"The action must be necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective. If the retreating soldiers pose no immediate threat or if their destruction does not contribute significantly to the military objective, the use of force might be deemed unnecessary."

But ultimately I think it boils down to war being heinous and I don't like people dying especially by a voiceless, human less, robot RC device. Just feels dystopian.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

They are soldiers carrying weapons in an active combat zone. It's ugly, but this is just war in the way civilians haven't been privy to, for hundreds of years. (I don't mean drones, I mean ambushes at night)

If the video had shown them stripping down, discarding weapons/gear and holding up hands to the drone, then maybe you have something to discuss.

[–] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Okay, so because they didn't "actively" show they were retreating that changes the rule of engagement on combatants vs potential POW?

-seriously asking, not sarcasm or baiting.

[–] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The military objective is to reduce the enemies ability to wage war. Inflicting military casualties is a legitimate means to that end otherwise any and all weapon use would be a warcrime. Efficacy is not a concern in this regard. In fact ethically speaking, the precision drones allow is an improvement over almost all other weapons (even bullets miss and strike civilians hundreds of meters away).

By continuing to hold a weapon even retreating troops (which these 2 aren't doing in the clip ftr) maintain their status as an immediate threat which makes them fair game, and in the fog of war even throwing down a weapon isn't enough because they likely have a sidearm and/or grenades.

[–] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago

Okay yea that makes sense, I'll do some more research on the topic to see what the rules are for this kind of thing.

Thank you for taking time to explain this where others would just downvote, shit talk and ignore.

[–] Kaavi@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Don’t imagine its better to be hit by an artillery shell.

Best you can do to avoid both, is to stay in your own country and make sure your diktator og a leader doesn’t start a war.

Actually tre US and mand western countries had same problem in with roadside bombs - war is ugly, but can you blame people defending their country?

[–] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

Nope, can't blame them. I'm assuming the Appalachian mountains would be Iraq 2.0 if America was ever invaded.

And yes I know these are people defending their own country, just kinda sucks that war is war and not pillow fights or some shit. Or politicians boxing in a ring