Unwritten Law of Reciprocity in Warfare

Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 2

Anonymous
Unwritten Law of Reciprocity in Warfare 2016-06-08 00:40:13 Post No. 1255622
[Report] Image search: [Google]

File: isis-burns-captured-jordanian-pilot-alive-11019.jpg (47 KB, 634x382) Image search: [Google]

Unwritten Law of Reciprocity in Warfare Anonymous 2016-06-08 00:40:13 Post No. 1255622 [Report]

Why is the killing of a captured pilot considered wrong? Let's get past the fact that most of us already didn't like the people doing it and actually look at this with commonly accepted logic.

Those who do not allow others to surrender should not be allowed to surrender. This was the rationale for executing SS prisoners in WWII, or U-Boat crews. Pilots, naturally do not ask for surrender, nor are they capable of accepting it. Why then is killing them considered morally wrong?

The normal incentive for not executing pilots on the spot is the threat of reciprocity for one's own pilots. But what if one's side does not own any planes? Is there a law that armies have to operate as if they had something they did not?

Killing that pilot was the correct strategic move. You have no other means of deterrent. You basically have no means of defense. You have no assets that can be targeted in a similar manner. And you have massive casualties with a single scapegoat. Really, can anyone say without hypocrisy that they would have done differently?

>>

Anonymous 2016-06-08 00:42:40 Post No.1255634
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-06-08 00:42:40 Post No.1255634 [Report]

>>1255622
>You basically have no means of defense
How'd did he get shot down in the first place then?
These nigs have MANPAD's outta the wazoo, of course they have a means of defense against air attacks.

>>

Anonymous 2016-06-08 00:42:56 Post No.1255637
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-06-08 00:42:56 Post No.1255637 [Report]

>>1255622
The problem isn't killing him (which is barbaric) the problem is that they tried to use him as a bargaining chip even though he was already dead; which makes them not just savages, but treacherous ones as well

>>

Anonymous 2016-06-08 00:46:04 Post No.1255658
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-06-08 00:46:04 Post No.1255658 [Report]

>>1255634

If they were better at it they would be doing it more. They have no lack of motivation.

>>

Anonymous 2016-06-08 00:47:50 Post No.1255661
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-06-08 00:47:50 Post No.1255661 [Report]

>>1255637

Really? So Achilles was treacherous for demanding huge ransoms from Priam for the return of Hector's body?

I believe the purpose of this thread should be to establish exactly what the rules of warfare are before we start judging people on their basis.

Please define terms, I am not a smart man.

>>

Anonymous 2016-06-08 00:49:25 Post No.1255667
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-06-08 00:49:25 Post No.1255667 [Report]

>>1255661
They weren't negotiating for the body, they were acting as if he were alive and well, and when the Jordanians asked for evidence they admitted that he was executed a month before

>>

Anonymous 2016-06-08 00:49:42 Post No.1255669
[Report] Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2016-06-08 00:49:42 Post No.1255669 [Report]

File: hind-b-gone.jpg (48 KB, 640x480) Image search: [Google]

48 KB, 640x480

>>1255658
What does lack of skill/experience have to do with a supposed "lack of defense from aerial attack"?

>>

Anonymous 2016-06-08 00:56:21 Post No.1255698
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-06-08 00:56:21 Post No.1255698 [Report]

>>1255667

Ah well this is why I ask.

>>1255669

Because in warfare the outcome is all that matters. Either you kill the enemy or you didn't. Either you have victory or defeat (or sometimes both). And US doctrine heavily emphasizes asymmetrical warfare, therefore by intuition one can assume some asymmetry.