This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Utilitarianism in war : what are some under-explored tools of war that are effective but dismissed out of hand due to bad optics ?
This isn't so much a top level post as a seed to begin a conversation. I've always found it rather barbaric that the only acceptable way for a superior power to engage in war is straight violence & bloodshed. This is especially true with a truly imbalanced siege. In almost every occasion, the 'honorable' way of doing a siege costs more money, causes more deaths and eventually leads to the same outcome.
Chemical warfare is horrible. But are there way to engage in chemical warfare that neutralizes the enemy without any long-term consequences to the heath of those attacked ? Why limit yourself to flashbangs and smoke grenades ? Why not use FPV drones with mass-pepper spray ? You can buy a 1000 pepper-spray FPV drones for a $1 million. Train a few people to operate them as a swarm (like a school of tuna) and they will be very hard to take out. A single deployment of the iron dome costs Israel more.
Sound based violence has been used before, but can it be taken further ? Gaza is just across the border.
Why not identify 1 of the tunnels on high ground and flood them ? Maybe flood them with sewage just so it is extra disgusting.
It's war. You're willing to kill by the thousands. Less than honorable means are absolutely acceptable (with long term effects accounted for) if that means a lower body count.
What are some other avenues of war that could be tried to minimize body count but increase effectiveness ? Is there some long term pandoras box reason to keep these tools of war off the table ?
I watched two incredibly pedantic former armed service members argue over whether this would be legally considered a warcrime last night. Because apparently it's against the laws of war to purposely destroy the environment, which flood Hamas tunnels with sewage would do. It's also illegal to flagrantly endanger civilian lives, which flooding the tunnels with sewage would do since you don't know all the places they go. They specifically cited this law, and it was apparently common knowledge to them where it came from, but I have no clue.
All I came away from the conversation with is that it's apparently illegal to use any novel forms of warfighting that may save innocent lives over bombing Gaza to glass, because bombs are grandfathered into everyone's expectations. There is also apparently no penalty to committing warcrimes beyond words. Unless you lose. But since Israel faced genocide should they lose, it's not like they have any reason not to commit warcrimes. Better to warcrime and win, and let people say mean things about you.
That is from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
I didn't see the conversation, but it is clearly not the case that bombs are grandfathered into the definition of war crimes that you cite. That is the whole point of the current criticism of Israel's campaign in Gaza, as well as criticisms of recent events in Yemen. The issue re the sewage is not that attacks which damage the environment are per se war crimes, but rather that, as the quote says, only "attack[s that] will cause . . . widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated" are war crimes. Whether flooding tunnels with sewage would be a war crime depends on 1) their anticipated effectiveness; and 2) their likely effect on the environment and civilian populations (cholera, perhaps?)
So I want to be clear. I'm not saying bombing gaza (or any hostile region) is grandfathered into the law, I'm saying it's grandfathered into peoples expectations. Because every country has done, is doing it, and reserves the right to do it again. It's against the law in name only. Like sodomy.
It was the same way when Trump was in office, and his corrupt was novel. He was flexing his hospitality industrial complex. Where as everyone else grew up with the military industrial complex being nakedly corrupt. They're all corrupt, but he acted corrupt in a novel, unique way. So it drew more attention, and people were tricked into thinking his corruption, such as it was, was somehow uniquely evil.
So it goes with bombs versus other novel means of warfighting. Israel might be wrong to bomb gaza, but they wrong in good company. You don't want to be the only nation on Earth to have weaponized sewage.
It was indeed a bit unclear, because all the evidence you mentioned was re the law, and indeed you introduced the topic by stating that it was prompted by a discussion re "whether this would be legally considered a warcrime" and that "[a]ll [you] came away from the conversation with is that it's apparently illegal to use any novel forms of warfighting that may save innocent lives." You didn't say anything about expectations or the like.
As for how people actually respond, it is rather difficult to say whether bombing is considered more acceptable than novel forms of violence, since 1) we don't have many examples of the latter; and 2) we have lots of evidence of people disapproving of the former (and indeed of indiscriminately applying the "war crime" label).
...
I honestly don't know why I even try.
...
Yes.
Sorry, I missed one aside. Nevertheless, your entire post was about the legality of the practices in question. I understand that you meant to make another point, but surely you can understand why readers might not have inferred that. Which is fine; everyone here is less than completely clear on occasion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link