9 ms·

Note that the UK would be committing war crimes in this case, since you are not allowed to murder unarmed soldiers, you are supposed to capture them and put the

• vorpalhex 19d ago
  PA was armed. > you are not allowed to murder unarmed soldiers, That's also false, you can absolutely kill unarmed combatants so long as they remain combatants. Eg you can bomb an artillery crew even if they don't have sidearms. To be eligible for capture, a combatant must generally surrender. > typically called „arresting“ when a government does it to their own citizens I encourage you to read up on POW camps. There are no attorneys or rights. You may work POWs. There are cases in which food and medical aid can be severely limited depending on how it is sourced. You may hold POWs functionally forever.
  • FabCH 19d ago
    An artillery crew is armed with the cannon. POWs don’t have attorneys, but they do have rights. Limiting food and medical aid is a war crime. Of course, everybody routinely violates the rights of POWs, and only the losers ever get prosecuted.
    • echoangle 18d ago
      Source that you wouldn’t be allowed to kill unarmed enemy soldiers? Imagine a scouting team doing reconnaissance, surely you’re allowed to attack and kill them?
      • FabCH 7d ago
        Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Laying down your arms is generally considered an expression of surrender and renders protection. Also, who sends scouts unarmed? They should at least have a sidearm.
        • echoangle 7d ago
          Laying down arms as an action is different to being unarmed. And it was a hypothetical, there are a lot of situations where you can kill unarmed military personnel legally. You can just bomb military barracks full of sleeping unarmed people legally for example.
    • vorpalhex 16d ago
      By that logic, PA had fighter jets. And no, limiting food and medical is not a war crime if the source being limited is from the captor and matches the treatment of their own troops.