Gems from Gitmo

[rgraham666]

The general rule for use of the military is that it is better to keep a nation intact than to destroy it. It is better to keep an army intact than to destroy it, better to keep a division intact than to destroy it, better to keep a battalion intact than to destroy it, better to keep a unit intact than to destroy it.

Therefore those who win every battle are not really skillful - those who render others armies helpless without fighting are the best of all.

Sun Tzu - The Art of War

I always return to Sun Tzu when thinking about war. He always makes it clear it is better not to fight, but if you must make it swift.

If a weapon allows you to win quickly, it will mean the war end sooner and fewer will die. That is best for all involved.

 

[Pure]

Reply to Colly

Hi Colly,

What exactly, would you like to consider, if nastiness and length of a conflict aren't material?

I didn't say they weren't material, just that they are not the ONLY considerations.

Just how, in your opinion, does banning Napalm make war more humane?

I don't recall suggesting a ban on napalm (or its MK 77 successor). Quote me.

You are going to have marines with Grenades, Molotove cocktails and rifles blasing, burning and blowing up the occupants of strong points while they, with similar arms, are going to be merrily blasting, hacking, buring and blowing up said Marines. And at the end? You are going to have a batch of dead defenders and a batch of dead marines and the strongpoint will be neutralized. The same result could have been accomplished by dropping Napalm on the strongpoint, minus the batch of dead Marines.

I don't see the humaneness in running up the body count.

This is not an accurate picture of what I was suggesting. I was merely suggesting there are reasons US soldiers do not carry grenades that make glass and plastic shards, and I approve of that policy. They have their M 16, their MK 77 bombs, laser guided bombs, all the fancy ammo you've described.

The US following the CCW convention does NOT create parity, except in some theoretical scenario.

Even your simplified example shows inattention to some obvious problems. Consider this hypothetical unit and make it a bit bigger, say 1000 US soldiers engaged on a larger battlefield against a similar number. Why not just use a tactical nuclear weapon, and quickly vaporize the enemy. As you've pointed out, napalm only works for a few dozen yards. Again, your argument contains no limitations, and hence is defective.

Your argument ignores the issue of retaliation. Yes the 'small A bomb' works, but then the enemy goes and buys a few from China, and 'our men' face them on the next battlefield. Further, India decides to use them against Pakistan, which is our ally, and so on.

A war is about politics; control of land and resources. The *way* a war is fought is relevant to the outcome. Why, for instance, didn't the US behead German prisoners of war? Retaliation, as mentioned above, PLUS our later need to have the Germans as allies.

Maximum enemy kill at a given event/confrontation does, as you point out, saves lives. What you ignore is a possible series of confrontations, e.g., when the grenades with plastic shards are hurled back at US forces. You also ignore a larger picture. Why not nerve gas the whole damn 'sunni triangle'? That would saves hundreds of US lives. Well, up the road, the US wants some Arab allies, like Saudi Arabia. We want some sunnis to be friendly when we take on Iran.

The awesome firepower of the US in Iraq is achieved within the CCW conventions; the US has immense superiority in any direct confrontation, or case where the enemy's location is fairly concentrated. The 1000 lb bombs are quite remarkable, I'm told. I'm surprised at your attempt to say I want the troops to have rifles and bayonets only. In truth, I said I approved of some ways of making the war a tiny bit less inhumane, and these ways, i.e., the CCW treaty is approved by the US military. Its hands are hardly tied.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hi Colly,

What exactly, would you like to consider, if nastiness and length of a conflict aren't material?

I didn't say they weren't material, just that they are not the ONLY considerations.

Just how, in your opinion, does banning Napalm make war more humane?

I don't recall suggesting a ban on napalm (or its MK 77 successor). Quote me.

You are going to have marines with Grenades, Molotove cocktails and rifles blasing, burning and blowing up the occupants of strong points while they, with similar arms, are going to be merrily blasting, hacking, buring and blowing up said Marines. And at the end? You are going to have a batch of dead defenders and a batch of dead marines and the strongpoint will be neutralized. The same result could have been accomplished by dropping Napalm on the strongpoint, minus the batch of dead Marines.

I don't see the humaneness in running up the body count.

