Not to mention that war is such a big thing that it goes above things like laws in almost every circumstance. Laws only work if you can be held accountable after all. If you kill everyone who would or simply can't be brought to justice without another war, you can get away with anything. If a country developed a weapon capable of wiping out literally all other human life with a single button press, no law could stop them from using it or punish them for its use. Only the people using the weapon can control its use.
If I could add something to that sentence it would be: “ there aren’t any rules in war unless you get caught or you are the loser” winner gets to decide what is a crime and weather it applies to them as well.
@@Merilirem Laws also lose their value when they become an obstacle to your continued survival. A starving man might feel bad about stealing the scraps from another starving person, but he will still do so. He doesn't have a realistic choice. Such morals are nothing more than LUXURIES that we can afford to wave around, because we are not at threat of being harmed. I get it. If you start a war over something unnecessary to your existence, then yeah, you probably shouldn't be breaking the Geneva Convention. But then, you've already committed an immoral act: You have sentenced countless people to death over mere resources. Unless those resources are life saving, then why would a country willing to kill over such a reason, honor these things in the first place?
Friendly reminder that everything from the infographics should be taken with a bin of salt and i suggest reading the comments to see if there is something really wrong
Only watch them on real life stuff cuz they suck at fictional content like they downplay everything to say us fodder humans can beat things like Thanos or scps or Demons lol they just don’t scale or read lore much tbh
And not with just infographics. But with any channel that has a more diverse range of topics. The more they have the more likely it is to be false in certain areas
@@thatguyonyoutube4924 That's not what I was saying. The Geneva Convention did not exist during WW2 although other treaties did. I was just pointing out that it's not really fair to criticise the Geneva convention for war crimes that happened before it was ratified. Indeed it was the horror of WW2 that encouraged us to ratify it. It's also the basis for the prosecution of war criminals ever since, so if it was just guidelines they'd all be walking free today. I guess it's a bit like a speed limit - you can break them easily and get away with it most of the time too but there are some ways of stopping you, and you will be prosecuted if you're caught. Without a global super-power policing the world, war crimes are always going to happen - I'd rather have the ability to prosecute the perpetrators than not.
In the case of the neutron bomb, I guess it could be considered humane compared to the standard nuclear weapon. A Neutron bomb would be fatal in hours not weeks or months. No matter what, radiation poisoning is still a horrible way to die, whether it takes hours or months.
@@leomiller3800 You're right, a neutron bomb would cause death within hours and is definitely way more humane in terms of how it pollutes and effects the people and the environment. But it's way more powerful than even a hydrogen Bomb after all your no longer splitting the atom but destroying it's nucleus instead
@@davifmcmonies2306 if I remember correctly, the difference between the neutron bomb & standard nuclear weapons was that a neutron bomb was designed as an anti personnel weapon. It was designed to detonate at a lower altitude to maximize the radiation penetration not the blast affect. That way the high speed, high degradation particles penetrate hardend shelters. Its been awhile though, so I could be miss remembering.
@@leomiller3800 that's the design difference and you are correct on that. But we don't even use conventional nukes anymore anyway. We use hydrogen bombs. We split hydrogen atoms now back in the day we caused to unstable isotopes to become stable, expelling huge amounts of heat and other less reactive particle like boron amd stuff. A neutron bomb takes it further thsm hydrogen bombs by not only splitting the atom but destroying the proton's as well which is much more violent but you are Very correct about the reason they used hydrogen bomb's now instead of conventional nukes
You can tell that he is affected by these at the beginning he looked like he was on the verge of tears talking about how in Afghanistan they’d strap bombs to kids, he is emotionally tore about it and that’s why I like him you can feel the emotion from him
We limited the size of ships before ww2 and Japan shrugged that off big time. Doesn't matter what ideas or rules you have when it comes to fighting if you loose and are dead.
Geneva Convention - good fantasy. Soldiers in combat see and do things me and many others will never understand, it's not OK, but as Wehrmacht veterans said "War has its own rules."
I think the fact that some sides will break the JC is part and parcel of why it exists: the side that breaks the rules can more easily be cast as the villain.
@@citymorgue8462 Depends which side. If it is made up of a society that believe in their moral superiority over their foes, then they are much more likely to hold themselves accountable. ESPECIALLY if they themselves weren't the ones in danger from the enemy.
@@enderoctanus Considering that US, Israel, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, India haven't ratified, and some have only signed the first and second Protocols of GC... they definitely will not hold themselves accountable) it would be more like "they're evil/infidel/have oil/we dont like them/etc so we don't have to follow the suggestions, besides we haven't ratified the most modern and relevant protocols except for a dumb ass red diamond that can be worn instead of the red cross"
I'm a Former US Army Paratrooper but had a non-combat MOS(Military Occupational Skill). My MOS was 63B1P or Light Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic with the Paratrooper Identifier at the end. A "Leg"(non airborne) with same MOS would be 63B10. Anyhow; you should buy the entire blu ray set of "Band of Brothers. Based off of true events from D-Day to VE-Day. Including the atrocities they saw in the internment camps. I binge watched your COD WWII game play vids and many of the missions you encountered were similar if not exact missions from the Rangers in "Band of Brothers". I noticed how proud you were of your sniper capabilities. Put them to the test in the Sniper Elite Series. I recommend Sniper Elite V2, Sniper Elite III, and Sniper Elite 4-WWII. I Played 2 and 3 but got hooked on Grand Theft Auto V Online and never did try 4-WWII.
