Advertisement
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:03 am
by Araraukar » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:37 am
Imperializt Russia wrote:It would be significantly easier for civil aircraft to dodge air defences and air patrol routes than it would be for civil shipping to dodge subs that can't be predicted and are difficult to track the movements of.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:39 am
by Araraukar » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:48 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: You'll forgive me if I find you trying to lecture people on shoulder launched missiles being used against planes slightly ironic...
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Kaboomlandia » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:50 am
Araraukar wrote:The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: You'll forgive me if I find you trying to lecture people on shoulder launched missiles being used against planes slightly ironic...
OOC: Eh? It happened in real life - it was even caught on tape. Some middle eastern freedomfighter/terrorist group brought down a passenger jet. I can dig up the flight number for you if you'd like.
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:54 am
Araraukar wrote:The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: You'll forgive me if I find you trying to lecture people on shoulder launched missiles being used against planes slightly ironic...
OOC: Eh? It happened in real life - it was even caught on tape. Some middle eastern freedomfighter/terrorist group brought down a passenger jet. I can dig up the flight number for you if you'd like.
by Araraukar » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:55 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: It wasn't so very long ago that you hadn't even heard of MANPADS. To have you now leading the chorus on how much a problem they are for civilian airliners is - I suppose in a way, strangely heartening.
Kaboomlandia wrote:Was it Iran Air 655?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imperializt Russia » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:03 am
Araraukar wrote:Imperializt Russia wrote:It would be significantly easier for civil aircraft to dodge air defences and air patrol routes than it would be for civil shipping to dodge subs that can't be predicted and are difficult to track the movements of.
Have you ever heard of radar? Or SAMs? Yes, I'm being facetious, but if there really was unrestricted air warfare in effect, the ones attacking wouldn't stick to nicely-defined air patrol routes, would they? Or kindly mark down on maps for the enemy to find, just which areas they've supplied with mobile SAM-carrying units.
Heck, you can bring down a passenger jet with a shoulder-launched [OOC: Happened in real life.] missile, and if you have military control of the borders of the area you're trying to control the airspace of, with proper combination of ground-based radars and visual spotting, it's unlikely many planes will get through. And furthermore, the larger passenger and cargo planes can't land just anywhere.
EDIT: I'm just waiting on you to decide on a category, DSR, before looking over the draft with that in mind. But at a quick glance I didn't see much that would be in conflict with the current one. Also, your #2 may be abused by nations looking to suppress whomever they wish, as "assistance towards commission" can easily be read as whatever the nation wants."But I honestly just told a lost motorist how to get back to the highway!"
"Which led to them committing HeinousCrimeOfYourChoice! Nice try at innocence - we already knew you supported MilitantFactionX from your Fakebook affiliations!"
"My what?!" *reads the evidence* "Just because my wife is friends with someone whose cousin posted "Down with the government!" doesn't mean I was-"
"Shut up, terrorist."
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Bears Armed Mission » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:28 am
Perhaps we could expand it to something along the lines of "compelling civilians to handle munitions of any kind, or to enter areas within which they would be at serious risk of harm from currently-'live' explosive weapons"?The Dark Star Republic wrote:Bears Armed wrote:OOC; Does the current wording adequately forbid forcing civilians into [known or suspected] minefields as a way of clearing routes through those? Might not happen in RL, has probably happened already in NS...
OOC: I'd be open to including that, but it's way too specific of an example for what's meant to be a general document. Would you have a suggested phrasing?
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:38 am
Araraukar wrote:Also, your #2 may be abused by nations looking to suppress whomever they wish, as "assistance towards commission" can easily be read as whatever the nation wants.
by Imperializt Russia » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:41 am
Imperializt Russia wrote:Bears Armed wrote:OOC; Does the current wording adequately forbid forcing civilians into [known or suspected] minefields as a way of clearing routes through those? Might not happen in RL, has probably happened already in NS...
Well, the Iranians were able to willingly persuade schoolchildren to do it by the thousand in the Iran-Iraq War.
One would be required to demonstrate forcibly doing so, however.
I'd like to believe it's superfluous to include because it's such a pointlessly inefficient and ineffective way of doing it.
It's literally better and easier to just shell it, which is still a terrible way of doing it.
I'd like to believe the following (copied from OP) can arguably cover this instance also.
- deliberate targeting of civilians,
- mistreatment of prisoners of war, military internees, or civilian internees,
- reprisals against civilian population as a means of collective punishment,
- excessive destruction not justified by military necessity,
- summary execution,
- taking of hostages,
- use of civilians or other protected persons to render areas immune from military operations
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Kaboomlandia » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:27 pm
Araraukar wrote:The Dark Star Republic wrote:OOC: It wasn't so very long ago that you hadn't even heard of MANPADS. To have you now leading the chorus on how much a problem they are for civilian airliners is - I suppose in a way, strangely heartening.
OOC: Let's just say that since then I've watched a lot of Mayday.
EDIT: And I still stand by my ManPad jingle (the name's stupid, not the weaponry, call it anything else and we're cool).Kaboomlandia wrote:Was it Iran Air 655?
OOC: Only if you consider US Navy to be a freedomfighter/terrorist group.
I admit my memories mixed up two different incidents; the one caught on tape didn't crash, the crew managed to (just) get it down to ground without crashing. This one however did crash. As did this.
And FAA at least considered them a serious threat.
The latest Ukranian accidental downing of a passenger jet was by military-grade equipment, but mobile SAM unit nevertheless.
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:32 pm
Kaboomlandia wrote:Let's not forget TWA 800 (at least the conspiracy-theorist version of it). I believe it was the fuel tank spark.
by Amerieka » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:17 pm
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:20 pm
Amerieka wrote:i like the general aims of this proposal. i wanted to draft a specific resolution dealing with human trafficking but then i saw this.
my only concern is that it will take some effort to come to a consensus on what should be included or not included as "heinous", although generally i agree with your list.
by Araraukar » Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:44 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:No, let's forget it: this is all getting way off topic.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imperializt Russia » Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:20 am
Araraukar wrote:The Dark Star Republic wrote:No, let's forget it: this is all getting way off topic.
Yes, so, again, why unrestricted submarine warfare? Why not just generally unrestricted warfare that makes no difference between civilian and military targets?
OOC: While the military debate is fun in its own way, I'd actually like an answer to that.
EDIT because I can't type today, it seems.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Araraukar » Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:22 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm just positing reasons why we should (or may decide to, rather) focus on submarine warfare rather than in general terms.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Desmosthenes and Burke
Advertisement