This is not an accurate picture of what I was suggesting. I was merely suggesting there are reasons US soldiers do not carry grenades that make glass and plastic shards, and I approve of that policy. They have their M 16, their MK 77 bombs, laser guided bombs, all the fancy ammo you've described.

The US following the CCW convention does NOT create parity, except in some theoretical scenario.

Even your simplified example shows inattention to some obvious problems. Consider this hypothetical unit and make it a bit bigger, say 1000 US soldiers engaged on a larger battlefield against a similar number. Why not just use a tactical nuclear weapon, and quickly vaporize the enemy. As you've pointed out, napalm only works for a few dozen yards. Again, your argument contains no limitations, and hence is defective.

Your argument ignores the issue of retaliation. Yes the 'small A bomb' works, but then the enemy goes and buys a few from China, and 'our men' face them on the next battlefield. Further, India decides to use them against Pakistan, which is our ally, and so on.

A war is about politics; control of land and resources. The *way* a war is fought is relevant to the outcome. Why, for instance, didn't the US behead German prisoners of war? Retaliation, as mentioned above, PLUS our later need to have the Germans as allies.

Maximum enemy kill at a given event/confrontation does, as you point out, saves lives. What you ignore is a possible series of confrontations, e.g., when the grenades with plastic shards are hurled back at US forces. You also ignore a larger picture. Why not nerve gas the whole damn 'sunni triangle'? That would saves hundreds of US lives. Well, up the road, the US wants some Arab allies, like Saudi Arabia. We want some sunnis to be friendly when we take on Iran.

The awesome firepower of the US in Iraq is achieved within the CCW conventions; the US has immense superiority in any direct confrontation, or case where the enemy's location is fairly concentrated. The 1000 lb bombs are quite remarkable, I'm told. I'm surprised at your attempt to say I want the troops to have rifles and bayonets only. In truth, I said I approved of some ways of making the war a tiny bit less inhumane, and these ways, i.e., the CCW treaty is approved by the US military. Its hands are hardly tied.

Ok,now I am totally lost. If you aren't suggesting we sign on to this treaty in full and ban napalm, what are we talking about?

First, my example is not bogus, nor is it some kind of hypothetical extreme. There are certin kinds of field fortifications that you cannot take out with a 1000 lbs. bomb, or a 2000 lbs bomb, or even with the GBU bunker busters. These fortifications can be dealt with only in a few ways, Napalm is one, more for the fact it exhausts the oxygen suply than for the actual flames. The other one, is sending in the foot soldier with his rifle and grenades and rooting the defenders out room by room, tier by tier. The other is bulldozing the ntrances, sally ports, ventilation shafts and burying them alive.

I never said I supported the use of A-bombs or tac nukes. In fact I expressly said I agreed with the policy of banning such weapons. Although that response to shang may have been in the other thread.

You said:
A war is about politics; control of land and resources. The *way* a war is fought is relevant to the outcome. Why, for instance, didn't the US behead German prisoners of war? Retaliation, as mentioned above, PLUS our later need to have the Germans as allies.

A. We treat Prisoner's of war in a certain fashion, with reguards to provisions in a treaty we are signatory to.

B. We don't consider fighting for your country to be a crime.

It seems, you have graduated from Napalm, something already in the arsenal and being used, to theoretical weapons banned by treaty.

So I have either poorly stated my contention or you have widened my stance by extrapolation, where it dosen't fit. My response here, was provoked, by people attempting to remove weapons already in the arsenal and in use in the current war. I don't have any problem with banning theoretical weapons or weapons that have progressed beyond the stage of theory, but are not currently in use. I object strenuously to attempting to remove from the hands of field commanders weapons already in the arsenal, for which we already have developed a tactical doctrine, and which the officers are trained to utilze in the appropriate situation.

I could not care less if you ban glass or plastic shard grenades. No soldier or marine in the field is going to die tomorrow, because he can no longer use his holy glass grenade of Antioch. He hasn't been trained to use it. It's not part of his tactical doctrine. Ban the damn things.