A must agree, the geneva convention is a good idea made by hopeful people, but it has some pretty major loop holes. When a country signs up to the Geneva conversation they get to pick and choose which rules too follow, so countries like China have signed up to the Geneva convention, yet didn’t sign up to any of the rules, thus can get away with anything while at war and say the followed the rules. And it doesn’t stop the production of these weapons only the use of them, so if country is losing, they have the tools to bring their enemy down with them. Excuse grammar and spelling mistakes, it was midnight when I wrote this.
The Rules of the Geneva Convention seem more like methods of punishing those that commit war crimes, more than rules of engagement when in actual combat.
Wicked lasers commercially available, can blind someone very quickly. Former air force here, we got lased all the time in afghanistan. To the point we had to wear class 4a laser protection when landing.
A lot of the agreements are actually pretty well followed, just for the simple reason that "If we torture and kill their POW's, they'll torture and kill ours." Same for a lot of the dangerous weapons that ruin landscapes forever after. This doesn't mean people treat POW's well, or that there aren't people who do kill them, but it means that most militaries have rules against it. It's not a perfect defense, many POW's are killed every year, but it would be a lot worse if every major military had "kill all POW's" as their default strategy.
Love the video, but a quick note, the idea of smallpox blankets being given to the American Indians is not based on any evidence. In fact, germ theory didn't even exist until the 1850s with Louis Pasteur, and didn't gain wide acceptance until even later. There is some evidence that in one case during the French and Indian war an English fort commander may have tried to spread the Smallpox that broke out inside the fort to the besieging forces, but it is not clear that he did, or that if he did that it actually was successful. People were horrible enough towards each other, we don't need to go inventing extra atrocities 👍
Hate to point this out, but the "Indian eats" are considered to have lasted til around 1900. That gave such things some years to have been used in the 19th century.
I'm a civilian CBRN instructor and many of these hazards are no joke. You can read about Japan's unit 100 and 731 along with Russia's Vector. If there is another World War these weapons would be used to get an edge. Even if it is marginal. Syria used them despite the results being questionable. The BWC does not have any inspection mechanisms unlike the CWC and the IAEA. Dual use research is another ambiguity problem and many nations research these threats for defensive and retaliatory purposes.
We still use a form of cluster bombs to destroy airfields. You bomb the airstrip to prevent aircraft from taking off, but you also scatter mines to deter, prevent, or at least delay repairs of the air strip. This hits both the mines and the cluster munitions on this list, but is admissible because it’s used on airfields specifically which have low chances of civilian casualties
The tri-dagger is a dagger that, if used at wartime, is considered a war crime in the US. The reason why is because this dagger inflicts so much damage upon stabbing and twisting that you could have a full team of world renowned surgeons and doctors and still have maybe a 40-50% chance of living. The dagger has three spiraling blades, earring the name. The way the blades are spiraled adds to the amount of damage it can inflict with a single stab wound.
It isn't that it's 'normal'. It's kind of like the warning labels on a curling iron. Someone did it once, and made it very clear that it was not great. So the world adapted.
about the blinding lasers, lasers are not a military weapon. they have MANY civilian purposes, from projecting to data transmission, or even long range power transmission. having a blinding laser does not necessarily mean its for combat use.
My dad used to serve as a paratrooper and he said that the best mine they were instructed on how to make was a small pipebomb with glassfibre and stoneshards attached to it to act as "hard to see fragments". That was in the 70's.
Sensor fused weapons are what I believe you're looking for. basically cluster bombs just with a more reliable detonation method so they don't end up lying dormant on the ground. I don't think the US has ever stopped using cluster munitions they just upgraded them instead.
I mean to say "If they were 100% committed they just wouldn't make them" for things like lasers. Just because something is capable of something doesn't mean it was designed or intended for that purpose. "Just don't make lasers cause we said we wouldn't use the to blind people." is idealistic at best.
I could see if it was called like a pigeon bomb you could train pigeons to go from one house to another but a bat somebody needs to fact check those guys
To answer the question of "Would countries really respect these treaties to make war less inhumane than it already is?". Obviously the answer is no, anything to gain the upper hand.
To be fair the biggest thing forcing countries to follow the Geneva Convention and other rules of war is the promise that if they break the rules those same weapons will be pointed at them. Its the same rationale as the M.A.D strategy for nuclear weapons -> which is still terrifying though
You ever played Wolfenstein? Not strictly a military shooter; takes place in a retrofuturistic alternate reality where Nazi's won World War II. Always wondered if things would really be all that different without the Geneva Convention.
15:47 In the history of our country (Russia) there was a time when knyaginya (something like Queen) Olga, in revenge for the murder of her husband knyaz (King) Igor by the Drevlyan's tribe, besieged their capital and said that if each court collected three pigeons and three sparrows, and gave them to her, she and her army would leave their land. When the Drevlyans did this, Olga set fire to all the collected birds and let them go. The burning birds flew back to their nests, which were located in the capital of the Drevlyans and their straw and wooden houses burst into flames and the entire capital of the Drevlyans was burned down.
Luke's appreciation on what purpose and reasons the Geneva Convention actually accomplish is depressingly spot on. Also, nowadays, it's pretty much a complementary normative instrument for the application of the Rome Statute and other regulations that aim to punish crimes against humanity…so, regarding its usefulness and how effective it is in conflict areas, in combat situations…well what we could call “war”, isn't something that can be regulated while it's raging, in essence a punitive social-moral measure by the international community, not a set of rules for the realities of modern warfare.
