Why is shooting a downed pilot seen with such negativity? Downed

>>32640879
Because someone who has bailed out of a plane that is not a combat parajumper is no longer classified a combatant you dumb fuck. It's a war crime.

>>32640879


they're a noncombatant, possible collision risk (though not much in a modern airframe)

also bonus reason: pilots are worth more as POWs than corpses

>>32640879

Because its a commie thing to do you fucking communist

>>32640902
Playing devils advocate here.
So once they reach the ground they become an enemy behind the lines armed with whatever the ejector seat provides plus what they carry. It would stand to reason that just because they can't bring to bear a pistol and whatever passes as emergency kit during the decent, they are still combatants?

>>32640879
>Downed enemies are killed on the ground all the time and if they're recovered they'll very likely return one day and pose a risk to your fellow airmen.

You never watched any Desert Storm documentaries anyway.
>There is no reason why POW/MIA flags exist.

>>32640879
>>32640964

This. It is modern chivalry, as a captured fighter pilot is a high-cost individual of which there are few in number and thus worth a lot in a monetary sense, disproportionately so in poor countries where he'd be a genius among illiterate dirt farmers and worth more beyond his immediate profession.

>>32640992
Pilot's main ground force objective is to hide and wait to get extracted. It is up to them if they want to use the sidearm.

Pilots are officers.
It's the enlisted man you kill however possible, an officer is for capturing.

>>32640879
>pilot is literally helpless
>it's an easy shot
>airman used to be a big deal

It's one of those war things that was around from when nobody really fucking hated their enemies, like early WWI.

Pilots were unarmed (usually) just doing scouting shit, so it was more of a

>Ahh, rotten luck old chap, have some soup and whiskey until we can get an exchange set up. No hard feelings right?

Than a

>Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.

Late WWI got pretty hairy, and war has really only been getting worse since then.

I don't think any either side in any current conflict sees their enemy as humans deserving any sort of quarter or basic rights.

>>32640992
That's not how it works. Medics were often given pistols to defend themselves with but that doesn't make them combatants.

>>32641039
In early WW1 there was no worry about parachutes. If you shot someone down they either landed their aircraft (and were rescued or captured) or they crashed with their plane into the ground.

Once parachutes became a thing, and during WW2, some pilots still had a sense of honor ("I'm a better man for sparing my enemy") or at least a mutual understanding, hoping that if they didn't shoot a parachuting pilot, it would be recognized and they would be given the same mercy in the event they had to bail out.
But it came down to personal discretion and how superiors viewed it. One German ace (Forgot which) said something like "If I see one of my pilots shoot a parachuting man, I will shoot down that pilot".

Today it depends. Pilots have information and can be high valuable when captured alive. Or if you're fighting against insurgents they will just shoot them while they're parachuting or capture them to execute them. Interesting how things have kind of gone back to WW1 where getting shot down meant probable death. At least in some parts of the world.

File: 1477350210181.jpg (24KB, 480x486px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x486px

>>32641017
That doesn't change the fact that they are armed enemy officers of an opposing nation in a warzone......... holy shit I sound like hitler... eh, I still think they are fair game both on the ground and in the air

>>32641133
>eh, I still think they are fair game both on the ground and in the air
They're not. Your opinion doesn't matter to international law.

>>32641120
I was just saying that the concept of respecting downed pilots really became ingrained in WWI and carried over into the future.

>One German ace (Forgot which)
Probably Hartmann or Rudel, Hartmann if he was drunk at the time, Rudel just in general. Whichever one it was, they weren't fucking kidding either.

Pretty sure bomber crews just got executed though, definitely by Germans. Which, honestly, I get it's a war and you're doing a job, but just fucking chucking high-explosives willy nilly into populated areas in the fucking dead of night to "aim for factories" makes you a cunt. Not bombing the shit out children and non-combatants is kind of the absolute minimum if you want to be treated humanely as a prisoner.

File: 1471048626408.png (59KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 429x410px

>>32641140
Different anon but, 'why?' is the main question here. Tank crews get shot at all the time when they lose their tank but a warbird that got shot down doesn't count because 'reasons'?

>>32641140
I am very interested in a link to such laws if you would be so kind

>>32641222

> t. Stormfront

A general rule of thumb is that if someone no longer has the equipment to carry out their primary task in the military, they are considered hors de combat and shooting them is a war crime. That is, unless they engage in an act of hostility after being rendered combat ineffective.