Similarly, if during time of peace, you decide to ban incindiaries, so be it. The weapon is removed from the arsenal, tactical doctrine is changed and something new is developed to replace napalm. I don't personally agree with baning Napalm. For certain situations, it's the best weapon out there, it shortens conflicts and it saves lives. But if you just have to salve your concience, at the expense of more casualties, do it when there aren't people in the field who have been trained to use it and rely on it for tactical situations.

This thread has wanderd so much, I don't even know what we are discussing any more.

 

[Pure]

Only Ban what doesn't Exist, and only do it during peacetime

(the title being a parody of your position, Colly)

Colly said: My response here, was provoked, by people attempting to remove weapons already in the arsenal and in use in the current war. I don't have any problem with banning theoretical weapons or weapons that have progressed beyond the stage of theory, but are not currently in use. I object strenuously to attempting to remove from the hands of field commanders weapons already in the arsenal, for which we already have developed a tactical doctrine, and which the officers are trained to utilze in the appropriate situation.

I could not care less if you ban glass or plastic shard grenades. No soldier or marine in the field is going to die tomorrow, because he can no longer use his holy glass grenade of Antioch. He hasn't been trained to use it. It's not part of his tactical doctrine. Ban the damn things.

Similarly, if during time of peace, you decide to ban incindiaries, so be it. The weapon is removed from the arsenal, tactical doctrine is changed and something new is developed to replace napalm. I don't personally agree with baning Napalm. For certain situations, it's the best weapon out there, it shortens conflicts and it saves lives. But if you just have to salve your concience, at the expense of more casualties, do it when there aren't people in the field who have been trained to use it and rely on it for tactical situations.

Seems like we're not communicating, Colly. Further your position makes no sense: 1) Nothing in possession of a field commander (with know how) be banned, and 2) Weapons not yet produced may be banned, provided it's in peacetime, and the ban does not extend to war--i.e, the ban is without effect.
---

Saddam's field commanders had some poison gas and know how, so poison gas should not be banned (as proof of know how, look at the effects at hallabjah)?

I see no conceivable rationale for allowing use of every weapon that makes it to a field commander who's trained to use it. Heck that applies to tactical nukes, I suppose. Someone out there has them and know how to use them (Israeli commanders?).

Similarly the idea that excessively cruel weapons--like glass shard grenades--be banned is twisted by you to, "Sure ban them if they're only on the drawing board and it's peacetime." Which amounts to "Salve your conscience, so long as it in no way impedes the military in its use of any weapon it pleases." That is not the intent of the CCW treaty, to which the US is (mostly) a signatory.

I'm not sure why you keep going on the napalm thing, since that was Bullet's (possible) suggestion and in that thread I specifically stated a "partial defense" of his position, that is, NOT applied to napalm. (The partial defense being that, as I'm saying here, there is a case for banning excessively cruel weapons.)

The position on incendiaries of the US, under the convention, which is posted above, protocol III, says no incendiaries against civilian targets. Do read it. I think that's a good idea for a prohibition, and this is in no way linked to the issues of whether Colonel so-in-so in the field has some incendiaries on hand, and knows how to use them against whomever.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

My response here, was provoked, by people attempting to remove weapons already in the arsenal and in use in the current war. I don't have any problem with banning theoretical weapons or weapons that have progressed beyond the stage of theory, but are not currently in use. I object strenuously to attempting to remove from the hands of field commanders weapons already in the arsenal, for which we already have developed a tactical doctrine, and which the officers are trained to utilze in the appropriate situation.

I could not care less if you ban glass or plastic shard grenades. No soldier or marine in the field is going to die tomorrow, because he can no longer use his holy glass grenade of Antioch. He hasn't been trained to use it. It's not part of his tactical doctrine. Ban the damn things.

Similarly, if during time of peace, you decide to ban incindiaries, so be it. The weapon is removed from the arsenal, tactical doctrine is changed and something new is developed to replace napalm. I don't personally agree with baning Napalm. For certain situations, it's the best weapon out there, it shortens conflicts and it saves lives. But if you just have to salve your concience, at the expense of more casualties, do it when there aren't people in the field who have been trained to use it and rely on it for tactical situations.

Seems like we're not communicating, Colly. Further your position makes no sense: 1) Nothing in possession of a field commander (with know how) be banned, and 2) Weapons not yet produced may be banned, provided it's in peacetime, and the ban does not extend to war--i.e, the ban is without effect.
---

Saddam's field commanders had some poison gas and know how, so poison gas should not be banned (as proof of know how, look at the effects at hallabjah).