Downed pilots in Vietnam facing torture and possibly death were on multiple occasions saved by their mates surrounding them with air-dropped mine clusters; there are a few good use cases.. and well fenced, labelled mines are reasonable as well.
Note: It doesn't matter if the other side isn't following the 'rules'. These rules exist so that our enemies don't have additional excuses to cause needless suffering. The things they ban confer little to no real tactical advantage with only a few exceptions. If the other refuses to follow the rules, while we do, then that gives us diplomatic leverage. Believe it or not, that actually does matter.
I’m on your side here. Every country should sign a treaty where instead countries slowly join together until we are left with the United People Of Earth
What gives me hope that none of these weapons woudl be used if, hoplefully never, big war happens is that if you used it first not only it would impact diplomatic relations with potencial allies but also would be a green light for overs to use it on you
Being from the US, I know some of the history with the Native Americans and smallpox. The British at first didn't want to spread smallpox. But after a few decades and the Native Ameicans didn't capitulate, they did it on purpose. The numbers make the Holocaust look tame.
I feel like these "rules" are more for punishing the loser of future hypothetical wars. If the winner gets caught then it will have been a "nessessary evil" But if the loser gets caught then they will be punished
blinding lasers are being made on daily basis by hundreds, maybe thousands. because science and many manufacturing processes require them. taking such a laser and putting it into a weapon housing is a relatively trivial task.
The thing is, when you've been deployed for months and see your friends and fellow soldiers die when the enemy used dirty tactics, you think then "bugger the Geneva Convention" and that's when the war crimes start. Guarantee there's a lot of soldiers out there that will never confess to the things they did or witnessed.
Hahaha, Geneva Convention? Never heard of it... Have heard of the Geneva Suggestions tho... Ask any Arma III player (don't count the 506th or Arma Life people) if the Geneva Convention exists, and they'll tell you the same thing.
The odd one is hollow point ammunition. It’s banned for use in war but carried by most cops and millions of Americans. It’s completely available for purchase by anyone. My personal firearms are loaded with gel tipped, hollow point ammo.
Well its is fairly weird but police and civilians are mostly using hollow point for a reason which is penetration. In many urban areas you will want to avoid collateral damage and HP rounds are good for that since they will transfer most of the energy on the object they hit.
@@Tacticaviator7 *True. I don't carry so my firearms really are solely for personal and home defense. I load those rounds because if it's to the point I need to use a gun, I don't want him to get up.
3:45 Yes, but does it mean it should be legal to do so and open the door, not to a few bad apples, but an entire plague? But yes, no war at all is the best option.
My teacher stepped on a landmine in Afghanistan, and do not have a leg anymore, he would have been dead...but there was gun powder in, so he didn't bleed that much as you'd think
Most of the world agreed BEFORE WW1, not to use chemical weapons (Brussels-1874, Hague-1899, Hague-1907)...everyone just decided to ignore those agreements.
It's a bit of relief to know that at least we have some surprises up on our sleeves in case of alien invasion, assuming geneva treaty won't be in effect for them.
Whenever I think about how Earth is just a spec flying alone in the vast empty and (so far) lifeless universe, it just makes me angry that lives are being ended on such trivial ideas like war
There was a point in history where disputes were solved through fights and/or duels instead of wars. This ended when a duel between britain and france ended when one died and their new leader declared war.
Agree with you Luke, they missed one Hyperbaric bombs. Last I saw they are also banned basically sonic boom bomb for clearing caves. Deemed non ethical as exploding from your ears/brain exploding is not pleasant......
the two main rules that bans wepons is kills innocents and targets with no care of diffrence...or leaves the guy useing it so mently scared he is insain after
So if landmines can't be used, why military is making it so obvious to mark the zone that potentially has mines planted? Like... "Warning! Minefield! Military Installation!" etc. I knew about mines being banned, but now that I think about it...they are made obvious that military bases in remote areas, such as deserts or forest areas, are being mined against intruders, or is it a false sense of security and defense so that civilians or anyone hostile do not start to think about breaking in? By the way, about nerve gas, most recent example was on UK soil where ex-Russian spy, or who he was, some military person or ex-KGB agent who settled down and lived a life in UK, got killed with a nerve gas, and Russia was blamed for it while Putin denied it with a laugh and some under text about them "get the proof, then we can talk". I mean, obvious is obvious, but there was proof, and that's the deal regarding legal actions.
True. At the end of the day, Geneva Convention is just an "advice" and "moral high ground" designed for the aftermath of the war, not during the war. And even then, if a country do break it but they are on the winning side, most people wouldn't care and brush it off anyway. This Convention only will be imposed as "extra baddie point" for the one losing the war. For example, America currently have a working laser-based weapon that can disable drones, aircrafts, boats, etc. (possibly blinding AND killing the people on those vehicle) which clearly already a red light for one of the Geneva Convention rule. If war ever broke out (which I hope never, ever happened), and they used it "in a pinch" or to "help other country" and won, who are to blame them, right? Moral high ground bs and all. Even though they clearly break the convention, they will got away probably only with several bad rumours or talks around but relatively harmless. And we are only talking about one country. Who knows about others that have banned arsenal also that haven't got revealed? So yeah. The whole convention thing is sus.
The Geneva Convention sort of acts like the MAD. These are the rules of war and both of us will follow it, because if you don't then I won't either. This in theory would make them less likely to do it since it would increase the costs of the war for both parties. Not only that, the one who breaks it first loses the moral high ground which can be used for propaganda.
I loved the speech in the beginning god didn’t build us for war we should all get along and set are focus on something greater then new machines for war!