> Shooting pilots after they bail from the aircraft, not OK
> Shooting paratroopers while they are in the air, OK
> Shooting sailors after they abandon ship, not OK
> Shooting marines in the water, OK

since pilots and sailors no longer have the equipment they need (ships and planes) to do their job as a combatant.

>>32641245
pilots are assumed to be shit ground combatants because they are
the sidearm is more to shoot at animals for hunting/self-defense than at enemy combatants because it's suicide to start shooting up any infantry unit alone
they're also worth a lot of money and intelligence goldmines

>>32641279
geneve article 42 additional protocol 1 in 1977 and article 20 of hague rules of air warfare in 1923

>>32640902
He's still a combatant that will kill more of your buddies if he gets in a new air frame, dumb fuck. If he didn't want to die he wouldn't have signed up.

>>32641245

Comes down to how easy it is to identify crewmen from combatants.

It's pretty easy to confuse tank crewmen bailing from a tank with infantry, especially since tanks usually operate with infantry. You have to deliberately turn a blind eye to the fact that a guy in a parachute is a bailed out pilot.

>>32640879
>Why is shooting a downed pilot seen with such negativity?
Because noobs didn't play Battlefield. (actually it is because snobbish aristocrats who escaped nightmare of wwi trenches tried to play chivalry)

File: 1484193858148.jpg (71KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 512x512px

>>32641311
>If he didn't want to die he wouldn't have signed up
this is one of the worst memes

>>32641311

If you are in a position to kill a pilot, you are most likely also in a position to take him prisoner.

If the pilot was shot down over his territory, you will probably be killed by his buddies if you waste time shooting a guy in a parachute, since you have to go pretty slow to hit a man sized target in a chute.

If you do it, and the other side has confirmation, you just signed the death warrant of every single airman from your country that they hold.

Not shooting pilots is a very practical thing to do.

File: 1483754814856.jpg (85KB, 872x656px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 872x656px

>>32641311
spoken like a true MUHREEN READY TO KILL

>>32641222
I just pulled up a Wikipedia article on the topic and it was a part of treaties from the 1920s. No doubt a result of how pilots felt and conducted themsleves during WW1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_parachutists

From the Hague Rules of Air Warfare
"When an aircraft has been disabled, the occupants when endeavoring to escape by means of parachute must not be attacked in the course of their descent"
This rule was re-affirmed in other treaties and conventions after WW2.

Also the German Ace I mentioned was Gustav Rödel. There's also a story of Adolf Galland and Hermann Göring discussing the topic and they both found it distasteful, Galland saying it was "The Equivalent of murder".
Just going from the Wikipedia, it seems like Polish RAF pilots were the biggest perpetrators (In the European Theater) of targeting bailed out pilots. Either shooting them of flying right by so the prop wash collapsed the parachute.

As much as I'm sure some Germans would have liked to kill Allies bomber crews. They did better by letting them escape and focusing their time/ammo on taking down bombers that were still airborne and capable of dropping their bombs.

>>32641245
Tank crews with their carbines represent a reasonable danger and effective fighting force especially since there's usually a bunch of infantry around. A lone pilot in the middle of the woods with a 9mm pistol and maybe a .22 rifle is not a proper combatant.

>>32641311
"no"

>>32641288
>t. Stormfront
I actually do not understand

>and shooting them is a war crime
Which are entirely unenforceable. Seriously, nobody gives a shit about legality in war, it comes down to what you personally believe.

>>32641371

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8LVlYJ5eJU

>>32640879
An ejected pilot is no longer a valid military target. He is combat ineffective and unable to present any threat to your mission.

Same reason you don't shoot lifeboats.

>He might be a threat in the future

But today the war is over for him.

>>32641383
Not even enemy ground forces like to shoot downed pilots. Because they are worth too much
https://youtu.be/FusEcHnXZbU

>>32641371
>As much as I'm sure some Germans would have liked to kill Allies bomber crews.

As was mostly talking about treatment of POWs, i.e. bomber crews who ditched, survived landing, etc. and were captured. I would bet you a fair bit of money the patrol that discovered the wreck "found them all dead" and no investigation went into the matter.

File: 1479680991154.gif (2MB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x320px

>>32641383
>Seriously, nobody gives a shit about legality in war
I see you're an expert on this matter. Tell us more about how you know absolutely fucking nothing.

>>32641383

> Which are entirely unenforceable

It is enforceable by the enemy taking your men they've captured and returning them to you by air, without parachutes.