I see no conceivable rationale for allowing use of every weapon that makes it to a field commander who's trained to use it. Heck that applies to tactical nukes, I suppose. Someone out there has them and know how to use them (Israeli commanders?).

Similarly the idea that excessively cruel weapons--like glass shard grenades--be banned is twisted by you to, "Sure ban them if they're only on the drawing board and it's peacetime." Which amounts to "Salve your conscience, so long as it in no way impedes the military in its use of any weapon it pleases." That is not the intent of the CCW treaty, to which the US is (mostly) a signatory.

I'm not sure why you keep going on the napalm thing, since that was Bullet's (possible) suggestion and in that thread I specifically stated a "partial defense" of his position, that is, NOT applied to napalm. (The partial defense being that, as I'm saying here, there is a case for banning excessively cruel weapons.)

The position on incendiaries of the US, under the convention, which is posted above, protocol III, says no incendiaries against civilian targets. Do read it. I think that's a good idea for a prohibition, and this is in no way linked to the issues of whether Colonel so-in-so in the field has some incendiaries on hand, and knows how to use them against whomever.

We aren't communicating. I never said the ban shouldn't apply to war.

The base line appears to be you want to ban cruel weapons. Just about every piece of ordinance in the inventory is cruel. So to me, you are just playing a game. Lets ban this one, cause it will make me feel better if it isn't used. Never mind that men will die because it isn't being used. I can sleep better if they are just shot, shredded, blown to bits, maimed, and not burned.

HEAT rounds incinerate tank crews. As do SABOT, 37mm DU, Hellfire missiles, and they do it alot more often than Napalm. So why aren't you screaming to have them banned?

If anyone's position dosen't make any sense, it's yours not mine. We can't burn them with Napalm, but we can use other ordinace that is designed to incinerate vehicle crew and that's A-ok. We shuldn't use glass or plastic splintered grendas, blowing them to bits or maiming them for life with a regular framentation grenade is fine though. e can't use cluster bombbs, but improved Artillery munitions are the same darn thing and no one is crying foul wehre they are concerned.

I am all for not using the military option unless no other alternative reamins. But once your government has decided to use it, I'm all for geting it over with as quickly as possible. I don't see any sense in removing effective conventional munitions from the field commanders, munitions that are, in some cases, the most applicable to the tactical situation, and then congratulating yourself on how humane you are while men who need not have died are being killed because the best alternative is no longer avialable.

 

[cantdog]

I don't know how he could make it any clearer, Colly. The ban is not"Napalm", but "Napalm against civilian targets". That is the CCW ban.

Your example is repeatedly the hardened bunker.

The ban is not about bunkers and underground complexes, but about cities.

Three times should do it. You are arguing against a ban that nobody is arguing for.

 

[rgraham666]

Salman Rushdie has something to say on this subject.

 

[Pure]

Same old

Colly said,

I am all for not using the military option unless no other alternative reamins. But once your government has decided to use it, I'm all for geting it over with as quickly as possible. I don't see any sense in removing effective conventional munitions from the field commanders, munitions that are, in some cases, the most applicable to the tactical situation, and then congratulating yourself on how humane you are while men who need not have died are being killed because the best alternative is no longer avialable.

Sorry, my friend. For the fifth time, this argument, through phrased in terms of conventional weapons, can be applied to any weapons. It can be summed up by the maxim (guideline):

"maximize enemy deaths here and now (this engagement), and minimize 'our' deaths, here and now"

Can it not be applied to tactical nuclear weapons?

Even applied to 'conventional weapons' it's defective, for consider a field commander who's got a bunch of bullets with cyanide encased within, for issue.

All of which goes to show that "maximize enemy deaths here and now (this engagement), and minimize 'our' deaths, here and now" --your maxim-- is defective, from military, moral, and political points of view. (I say 'military', since the US military endorses guidlines which conflict with your proposed one.)

Incidentally it's defective as a maxim for police, also. As I asked, and you never answered, if you were chief of police and we assume no legal impediments, would you issue bullets encasing cyanide? Again, defective from a policing point of view, since we know most police chiefs do not endorse it, and endorse conflicting guidelines.