In WW1 when the germans used gass for the first time it was against the french and they had no cleu what was coming towards them and they started shooting at it. When they went and retrieved the bodies the soldiers had scratched their throats open for air but their lungs were filled with chlorine gas.
Just a reminder that you cannot really stop a nation from using these banned weapons, but if they are caught using it and they lose the war... then oh boy would their economy go down to rock bottom because of the added punishments along with war costs.
I am not sure if army's would use plastic projectiles due to their physical properties in comparison to metal rounds... Perhaps in case of shortages bit not as the main projectile material
Check out the "simple history" story about Roy Benavidez. A US green beret during vietnam. Hands down one of the most bad ass men you will ever hear about!!
These rules most likely will hold up in conventional warfare but not Total War: a war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in
Weaponizing something as a means of understanding how to defend against it can apply to some of the DOD projects. Like in the CDC making weaponized diseases. I would hazard most though are built with the "can" question in mind rather than "should"
id counter this though. if the horror of these weapons disappears-so does the reasoning. e.g. no one worried about anthrax as a weapon until it was used by terrorists. to be fair i think the only time a nation calls for a ban on weapons is the same reason you do in any competition, cause it could be used on you. we dont ban selective fire on our weapons or the automatic grenade launcher when fighting the Taliban-cause they dont have them. but if they did our nation would want them banned. in the end of the day their are no real bans. the fact that pungy sticks were baneed, the most basic form of defense structures, used for ages pre modern war-is a sign it has nothing to do with morality. also since the geneva code has been passed theirs been multiple incidents of the major powers abusing the banned weapons but no one goes to war or prosecutes them due to their power. its like royalty armed with pikes say the peasants cant have swords.
"It's like a treaty. We sign it. No one ever goes to war. No one ever invades any other country. We all just be happy with what we've got." I fucking wish. This would be awesome and I wish it was a reality but I just don't see it in my lifetime.
I'm pretty sure that having rules of war with regard to weapon and tactics restrictions (which get broken all the time on an individual level, if not a systematic one) has less to do with morality or human behavior and more to do with a sense of practicality and self-preservation. If your personnel perform a horrendous act upon enemy troops and civilians, then the enemy will be able to use that as justification to retaliate with the same or worse tactics. It's basically just the MAD deterrence doctrine, but on a much smaller scale--and the idea's been around for much longer than the Geneva Convention (I wanna say there was a doctrine called the "rules for gentlemanly warfare" in the Napoleonic Wars, but I could be making that up or confusing it with some other historical fact). Example: Dating all the way back to ancient times, it was considered taboo to kill or otherwise harm messengers between two warring factions, with the idea that if you kill the other guy's messenger, then the guarantee of safety for your faction's messenger (along with the possibility for any diplomacy) would go out the window. Same thing with prisoners--you kill POWs, then the enemy will lose any incentive to keep their prisoners alive; thus, pulling the trigger on any POWs you're keeping would be tantamount to pulling the trigger on your own guys.
And to think that hundreds of y-s ago such weapon like crossbow was considered too dangerous to be used in conflicts in general. And now XXI century we have plenty of war tools incomparably worse than that.
I love Hawkeye's quote from M.A.S.H; "War is war, hell is hell, and of the two war is a lot worse."
its like Schrodinger's cat there aren't any rules in war unless you get caught breaking them
That's an interesting way to think about it
Not to mention that war is such a big thing that it goes above things like laws in almost every circumstance. Laws only work if you can be held accountable after all. If you kill everyone who would or simply can't be brought to justice without another war, you can get away with anything. If a country developed a weapon capable of wiping out literally all other human life with a single button press, no law could stop them from using it or punish them for its use. Only the people using the weapon can control its use.
If I could add something to that sentence it would be: “ there aren’t any rules in war unless you get caught or you are the loser” winner gets to decide what is a crime and weather it applies to them as well.
Not to mention HP Lovecrafts cat
@@Merilirem Laws also lose their value when they become an obstacle to your continued survival. A starving man might feel bad about stealing the scraps from another starving person, but he will still do so. He doesn't have a realistic choice. Such morals are nothing more than LUXURIES that we can afford to wave around, because we are not at threat of being harmed.
I get it. If you start a war over something unnecessary to your existence, then yeah, you probably shouldn't be breaking the Geneva Convention. But then, you've already committed an immoral act: You have sentenced countless people to death over mere resources. Unless those resources are life saving, then why would a country willing to kill over such a reason, honor these things in the first place?
Friendly reminder that everything from the infographics should be taken with a bin of salt and i suggest reading the comments to see if there is something really wrong
Agreed, most parts of those, especially political points are very biased.
Only watch them on real life stuff cuz they suck at fictional content like they downplay everything to say us fodder humans can beat things like Thanos or scps or Demons lol they just don’t scale or read lore much tbh
Lmfao same
And not with just infographics. But with any channel that has a more diverse range of topics. The more they have the more likely it is to be false in certain areas
Hey infographic is not that bad
The "Geneva Conventions" has kinda turned into the "Geneva Suggestions"
Since ww2 it has always been the Geneva seggestions
@@thatguyonyoutube4924 The Geneva Convention was in 1949, four years after the end of world war 2.
@@elliottsw well guess war crimes weren't war crimes so um i'm just start saying that all war crimes are not war crime thanks
@@thatguyonyoutube4924 That's not what I was saying. The Geneva Convention did not exist during WW2 although other treaties did. I was just pointing out that it's not really fair to criticise the Geneva convention for war crimes that happened before it was ratified. Indeed it was the horror of WW2 that encouraged us to ratify it. It's also the basis for the prosecution of war criminals ever since, so if it was just guidelines they'd all be walking free today. I guess it's a bit like a speed limit - you can break them easily and get away with it most of the time too but there are some ways of stopping you, and you will be prosecuted if you're caught. Without a global super-power policing the world, war crimes are always going to happen - I'd rather have the ability to prosecute the perpetrators than not.
