THE WAR ENDED & I'M A BIT DISAPPOINTED

[Jax von May]

Good points.

I like the reference to a code of conduct. You rightly say that attacking civilians is immoral. It is also illegal, under international humanitarian law. Customary law, particularly at sea, provides for an obligation to protect and spare non-combatants, whether civilians or shipwrecked staff. Since 1949, the 2nd Geneva convention precisely regulates that.

However, a civilian ship (or anything, for that matter) which which contributes concretely to the war effort of the enemy loses its protected status and can be lawfully attacked.

Originally Posted by SeaviewSkipper

Well, that's a rather absurd, arrogant statement, and one I disagree with. I did a VERY good job during my 14 patrol career. I sank about a million tons of shipping-including three aircraft carriers and a battleship, sent probably 70,000 troops to see Davey Jones, shot down 80-90 planes, and only lost one man. I also successfully completed all but one of my patrol objectives. In addition, I never shot at junks, sampans, or fishing vessels because I consider that to be immoral. Those tiny vessels are defenseless and manned by poor civilians trying to eke-out a living from the sea and have nothing whatsoever to do with the war.

On the contrary, medals are given in official recognition and appreciation of the fact that you DID do a good job. It's just like getting perks, bonuses, and promotions in private industry. Would you be happy and satisfied if you worked diligently, honorably, and successfully for a company and never got a promotion or a raise? Of course not. Please be real.

[Vonross]

Originally Posted by Jax von May

Good points.

I like the reference to a code of conduct. You rightly say that attacking civilians is immoral. It is also illegal, under international humanitarian law. Customary law, particularly at sea, provides for an obligation to protect and spare non-combatants, whether civilians or shipwrecked staff. Since 1949, the 2nd Geneva convention precisely regulates that.

However, a civilian ship (or anything, for that matter) which which contributes concretely to the war effort of the enemy loses its protected status and can be lawfully attacked.

Ok so your a tree huger...lol The Japs came at us...If we did not win ...We would all be slaves now.....So kill them all as fast as you can. That type of thinking did what ? Now we drive Jap cars, use Jap electronics ....Hell they already have our jobs...now there buying up our landmarks...That,s what that type of thinking got us....What we needed back then was more Fat boys ...A lot more !

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Vonross

Ok so your a tree huger...lol The Japs came at us...If we did not win ...We would all be slaves now.....So kill them all as fast as you can. That type of thinking did what ? Now we drive Jap cars, use Jap electronics ....Hell they already have our jobs...now there buying up our landmarks...That,s what that type of thinking got us....What we needed back then was more Fat boys ...A lot more !

What is this? A rant from 1991? Most cars, electronics and exported jobs I see now days are South Korean or Chinese. I believe Japanese corporations ended up selling off most of the landmarks they bought up back in the go-go days of the 1980s. Mitsubishi, in particular took an extraordinary loss on the Rockefellar Center.

If you're hankering to see the Japanese suffer and brought low, I would think the liquidity trap of the last two decades would be enough. Not to mention Fukushima.

[Crannogman]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

What is this? A rant from 1991? Most cars, electronics and exported jobs I see now days are South Korean or Chinese. I believe Japanese corporations ended up selling off most of the landmarks they bought up back in the go-go days of the 1980s. Mitsubishi, in particular took an extraordinary loss on the Rockefellar Center.

If you're hankering to see the Japanese suffer and brought low, I would think the liquidity trap of the last two decades would be enough. Not to mention Fukushima.

Preach.

The World Wars exemplify the maturation of Clausewitz's concept of total war - the mobilization of a whole people to the purpose of the state. Thus, the purpose of the state becomes the purpose of the people, and the means of production becomes the engine of war. There had always been an understanding that the easiest way to hurt an opponent without risking one's own force was to raid their sources of wealth and commerce. However, as total war converted private wealth and commerce to the service of the state, it also converted them to legitimate targets of war.

It's no stretch to consider fishing trawlers, tugboats, and sampans to be serving an island state at war, and they are totally legitimate wartime targets. Specifically targeting the crew, especially after their vessel is sunk, is more problematical; for instance, sinking the fishing boat while letting the crew survive actually accelerates the food shortage. Capturing (or killing, if he refuse surrender) a skilled airman/seaman/soldier etc has always been accepted as a part of war. In general, though, the survivors from craft you have destroyed have little immediate value to their state.

Although the game does not model it, you could definitely role-play attacks on unarmed ships as though giving fair warning. I usually encounter fishing trawlers while surface-cruising at night, without much warning before we spot each other. One could sail into the formation and not open fire until 30 minutes after contact. In certain areas, in certain conditions, one could even consider surfaced attacks on larger merchants, although sometimes that results in them turning tail and running.

PS- as it stands, enemy aircrew are unrescuable - does anyone know if this is mod-able?

[SquareCanine]

Originally Posted by Vonross

Ok so your a tree huger...lol ...

I guess what I would say about this is that most warring states and their leaders aren't warring because they want to kill people or make them suffer. You aren't attacking an enemy merchant ship because it has some people on it that need killing, but because you want to deny the enemy whatever supplies it may be carrying. The non-combatants on board may or may not be willing participants in the war effort, and killing people who can't defend themselves is considered wrong in much of the world. Even many soldiers have trouble killing their opponents. People aiming high has been found to be very widespread in various conflicts, and wartime propaganda often centers on dehumanizing the enemy because that's the only way many people will do anything but defend themselves.

There are a lot of things warring states can do to make war extra terrible for their enemies. Things like agreeing not to use chemical weapons, or not shoot defenceless people in cold blood are ways of making things just a little less horrible.


As to the topic of the thread, I would have liked some sort of cutscene, or even just a proper summary window as you would find in RTS games like Age of Kings. Maybe sometime I'll record my submarine returning to port and play that for myself if I survive the war.

[Jax von May]

That's not correct.

Wake up. The laws of war have - fortunately - changed since WW2.

The notion of 'total war' legitimizing attacks against the whole infrastructure is precisely what IHL, or LoAC (law of armed of armed conflicts), forbids.

An attack against civilians or civilian structures, such as a power plant, or a sewage system, or a factory, are grave breaches of the LoAC. Parties to a conflict must distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. If however it brings a concrete military advantage, and is done with A proportionate collateral damage, it is lawful.

This is the reality of the legal framework today, the kind that brings
you to court martial or in front of an national or international criminal court for war crime. The fact many do not respect it does not make it less referential. That's what distinguishes a moral and effective army from a genocidaire establishment or terrorists.

Is there anybody here who actually has served in a XXIst century conflict?

Originally Posted by Crannogman

Preach.

The World Wars exemplify the maturation of Clausewitz's concept of total war - the mobilization of a whole people to the purpose of the state. Thus, the purpose of the state becomes the purpose of the people, and the means of production becomes the engine of war. There had always been an understanding that the easiest way to hurt an opponent without risking one's own force was to raid their sources of wealth and commerce. However, as total war converted private wealth and commerce to the service of the state, it also converted them to legitimate targets of war.

It's no stretch to consider fishing trawlers, tugboats, and sampans to be serving an island state at war, and they are totally legitimate wartime targets. Specifically targeting the crew, especially after their vessel is sunk, is more problematical; for instance, sinking the fishing boat while letting the crew survive actually accelerates the food shortage. Capturing (or killing, if he refuse surrender) a skilled airman/seaman/soldier etc has always been accepted as a part of war. In general, though, the survivors from craft you have destroyed have little immediate value to their state.