Russia guilty of 'egregious' war crimes in Syria, human rights group says

Rogue Valley · Feb 23, 2016

matchlight said:
Why would Russia purposely bomb hospitals?

To make sure that no medical help is available to Syrian civilians except in cities/regions controlled by Assad forces.

Whoever controls hospitals, doctors, nurses, clinics, pharmaceuticals, etc. holds immense power over large segments of the civilian population.

matchlight · Feb 23, 2016

danarhea said:
That's the difference between us and Russia. When assholes use women and children as human shields, we find a way to get at them without hurting the innocent. Russia, on the other hand, kills them all and lets God sort them out.

It's not always possible to rescue people that war criminals are using as human shields. A lot of Iraqis were killed, for example, in incidents where U.S. forces had to return fire coming from among civilians to defend themselves. It's not always clear that all those civilians are human shields or innocent bystanders. Islamists usually fight out of uniform, and other civilians nearby are often collaborating with them. The notion that all the quarter-million of so residents of Raqqa are the helpless victims of ISIS is laughable. When they showed that Jordanian pilot being burned alive on an outdoor screen in that city, a large crowd showed up to watch and cheer.

The U.S., too, realized during World War Two that it often had to kill civilians to get at the enemy. During the months after D-Day, U.S. and British forces killed about 40,000 French civilians in the course of driving the Germans out of France. No one knows just how many people were killed by bombs and shells in Caen, just to cite one city, but it was many hundreds, and maybe even thousands.

matchlight · Feb 23, 2016

Simpleχity;1065587182 said:
To make sure that no medical help is available to Syrian civilians except in cities/regions controlled by Assad forces.

Whoever controls hospitals, doctors, nurses, clinics, pharmaceuticals, etc. holds immense power over large segments of the civilian population.

I suppose that could be part of Russia's strategy. If so, it is something like the barbaric methods that Italy used in Ethiopia in 1935-36, or that Germany used in Spain about that same time.

notquiteright · Feb 23, 2016

joG said:
1) Sure there were lots of different levels of precision nuclear weapons. That was because the paths along one expected war could develop were considerably different. In one case it might start loping 80 tactical nukes per section of the Eastern front at advancing armees. In another it might mean the response to the perceived attempt to knock out the second strike capability. In most cases we are talking collateral damage that would make the Vietnamese conflict appear tame.
2) The level of detail does not allow me to say, if use of a nuclear bomb would make sense in your examples. But I do not see any reason to a priori take the option off the table. As a matter of fact, I am increasingly convinced that we might be well advised to use such force in the near future. But that leads down an other path.
3) If I can rightly remember the German command had discussed use of gas and decided that it could not improve the military situation or shift the balance.
4) The Russian bombing seems very successful in attaining their goals. It has improved Assad's probability of stabilizing his regime in a secure area.

You want to make MAD the equal of using dumb bombs- ie huge civilian damage, but the facts are dumb bombs quite often FAIL to accomplish the mission, I reference the dropping of both the Than Hoa, and Longbien bridge in a single smart bomb attack vs dozens of dumb bomb raids previously.

The first priority of the use of force is to accomplish the mission on a tactical level and the success at the tactical level leads to success on the strategic level. Careless bombing has no track record of success at either level. Civilian morale in WWII was not crippled by indiscriminate bombing. Only the loss of production facilities/ resources crippled the Axis war effort which would have been greatly enhanced if guided bombs were available.

The use of 80 tacnukes is ridiculous. The mere holding of such weapons caused great tension between foes across the iron curtain barrier. I'd opine if Russia lobbed 80 tacs across the border to open a pathway, we would have escalated to the point of a Mutual exchange.

That the Germans discussed and then thought better of the use of gas doesn't strengthen your argument. We repeatedly have a minority of 'X-spurts' who push for the use of nukes at any opportunity. Military folks routinely glance at and then dismiss some weapons. The reality still is the Germans didn't use gas weapons in WWII even though they had developed some extremely deadly forms of nerve agent.

You really should educate yourself on the bombing efforts of the Russians in Afghanistan. they terror bombed entire villages, dropped 'toy' bombs aimed at children and attempted to starve entire regions- and did they win that?

(not 'knowing' enough to comment is a piss poor response in the age of the Almighty Google)

I'm glad that even the most arrogant leaders don't see the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terrorism (or nationalism in some cases) as an intelligent response.

I'll close by saying I don't see Assad as winning through the use of dumb bombs- far more factors play in this than a few bombs dropped by the Russians...

eace

joG · Feb 23, 2016

notquiteright said:
You want to make MAD the equal of using dumb bombs- ie huge civilian damage, but the facts are dumb bombs quite often FAIL to accomplish the mission, I reference the dropping of both the Than Hoa, and Longbien bridge in a single smart bomb attack vs dozens of dumb bomb raids previously.

The first priority of the use of force is to accomplish the mission on a tactical level and the success at the tactical level leads to success on the strategic level. Careless bombing has no track record of success at either level. Civilian morale in WWII was not crippled by indiscriminate bombing. Only the loss of production facilities/ resources crippled the Axis war effort which would have been greatly enhanced if guided bombs were available.

The use of 80 tacnukes is ridiculous. The mere holding of such weapons caused great tension between foes across the iron curtain barrier. I'd opine if Russia lobbed 80 tacs across the border to open a pathway, we would have escalated to the point of a Mutual exchange.

That the Germans discussed and then thought better of the use of gas doesn't strengthen your argument. We repeatedly have a minority of 'X-spurts' who push for the use of nukes at any opportunity. Military folks routinely glance at and then dismiss some weapons. The reality still is the Germans didn't use gas weapons in WWII even though they had developed some extremely deadly forms of nerve agent.

You really should educate yourself on the bombing efforts of the Russians in Afghanistan. they terror bombed entire villages, dropped 'toy' bombs aimed at children and attempted to starve entire regions- and did they win that?

(not 'knowing' enough to comment is a piss poor response in the age of the Almighty Google)

I'm glad that even the most arrogant leaders don't see the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terrorism (or nationalism in some cases) as an intelligent response.

I'll close by saying I don't see Assad as winning through the use of dumb bombs- far more factors play in this than a few bombs dropped by the Russians... eace

That is too many different points to want reply to. Keep focused and we can continue.

PS: You should look up the numbers, types, use and placement of nuclear warheads in the cold war and how they were to be employed. You might then think about how many it takes to "Destroy" and correspondingly how many would have given us Nuclear Winter.

Russia guilty of 'egregious' war crimes in Syria, human rights group says

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

matchlight

matchlight

notquiteright

joG