@@elliottsw ok ok intresting facts but i'm not really interested sorry
You should watch "Attack of the dead men" WW1 battle Russians against Germans
"All's fair in love and war" - meaning means and nothing is fair to achieve an end-ex...
I remember our officers telling us about "humane" methods of killing, like neutron bombs.
It think they thought "humane" means "cost effective"
In the case of the neutron bomb, I guess it could be considered humane compared to the standard nuclear weapon. A Neutron bomb would be fatal in hours not weeks or months. No matter what, radiation poisoning is still a horrible way to die, whether it takes hours or months.
@@leomiller3800 You're right, a neutron bomb would cause death within hours and is definitely way more humane in terms of how it pollutes and effects the people and the environment. But it's way more powerful than even a hydrogen
Bomb after all your no longer splitting the atom but destroying it's nucleus instead
@@davifmcmonies2306 if I remember correctly, the difference between the neutron bomb & standard nuclear weapons was that a neutron bomb was designed as an anti personnel weapon. It was designed to detonate at a lower altitude to maximize the radiation penetration not the blast affect. That way the high speed, high degradation particles penetrate hardend shelters. Its been awhile though, so I could be miss remembering.
@@leomiller3800 that's the design difference and you are correct on that. But we don't even use conventional nukes anymore anyway. We use hydrogen bombs. We split hydrogen atoms now back in the day we caused to unstable isotopes to become stable, expelling huge amounts of heat and other less reactive particle like boron amd stuff. A neutron bomb takes it further thsm hydrogen bombs by not only splitting the atom but destroying the proton's as well which is much more violent but you are Very correct about the reason they used hydrogen bomb's now instead of conventional nukes
You can tell that he is affected by these at the beginning he looked like he was on the verge of tears talking about how in Afghanistan they’d strap bombs to kids, he is emotionally tore about it and that’s why I like him you can feel the emotion from him
DAY 9 OF “REACT TO THE ATTACK OF THE DEAD MEN”
Im there with you
You ain't alone on this
I'm with you on this one bud
Sabaton
Because in hell there is only the guilty.
We limited the size of ships before ww2 and Japan shrugged that off big time. Doesn't matter what ideas or rules you have when it comes to fighting if you loose and are dead.
Geneva Convention - good fantasy. Soldiers in combat see and do things me and many others will never understand, it's not OK, but as Wehrmacht veterans said "War has its own rules."
I think the fact that some sides will break the JC is part and parcel of why it exists: the side that breaks the rules can more easily be cast as the villain.
Unless they win
@@citymorgue8462 Depends which side. If it is made up of a society that believe in their moral superiority over their foes, then they are much more likely to hold themselves accountable. ESPECIALLY if they themselves weren't the ones in danger from the enemy.
@@enderoctanus Considering that US, Israel, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, India haven't ratified, and some have only signed the first and second Protocols of GC... they definitely will not hold themselves accountable) it would be more like "they're evil/infidel/have oil/we dont like them/etc so we don't have to follow the suggestions, besides we haven't ratified the most modern and relevant protocols except for a dumb ass red diamond that can be worn instead of the red cross"
I'm a Former US Army Paratrooper but had a non-combat MOS(Military Occupational Skill). My MOS was 63B1P or Light Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic with the Paratrooper Identifier at the end. A "Leg"(non airborne) with same MOS would be 63B10. Anyhow; you should buy the entire blu ray set of "Band of Brothers. Based off of true events from D-Day to VE-Day. Including the atrocities they saw in the internment camps. I binge watched your COD WWII game play vids and many of the missions you encountered were similar if not exact missions from the Rangers in "Band of Brothers". I noticed how proud you were of your sniper capabilities. Put them to the test in the Sniper Elite Series. I recommend Sniper Elite V2, Sniper Elite III, and Sniper Elite 4-WWII. I Played 2 and 3 but got hooked on Grand Theft Auto V Online and never did try 4-WWII.
General William Tecumseh Sherman: "War is All HELL." (And Total War hits everybody as hard as soldiers in the field.)
A must agree, the geneva convention is a good idea made by hopeful people, but it has some pretty major loop holes. When a country signs up to the Geneva conversation they get to pick and choose which rules too follow, so countries like China have signed up to the Geneva convention, yet didn’t sign up to any of the rules, thus can get away with anything while at war and say the followed the rules. And it doesn’t stop the production of these weapons only the use of them, so if country is losing, they have the tools to bring their enemy down with them.
Excuse grammar and spelling mistakes, it was midnight when I wrote this.
The Rules of the Geneva Convention seem more like methods of punishing those that commit war crimes, more than rules of engagement when in actual combat.
Wicked lasers commercially available, can blind someone very quickly. Former air force here, we got lased all the time in afghanistan. To the point we had to wear class 4a laser protection when landing.
The guy at the starts tie looks like a "massager" I can't unsee it
A lot of the agreements are actually pretty well followed, just for the simple reason that "If we torture and kill their POW's, they'll torture and kill ours." Same for a lot of the dangerous weapons that ruin landscapes forever after. This doesn't mean people treat POW's well, or that there aren't people who do kill them, but it means that most militaries have rules against it.