Reprisal POW killings is something nobody wants. The point of identifying war crimes is to outlaw actions that could lead to reprisal killings. It's an honors system where the perception of your side "following the rules" is very important to the survival of your captured men.

>>32641383
The US tried and executed whatever Japanese pilots they could that did it.
But that's the Pacific where things were a lot more brutal between enemies. There's also a lot of instances,on both sides, of naval pilots strafing survivors of sinking warships- which I would put in the same category.
The Japanese also tortured most of the bomber crew members they could get their hands on.

>>32641383
It's enforceable. If a US pilot shoots an ejected airman he is going to get an all expenses paid trip to beautiful Leavenworth for a 5-10 year stay.

>>32641388
Oh I'm sure it happened, and obviously it did many times. It all comes down to the pilot.
Suppose that Luftwaffe pilot lived in whatever city the allies were targeting, that's his home and family, and people are attacking it.

Thankfully, a lot of the pilots already decided in their minds it was something they found deplorable, and many commanders issued order strictly preventing it. So it never became the norm over Europe.
If it was a wide-spread practice then it would have become more and more common the more people heard of it. Like that episode you posted, one German pilot was doing it, so the American pilot did it to him. Taking justice but also showing others that may get the idea.

>>32641311
Defenseless women and children are combatants by that definition; the children will grow up to become combatants and the women will become combatants to protect their children

>>32641436
I'm sure people have been charged for less and I'm sure people also haven't been charged for more.

>>32641026
This

>>32641437

>It's an honors system where the perception of your side "following the rules" is very important to the survival of your captured men

This. My grandpappy was a captured Wehrmacht soldier, and he was sent to the USA as a farm hand and treated extremely well by the Americans (to the extent that he stayed here). This is mainly because the Allies and Germany had an understanding that no harm would come to POWs when they were captured. Germany generally treated western POWs well, at least to the best of their ability, and the Allies, particularly the Americans, did the same, as America had the largest surplus of food. War on the western front was pretty much as civil as war could be. Allied POWs in German hands has a death rate of ~3-5%, and German POWs in Allied hands suffered a death rate of ~0.5-2.5%.

Contrast that to the eastern front or pacific where POW death rates were sometimes over 60%

>>32641417
Fighter pilots != bomber crew

Fighter planes are complex, and pilots are well educated and hard to replace.

Specifically talking about WII bomber crews, the only one worth keeping alive was the dude with knowledge of the Norden bombsight majigger. Nobody gives a fuck about the tailgunner, you can train a goddamn tailgunner in like an hour.

>>32641436
>be Revolutionary
>target officers
>Oi stop that
>nothing happens

>Be Harris
>You can't just set tens of thousands of people on fire!
>nothing happens

>Be random Pole
>You can't just kill a POW!
>nothing happens

>Be random chinese
>You can't just torture prisoners!
>nothing happens

>Be random Japanese
>You can't just torture prisoners!
>nothing happens

>Be America
>You can't nuke civilians!
>nothing happens

>Be America
>You can't nuke civilians again!
>nothing happens

>Be German
>You can't just kill civilians!
>Get tried and execute for war crimes

Wait, what? That last one is different. Oh wait, that's because the Germans LOST, and some were captured alive. If you win the war you can do whatever the fuck you want and nobody is going to give you shit, because they can't.

>>32641300
Thank you for the link. But shit now I am interested in tankers that have bailed out with whatever fun they happen to have.

>>32640879
>Downed enemies are killed on the ground all the time
>and if they're recovered they'll very likely return one day and pose a risk to your fellow airmen.
Not only are you wrong, you're disgustingly wrong.

>>32641566

>le America is bad meme

German POWs in America had the highest standard of POW living and lowest death rates. They were given sweets and beer when it was available.

File: IMG_3151.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

>>32641566
Calm down

>>32641566
And what happened to those caught? They were imprisoned or executed by the other side.
Or punished by their own side if they violated a law or generally accepted standard of conduct.

File: 1397605591675.jpg (190KB, 780x1026px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 780x1026px

>>32641588
Fucking READ NIGGA

Everyone was "bad" during WWII
Fucking everyone.

Dresden was inexscusable, the firebombing campaign in Japan was inexcusable, the holocaust was inexcusable, Japanese treatment of POWs was inexcusable, etc. etc. etc.

The only "major powers" who didn't make the list were France and Italy, and they didn't do fuck all so it doesn't really count now does it?

