrieved
party is already at war with the transgressor; what recourse is there,
declaring war?

        World opinion, especially in our televised era, can still be a powerful
force against tyranny, however.


Nickles
Received on Mon Sep 15 1997 - 17:16:18 UTC