It's not a perfect defense, many POW's are killed every year, but it would be a lot worse if every major military had "kill all POW's" as their default strategy.
Love the video, but a quick note, the idea of smallpox blankets being given to the American Indians is not based on any evidence. In fact, germ theory didn't even exist until the 1850s with Louis Pasteur, and didn't gain wide acceptance until even later. There is some evidence that in one case during the French and Indian war an English fort commander may have tried to spread the Smallpox that broke out inside the fort to the besieging forces, but it is not clear that he did, or that if he did that it actually was successful. People were horrible enough towards each other, we don't need to go inventing extra atrocities 👍
Hate to point this out, but the "Indian eats" are considered to have lasted til around 1900. That gave such things some years to have been used in the 19th century.
The point of the geneva convention isn't just to stop people commiting war crimes, but to give a line which we can prosecute people for crossing.
"If we happen to have a big war..." Damn u predicted it well
At least for now, both of sides showed respect for soldiers and POWs
I think Angron from the Warhammer franchise said it best: “War is only won when every enemy is dead. A pacified enemy is still an enemy”
“Stand amongst the ashes of a trillion dead souls, and ask the ghosts if honor matters. The silence is your answer.”
I'm a civilian CBRN instructor and many of these hazards are no joke. You can read about Japan's unit 100 and 731 along with Russia's Vector. If there is another World War these weapons would be used to get an edge. Even if it is marginal. Syria used them despite the results being questionable. The BWC does not have any inspection mechanisms unlike the CWC and the IAEA. Dual use research is another ambiguity problem and many nations research these threats for defensive and retaliatory purposes.
We still use a form of cluster bombs to destroy airfields. You bomb the airstrip to prevent aircraft from taking off, but you also scatter mines to deter, prevent, or at least delay repairs of the air strip. This hits both the mines and the cluster munitions on this list, but is admissible because it’s used on airfields specifically which have low chances of civilian casualties
I've been tear gassed, crowd control, one of the chemical agents they use, pepper sprayed, etc. CS is the worst. lol
The tri-dagger is a dagger that, if used at wartime, is considered a war crime in the US. The reason why is because this dagger inflicts so much damage upon stabbing and twisting that you could have a full team of world renowned surgeons and doctors and still have maybe a 40-50% chance of living. The dagger has three spiraling blades, earring the name. The way the blades are spiraled adds to the amount of damage it can inflict with a single stab wound.
I find it disturbing how war is so normal now that certain things are banned as if it were a paintball fight.
It isn't that it's 'normal'. It's kind of like the warning labels on a curling iron. Someone did it once, and made it very clear that it was not great. So the world adapted.
@@enderoctanus If only everyone could wake up and see that war itself as a concept is fucking stupid.
about the blinding lasers, lasers are not a military weapon. they have MANY civilian purposes, from projecting to data transmission, or even long range power transmission. having a blinding laser does not necessarily mean its for combat use.
My dad used to serve as a paratrooper and he said that the best mine they were instructed on how to make was a small pipebomb with glassfibre and stoneshards attached to it to act as "hard to see fragments". That was in the 70's.
We still use cluster bombs. We just call them something else. Multi dispense munitions or something along those lines.
Sensor fused weapons are what I believe you're looking for. basically cluster bombs just with a more reliable detonation method so they don't end up lying dormant on the ground. I don't think the US has ever stopped using cluster munitions they just upgraded them instead.
2:16 Would ANYONE follow those protocols?
Humankind is all the same at all times, so any side can decide to play dirty to win at any cost.
"fun fact" about the bat bombs, the bats broke out and burnt down the facility. Never mess with the bats!
I mean to say "If they were 100% committed they just wouldn't make them" for things like lasers. Just because something is capable of something doesn't mean it was designed or intended for that purpose. "Just don't make lasers cause we said we wouldn't use the to blind people." is idealistic at best.
I could see if it was called like a pigeon bomb you could train pigeons to go from one house to another but a bat somebody needs to fact check those guys
Flamethrowers weren’t used in Vietnam and Korea, they were abused to the max, civilian targets as well.
To answer the question of "Would countries really respect these treaties to make war less inhumane than it already is?". Obviously the answer is no, anything to gain the upper hand.
To be fair the biggest thing forcing countries to follow the Geneva Convention and other rules of war is the promise that if they break the rules those same weapons will be pointed at them. Its the same rationale as the M.A.D strategy for nuclear weapons -> which is still terrifying though
Gotta remember, war is a board game for leaders and they just make rules as they play.
" *well one of ya's bloody done it.......it's* 9:44 "
You ever played Wolfenstein? Not strictly a military shooter; takes place in a retrofuturistic alternate reality where Nazi's won World War II. Always wondered if things would really be all that different without the Geneva Convention.
I *think* the US lasers are built to take down incoming missiles and rockets but could theoretically be used to blind soldiers as well.
15:47
In the history of our country (Russia) there was a time when knyaginya (something like Queen) Olga, in revenge for the murder of her husband knyaz (King) Igor by the Drevlyan's tribe, besieged their capital and said that if each court collected three pigeons and three sparrows, and gave them to her, she and her army would leave their land. When the Drevlyans did this, Olga set fire to all the collected birds and let them go. The burning birds flew back to their nests, which were located in the capital of the Drevlyans and their straw and wooden houses burst into flames and the entire capital of the Drevlyans was burned down.