Members of every single country involved in WWII committed "war crimes" and the only ones that we're tried successfully (in a real court) we're the ones that both lost and left a paper trail.

>>32641588

The POWs themselves were astounded by how well they were treated.

>Food and treatment is excellent, it's like a furlough. Food is served on cloth covered tables. The rest of the time, I am lying down without a shirt under the pines, studying or taking showers. There are 50 of us living in airy, roomy barracks, scenery reminds one of Mecklenburg. So, dear parents do not worry.

>And dear mother, naturally something about the food. it is no fairy tale. We have cake almost daily, all kinds of fruit, Kellogg's flakes with milk, roasts, salads, real coffee, crackers, etc. I often think how all of you would rejoice, and how urgently the children need it all. Today we have 3 large, fat pancakes and an omelet just as a side dish. Though food is not the most important thing it gladdens me. To me it is very important as I live just as on vacation.

Before anyone gets too rosy eyed, that only applied for the POWs that made it to North America, which is to say, POWs captured in North Africa, Sicily, and the early parts of the Italian campaign. Once D-day happened, there were just too many German POWs to ship back to the US/Canada, and they were placed in POW camps in France, where conditions were much worse. Shelter was sub-standard, there was only enough food to prevent starvation, and healthcare was quite poor. That said the survival rate of German POW's held in Europe was around 99%, which was higher than the survival rate of civilians in Germany before the surrender, since the POWs in allied camps got more to eat than the civilians in Germany.

>>32641650

Shades of gray dumbass.

A guy who smokes weed every so often (the US, Canada), is not the same kind of criminal as an armed robber (USSR), is not the same kind of criminal as Jeffrey Dahmer (Germany, Japan).

File: 1400760388478.png (77KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x500px

>>32641690
>A guy who smokes weed every so often
>333,000 civilians killed, 473,000 wounded
>lmao no biggie

https://archive.org/stream/effectsofbombing00unit#page/141/mode/1up

>>32641383

Sure it is. We all know whenever ISIS breaks the rules the UN breaks down their door, tries them in international court, and sends them to international prison for breaching international law. Because that's how the system works.

>>32641748

Yea, pretty much compared to 17-22 million civilians kills in China and 10-14 million civilians killed in Russia.

Do you know which city was the most damaged in WW2? I'll give you a hint, it's not Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden, or Berlin.

File: 1389534797911.gif (3MB, 264x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 264x240px

>>32641791
>Intentionally killing a shitload of civilians is okay because some people killed more

File: 0226152025262.jpg (2MB, 1637x2243px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1637x2243px

Pilots are more valuable alive. They can train ur guys to fly.
>when will the Hajis wake the fuck up?

File: 1484256786832.jpg (55KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x640px

>>32641566
>if you win you can do whatever the fuck you want
if only CT wars were like this.

>>32641939
When they have enough planes that work.

>>32641222
>Which, honestly, I get it's a war and you're doing a job, but just fucking chucking high-explosives willy nilly into populated areas in the fucking dead of night to "aim for factories" makes you a cunt.

you are absolutely wrong there anon. that is how you win and end a war, by defeating the civilians whom are enabling the military to fight. only defeating the military, leaves you with a bunch of asshole insurgents to deal with. -- see current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for perfect examples of this.

>>32641245
guys with flamethrowers didn't get to surrender either.

>>32641939
The Hajis respect nothing. They don't care for rules of law. They don't recognize the Hague. They only recognize the more violent aspects of the Koran. They truly need to go. The whole point of those laws and courts was to avoid this bullshit we are facing today.

>>32641939
>insinuating they'd help the enemy before death
Teenagers please leave this site

>>32640879
>>32640992
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_parachutists#International_law
>Article 42 – Occupants of aircraft

>1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.
>2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.
>3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article.

You MIGHT have an argument if they're bailing out over their own territory, but the way the law is written, it pretty much treats an airman under canopy as a surrendering combatant.

>>32640879
It's basically the same as kicking a man when he's down.

You've already won the fight. What's the point?

>>32642504

its a war and the goal is to kill as many as the other nations people as possible?

>>32642522

Is that a joke?

>>32642522
>war is about muh k/d

No. War is about winning whatever objectives the guys on top want to achieve. Killing people is just how you get there.

>>32642522
Holy shit, you are retarded.

>>32642466
well that kind of makes sense, it's hard for him to surrender when he's falling to his deaht with an umbrella over him

>>32641825
Yeah. What are you, stupid?