It's defective since the larger picture is ignored: the men whose lives you supposedly save in the present engagement, are, a bit up the road, subject to being on the receiving end of, say, a tactical nuclear weapon, so that, in the larger picture, your maxim generates more of 'our' deaths.

----
PS, these kinds of arguments apply, as well, to Guantanamo, and other US secret prisons:
Those setting them up, Bush, Cheney, Gonzales (for the legal rationale) have the maxim: If you got a job to do--detain, neutralize and extract information from presumed 'enemy' terrorists-- then do it in the quickest most effective [here and now] way. And, since American lives are at stake, both civilian (twin towers) and military, the 'effective' way may include torture, risk of death or even death (since thereby more American deaths are prevented).

Again, from a standpoint based on military principles and military law, the approach is arguably defective, which is why a number of US officers in the legal area are very uncomfortable with the Guantanamo set up.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly said,

I am all for not using the military option unless no other alternative reamins. But once your government has decided to use it, I'm all for geting it over with as quickly as possible. I don't see any sense in removing effective conventional munitions from the field commanders, munitions that are, in some cases, the most applicable to the tactical situation, and then congratulating yourself on how humane you are while men who need not have died are being killed because the best alternative is no longer avialable.

Sorry, my friend. For the fifth time, this argument, through phrased in terms of conventional weapons, can be applied to any weapons. It can be summed up by the maxim (guideline):

"maximize enemy deaths here and now (this engagement), and minimize 'our' deaths, here and now"

Can it not be applied to tactical nuclear weapons?

Even applied to 'conventional weapons' it's defective, for consider a field commander who's got a bunch of bullets with cyanide encased within, for issue.

All of which goes to show that "maximize enemy deaths here and now (this engagement), and minimize 'our' deaths, here and now" --your maxim-- is defective, from military, moral, and political points of view. (I say 'military', since the US military endorses guidlines which conflict with your proposed one.)

Incidentally it's defective as a maxim for police, also. As I asked, and you never answered, if you were chief of police and we assume no legal impediments, would you issue bullets encasing cyanide? Again, defective from a policing point of view, since we know most police chiefs do not endorse it, and endorse conflicting guidelines.

It's defective since the larger picture is ignored: the men whose lives you supposedly save in the present engagement, are, a bit up the road, subject to being on the receiving end of, say, a tactical nuclear weapon, so that, in the larger picture, your maxim generates more of 'our' deaths.

----
PS, these kinds of arguments apply, as well, to Guantanamo, and other US secret prisons:
Those setting them up, Bush, Cheney, Gonzales (for the legal rationale) have the maxim: If you got a job to do--detain, neutralize and extract information from presumed 'enemy' terrorists-- then do it in the quickest most effective [here and now] way. And, since American lives are at stake, both civilian (twin towers) and military, the 'effective' way may include torture, risk of death or even death (since thereby more American deaths are prevented).

Again, from a standpoint based on military principles and military law, the approach is arguably defective, which is why a number of US officers in the legal area are very uncomfortable with the Guantanamo set up.

Lets deal with the first part first. NBC weapons should be banned. That's Nuclear-Chemical-Biological and covers the broad spectrum from Tac Nukes to Mustard gas. These weapons are dangerous, messy, indescriminate and even if deployed successfully only against the enemy and inflicting no civilain casualties, can still destroy the land, posion the water supply or, in the case of Bio,spawn a plague for which no one has immunity and against which everyone is helpless. I consider them Dijjn bottles, and if you have read the Arabian Nights, you know Dijjn are almost as dangerous to the protagonist as the antagonist. They are the prototypical weapons of last resort and anyone who employs them is far more a gambler than a soldier.

As to police, you are moving into a whole diferent realm. Police, must assume they will be surrounded by civilians. Limiting their weaponry, and imposing stringent guidelines on the use of said weaponry is essential. Their responsibility is to protect the populace, not to kill the enemy. I don't even see the connection between police and the military and find the example rather facetious.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Thanks for the link to Rushdie, Rob. Trenchant as he usually is.

 

[rgraham666]

You're welcome Shang.

I quite admire the man.