Luke's appreciation on what purpose and reasons the Geneva Convention actually accomplish is depressingly spot on. Also, nowadays, it's pretty much a complementary normative instrument for the application of the Rome Statute and other regulations that aim to punish crimes against humanity…so, regarding its usefulness and how effective it is in conflict areas, in combat situations…well what we could call “war”, isn't something that can be regulated while it's raging, in essence a punitive social-moral measure by the international community, not a set of rules for the realities of modern warfare.
Downed pilots in Vietnam facing torture and possibly death were on multiple occasions saved by their mates surrounding them with air-dropped mine clusters; there are a few good use cases.. and well fenced, labelled mines are reasonable as well.
Note: It doesn't matter if the other side isn't following the 'rules'. These rules exist so that our enemies don't have additional excuses to cause needless suffering. The things they ban confer little to no real tactical advantage with only a few exceptions. If the other refuses to follow the rules, while we do, then that gives us diplomatic leverage. Believe it or not, that actually does matter.
I’m on your side here. Every country should sign a treaty where instead countries slowly join together until we are left with the United People Of Earth
No war treaty?
That's called human extinction.
Please react to the video about the tunnel rats of Vietnam. It's disturbing but incredibly interesting.
What gives me hope that none of these weapons woudl be used if, hoplefully never, big war happens is that if you used it first not only it would impact diplomatic relations with potencial allies but also would be a green light for overs to use it on you
Being from the US, I know some of the history with the Native Americans and smallpox. The British at first didn't want to spread smallpox. But after a few decades and the Native Ameicans didn't capitulate, they did it on purpose. The numbers make the Holocaust look tame.
"PEE AND POO YOURSELF" bahahahaha, not urinate and defecate yourself, pee and poo is what they said xD
I feel like these "rules" are more for punishing the loser of future hypothetical wars.
If the winner gets caught then it will have been a "nessessary evil"
But if the loser gets caught then they will be punished
I was surprised that Wars ACTUALLY have Rules. I thought it was just "Kill as many Enemies as you can, I don't care how you do it, just do it"
blinding lasers are being made on daily basis by hundreds, maybe thousands.
because science and many manufacturing processes require them.
taking such a laser and putting it into a weapon housing is a relatively trivial task.
There can be no Peace without War.
The thing is, when you've been deployed for months and see your friends and fellow soldiers die when the enemy used dirty tactics, you think then "bugger the Geneva Convention" and that's when the war crimes start. Guarantee there's a lot of soldiers out there that will never confess to the things they did or witnessed.
Incendiary weapons in my opinion shouldn't be banned, but should only be used against the enemy under certain environments
Can you play a game called 'to the moon' ? It's a wonderful emotional game that I think you might enjoy!
Yeah it’s a really good game.
Hahaha, Geneva Convention? Never heard of it... Have heard of the Geneva Suggestions tho...
Ask any Arma III player (don't count the 506th or Arma Life people) if the Geneva Convention exists, and they'll tell you the same thing.
The odd one is hollow point ammunition. It’s banned for use in war but carried by most cops and millions of Americans. It’s completely available for purchase by anyone. My personal firearms are loaded with gel tipped, hollow point ammo.
Well its is fairly weird but police and civilians are mostly using hollow point for a reason which is penetration. In many urban areas you will want to avoid collateral damage and HP rounds are good for that since they will transfer most of the energy on the object they hit.
@@Tacticaviator7 *True. I don't carry so my firearms really are solely for personal and home defense. I load those rounds because if it's to the point I need to use a gun, I don't want him to get up.
3:45 Yes, but does it mean it should be legal to do so and open the door, not to a few bad apples, but an entire plague?
But yes, no war at all is the best option.
My teacher stepped on a landmine in Afghanistan, and do not have a leg anymore, he would have been dead...but there was gun powder in, so he didn't bleed that much as you'd think
Geneva convention. More like Geneva suggestion
Most of the world agreed BEFORE WW1, not to use chemical weapons (Brussels-1874, Hague-1899, Hague-1907)...everyone just decided to ignore those agreements.
It's a bit of relief to know that at least we have some surprises up on our sleeves in case of alien invasion, assuming geneva treaty won't be in effect for them.
As an American I love how you pronounce war "wahh". You have a great accent sir
Whenever I think about how Earth is just a spec flying alone in the vast empty and (so far) lifeless universe, it just makes me angry that lives are being ended on such trivial ideas like war
I agree. The enemy would look for ways to exploit anything they could, period.
There was a point in history where disputes were solved through fights and/or duels instead of wars. This ended when a duel between britain and france ended when one died and their new leader declared war.
Agree with you Luke, they missed one Hyperbaric bombs. Last I saw they are also banned basically sonic boom bomb for clearing caves. Deemed non ethical as exploding from your ears/brain exploding is not pleasant......
the two main rules that bans wepons is kills innocents and targets with no care of diffrence...or leaves the guy useing it so mently scared he is insain after
i am sure i've heard that mustard gas was also heavier than air.. so when deployed it would sink down into the trenches ?
So if landmines can't be used, why military is making it so obvious to mark the zone that potentially has mines planted? Like... "Warning! Minefield! Military Installation!" etc.
I knew about mines being banned, but now that I think about it...they are made obvious that military bases in remote areas, such as deserts or forest areas, are being mined against intruders, or is it a false sense of security and defense so that civilians or anyone hostile do not start to think about breaking in?
By the way, about nerve gas, most recent example was on UK soil where ex-Russian spy, or who he was, some military person or ex-KGB agent who settled down and lived a life in UK, got killed with a nerve gas, and Russia was blamed for it while Putin denied it with a laugh and some under text about them "get the proof, then we can talk". I mean, obvious is obvious, but there was proof, and that's the deal regarding legal actions.
