• Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    I want to clarify something that others aren’t. Yes, things that would be war crimes aren’t if not used in war, but this doesn’t give a reason. A lot of them are to prevent mistakes in war, not because it’s evil. For example, you aren’t allowes to use chemicals that are often used on civilians, but it isn’t because they’re particularly harmful. It’s because you don’t know what they are until latter, so if you see it you may respond with your own chemical weapons, which may be harmful. This is just one example, but a lot of the time “war crimes” are there to prevent escalation, not because of how harmful they are. (Obviously some are because of the harm though.)

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I tried to find a definition that would explain that and failed. Can you provide some source for that claim? What you refer to does seem to be a violation of warfare laws but not war crime, which is a violation of humanitarian law