>>32641825
Your images don't make up to your non-arguments. Not even that anon but hey.

>>32642522
stay with cod kiddy

They say /k/ is the easiest board to troll but in reality /k/ is the only board where they always end up with 'y-you too' and act like they trolled anyone. Just a reminder.

>>32641566
Shitty analogy. The japanese lost too. The harris bombers and the enola gay way hay where bombers literally flying multiple kilometers away from the killing and only dropping the bombs. There's a difference between pressing a button and ramming a bayonet into an eyesocket of a pilot. Both are still killing.

>>32642570
>>32642582
Ever heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right"?

Not even that anon but hey.

Related scenario:
You sink an enemy ship, but a few enemy sailors manage to abandon ship before it goes down. Do you proceed to shoot them as they float helplessly in the water?

>>32642647
You're not supposed to, but people have done it unfortunately.

>>32640902
This, you don't shoot an unarmed person just because they just jumped out of a jet. They become POW. The same reason why you don't shoot ISIS members who surrender, if they pose no threat, you capture them and let the state decide their faith. That's the difference between us and them.

>>32642628
Yes they do.

>>32642628
>I have no concept of basic justice: the post.

File: 1480911079914.jpg (829KB, 2897x1188px) Image search: [Google]

829KB, 2897x1188px

>This whole thread

>They're too valuable to kill
Valuable to the enemy, they're not going to fly for you. If they ever do get back to the enemy they will use this "value" to kill more of your men, even more reason to kill them right then. Bailing out =/= surrendering, they were enemy combatants 15 seconds ago and they still floating in the air.

>>32642799

READ THE THREAD STUPID FAGGOT

>>32642806
There isn't a single post in this thread that can refute what I said faggot.

>>32642812

YOU ARE VERY WRONG FAGGOT

>>32642826
Prove it faggot.

>>32642799
>They were combatants in the past and they might become combatants in the future, that makes him a combatant now which gives me the right to kill him
Does that sum your point up well? I think it does. It's a dumb point.

>>32642835
>trying to get me to defend killing a person years after they were an enemy combatant

Nice try. When someone is floating to the ground after jumping from a war machine they are still a valid target.

>>32642847
>When someone is floating to the ground after jumping from a war machine they are still a valid target.
Back up your statements with arguments, friend. A downed pilot floating in the air doesn't have a single offensive or defensive capabilities. How are they a valid target?

>>32642832

EVERYONE ELSE ALREADY DID, MASSIVE FAGGOT

>>32641133
You are correct. When the pilot was bombing ground forces, or doing a strafing run, the men on the ground were the powerless ones, unable to fight back, defenseless. The fact that the shoe is on the other foot shouldn't be viewed as a shameless act. If you believe it is cowardly, you clearly can't think for yourself.

However ransom or interrogation are decent reasons to allow the pilot to live, as have been mentioned.

>>32642876
nah

>>32642857
>why are people on the enemy's side ok to kill?
Is that a joke?

>>32642884

You don't because you get shit like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8LVlYJ5eJU&feature=youtu.be

Revenge killings. What happens if you start picking off potential POWs? The enemy starts to liquidate their prisoners of yours.

>>32642898
I'll admit that's a valid point, but it's a necessary price to pay to win.

>>32642884
So them merely being on the enemy's side makes them valid game?
>Troops who surrendered
>POWs
>Incapacitated troops
>Non-combatants who support the enemy
>Medics
Them being on the enemy's side doesn't make it ok to kill them.

>>32641311
>if he gets in a new air frame

if

>>32642904
>it's a necessary price to pay to win.
nope, that's retarded.

>>32642910
A parachuting pilot isn't anything of those things you listed.

>>32642924
-t loser

>>32642904

>to win

killing helpless people that would immediately surrender upon confrontation doesn't win you the war. How retarded are you?

How would the enemy be any better off if you didn't kill the pilot? How would killing the pilot instead of capturing him put you any closer to winning?

Plus, how demoralizing would that be? Think about it.

>you're fighting a war
>you start to pick off parachuting pilots
>the enemy nation becomes extremely angry
>the enemy liquidates hundreds of your POWs in retaliation
>enemy drops leaflets and makes a press release about how these POWs are being killed and why, and how to make the killings stop

Morale would drop like a brick. You're stupid for thinking that.