Loving the D&D hat
True. At the end of the day, Geneva Convention is just an "advice" and "moral high ground" designed for the aftermath of the war, not during the war. And even then, if a country do break it but they are on the winning side, most people wouldn't care and brush it off anyway. This Convention only will be imposed as "extra baddie point" for the one losing the war.
For example, America currently have a working laser-based weapon that can disable drones, aircrafts, boats, etc. (possibly blinding AND killing the people on those vehicle) which clearly already a red light for one of the Geneva Convention rule. If war ever broke out (which I hope never, ever happened), and they used it "in a pinch" or to "help other country" and won, who are to blame them, right? Moral high ground bs and all. Even though they clearly break the convention, they will got away probably only with several bad rumours or talks around but relatively harmless.
And we are only talking about one country. Who knows about others that have banned arsenal also that haven't got revealed?
So yeah. The whole convention thing is sus.
The Geneva Convention sort of acts like the MAD. These are the rules of war and both of us will follow it, because if you don't then I won't either. This in theory would make them less likely to do it since it would increase the costs of the war for both parties. Not only that, the one who breaks it first loses the moral high ground which can be used for propaganda.
I loved the speech in the beginning god didn’t build us for war we should all get along and set are focus on something greater then new machines for war!
instead of countles soliders figthing, the presidents of countries should have fights to the death, winner takes all
In WW1 when the germans used gass for the first time it was against the french and they had no cleu what was coming towards them and they started shooting at it. When they went and retrieved the bodies the soldiers had scratched their throats open for air but their lungs were filled with chlorine gas.
Luke needs to react to "FPS LOGIC SUPERCUT"
Just a reminder that you cannot really stop a nation from using these banned weapons, but if they are caught using it and they lose the war... then oh boy would their economy go down to rock bottom because of the added punishments along with war costs.
I am not sure if army's would use plastic projectiles due to their physical properties in comparison to metal rounds...
Perhaps in case of shortages bit not as the main projectile material
I had never heard of that bat tactic till now, like damn.
It was proven viable when the camp they were testing at was burned down when some bats got loose.
Check out the "simple history" story about Roy Benavidez. A US green beret during vietnam. Hands down one of the most bad ass men you will ever hear about!!
These rules most likely will hold up in conventional warfare but not Total War: a war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in
Don't dirty bombs have a small explosive charge, instead of a detonator, on them to spread the radioactive material over a small distance?
Weaponizing something as a means of understanding how to defend against it can apply to some of the DOD projects. Like in the CDC making weaponized diseases. I would hazard most though are built with the "can" question in mind rather than "should"
Did they change the way a grenade exploded? And did they ban claymores or are they still being used?
The laws would fly out the window.
The other side of it is that the winner would then be able to charge the loser with war crimes.
Cold comfort.
Did I miss it or did they not mention white phosphorus? Because outside of being gased that is the most horrible thing I can think of.
He is right no matter what side it is inhumane I’ve seen my uncles 80s Royal Marines rations
id counter this though. if the horror of these weapons disappears-so does the reasoning. e.g. no one worried about anthrax as a weapon until it was used by terrorists. to be fair i think the only time a nation calls for a ban on weapons is the same reason you do in any competition, cause it could be used on you. we dont ban selective fire on our weapons or the automatic grenade launcher when fighting the Taliban-cause they dont have them. but if they did our nation would want them banned. in the end of the day their are no real bans. the fact that pungy sticks were baneed, the most basic form of defense structures, used for ages pre modern war-is a sign it has nothing to do with morality. also since the geneva code has been passed theirs been multiple incidents of the major powers abusing the banned weapons but no one goes to war or prosecutes them due to their power. its like royalty armed with pikes say the peasants cant have swords.
"It's like a treaty. We sign it. No one ever goes to war. No one ever invades any other country. We all just be happy with what we've got." I fucking wish. This would be awesome and I wish it was a reality but I just don't see it in my lifetime.
war never changes no matter how humane you try to make it
You should check out battletech lore. They consider the ares conventions as suggestions than rules or guidelines for warfare.
Interesting.
Laser can be used for other purposes like the laws weapon system which uses a laser to destroy drones and small boats
I'm pretty sure that having rules of war with regard to weapon and tactics restrictions (which get broken all the time on an individual level, if not a systematic one) has less to do with morality or human behavior and more to do with a sense of practicality and self-preservation. If your personnel perform a horrendous act upon enemy troops and civilians, then the enemy will be able to use that as justification to retaliate with the same or worse tactics. It's basically just the MAD deterrence doctrine, but on a much smaller scale--and the idea's been around for much longer than the Geneva Convention (I wanna say there was a doctrine called the "rules for gentlemanly warfare" in the Napoleonic Wars, but I could be making that up or confusing it with some other historical fact).
Example: Dating all the way back to ancient times, it was considered taboo to kill or otherwise harm messengers between two warring factions, with the idea that if you kill the other guy's messenger, then the guarantee of safety for your faction's messenger (along with the possibility for any diplomacy) would go out the window. Same thing with prisoners--you kill POWs, then the enemy will lose any incentive to keep their prisoners alive; thus, pulling the trigger on any POWs you're keeping would be tantamount to pulling the trigger on your own guys.
And to think that hundreds of y-s ago such weapon like crossbow was considered too dangerous to be used in conflicts in general. And now XXI century we have plenty of war tools incomparably worse than that.
For the lasers they werent made to blind they were made to destroy certain weapons like missles etc. It just so happens they have the ability to blind