Military law often looks like Bizzaro world from the outside.So the logic is bombing them is an entirely different matter than shooting them. And also shooting fleeing terrorists or criminals has always been a crime apparently. Looks like I need to brush up on reading law books from Bizzarro World.
For instance, the LOAC affected me in doing nuclear weapons targeting. If a valid military target happened to be within, say, ten miles of a city and the desired ground zero of that warhead had to be no further than a mile of the target to do the required amount of damage, I was required by the LOAC to place the DGZ a mile from the target on the opposite side from the city. What was "bizarre" is that the extra mile distance (rather than placing the DGZ right on the target) was of little practical benefit to the city.
I also had to account for prevailing winds, so if there happened to be another city a given distance downwind, I had to adjust my DGZ again so that the second city was not directly downwind of the DGZ.
Or maybe I had to select a different weapon that placed a lower yield warhead more precisely on the target...but then I have to jostle with all the other requirements for that different weapon.
And those rules for nuclear weapons targeting don't apply at all to high explosive bomb targeting.
The LOAC is largely symbolic in such cases. But for sure, when the targets were audited, I'd be in a world of horse manure if I had not placed that DGZ according to the LOAC.
So, what's my point? My point is that the LOAC rules for an infantry soldier dealing with a defeated enemy may be very different from the LOAC rules for a sailor dealing with a defeated enemy at sea. Within their own peculiar settings, different rules make sense, but they don't necessarily make consistent sense when viewed together.
Last edited:
Upvote
0