7755
« on: April 10, 2017, 08:38:08 pm »
Yeah max, we're a fair chunk of why the laws are like that, it seems. Probably one of the more common violators, too, which to all appearances has been exactly what we wanted.
And nah, there's like a half dozen different treaties that address CW in one way or another. And again, the one that covers production does, in fact, stipulate how violations of that in particular are to be addressed. There's not much in the way of limitations on what the conclusion is, but there does appear to be some on what to do leading up to that conclusion. And to all appearances, so far as I've been able to tell, the rest of been conspicuously and consistently interpreted to address the protections given soldiers and non-soldiers differently.
Though no, what my posts amount to is noting that the CW laws apparently can't be used to justify the sort of "enforcement" this particular air strike is being called. If you can't tell by my repeated statements that it's fucked up, I'm not claiming that's a particularly desirable state of things. Though I'll admit I'm not exactly opposed to having more explicit controls on what comes before it.