The purpose of the 'laws of war' is to reduce unnecessary suffering, the basic idea is that the enemy is still human and military objectives should be attempted to be met with the least force that is possible, of course there is no divine court that will jail your ass for war crimes, atleast if you don't lose. It's more about ideals than pure pragmatism.

If we go fully pragmatic then what purpose would there be to not execute all POWs? Just unnecessary mouths to feed, why not liberally apply CBRN weapons vs. all possible targets despite civilian casualties? Of course there's the hearts and minds to consider, but who cares if you just kill them?

But how does history see all the great killers? Unjustified killing is almost universally despised, whether it matters is up to you.

>>32642925
That really wasn't the point. Your point was that someone being on the enemy side makes them ok to kill, applying your logic all the people I listed can be killed without an excuse. In other words your point is dumb.
also
>parachuting pilot
>not an incapacitated troop

>>32642932
Systematically being a cunt in war doesn't net you anything. The enemy will hate you even more than they already do, they become passionate about annihilating you, no holds barred. This is not a good thing.

File: 1333769562197.jpg (56KB, 944x719px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 944x719px

This WHOLE fucking thread is a goddamn warcrime.

Seriously, forcing someone to read this would constitute torture.

>>32642688
And that is the difference they ruthlessly exploit for our demise.

No reason to feed pearls to pigs.

File: 1472925027288.jpg (44KB, 398x370px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 398x370px

>>32642972
Wow. You're so above it all.

>>32641039
Oh hello there, you seem to have left your nostalgia goggles on.
Take them off and re-write the post.

>>32641039
Where do people learn this garbage

File: 1484094909164.jpg (29KB, 281x440px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 281x440px

>>32642972
>>32642983
Guys, I have smug anime girls too!

File: 1479232521761.jpg (58KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x500px

>>32642972
>>32642983
>>32643027
C-can I play?

>>32641140
International laws only matter if you loose.

>>32643061
If you are so certain about your victory, why bother? If you are not, why risk it?

>>32643071
Because you are a pilot and I really fucking hate you. So you get to die.

File: 1340783318266.jpg (52KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x640px

>>32643093
Can't kill what you can't catch, kiddo

File: 1409603689747.jpg (116KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1000x1000px

>>32643061
So if I do kegels I'll be good to go?

>>32642942

Not an issue. Obviously the enemy nation is already angry if you are at war. If they are so concerned about the international law of not killing parachuting pilots they wouldn't kill POW's for revenge, and if they did who cares. You can do the same.

The enemy advertising that they kill ground based POW's is about the opposite of successful propaganda, it would cause your own to not surrender as easily. A vast majority of your troops aren't in a position to shoot pilots and even if they had the habit it's not like you or your enemy can tell how many parachuting pilots had been shot that month, you end up drawing a line under and having the enemy saying they kill ground based POW's over dumb fucking pilots, they see less troops surrendering to them.

tl;dr that's fucking dumb, and obviously killing anyone who could be re armed as a semi decent soldier is worth the effort, especially since they likely have current information to provide to their comrades.

File: CcjMWaoXIAAKByw.jpg (41KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x338px

>>32641120
>during WW2, some pilots still had a sense of honor ("I'm a better man for sparing my enemy")

>>32643201

Oh wow, the retard says more retarded shit. Color me shocked.

The Germans in WWII specifically treated American and British POWs with care to make sure reprisal killings wouldn't happen due to the morale shock it would have. I think WWII German high command knew more than you.

Again, I ask how killing POWs or pilots will help you win a war. Seriously, how? Answer that one question.

POWs provide labor, leverage, and propaganda. Killing them nets angrier enemies that will only push harder to kill you and yours.

>>32643221
A pilot without a plane is useless, there is no need to waste human life. Wars end, WWII is a perfect example. Germany and Japan are some of the US's greatest allies now if not the greatest, you just have to win, not fucking genocide the enemy.

I'm not saying this necessarily applies to snackbars, asymmetrical combat and cultural hatred is a lot harder to get rid of than a more traditional war between two groups for power and resources.

Propaganda does not count as actual cultural hatred by the way, it exists as a motivator and to help people feel better about killing their enemies, because in the aforementioned symmetrical combat each combatant can relate to the person he is trying to kill at least somewhat.

>>32643263
If you kill or force a man to kneel he or his son will seek revenge.

The best way to deal with your ennemie is to genocide or at least make him unable to breed. Because every son of your ennemie is a possible danger.

The valor of human life is variable. A sandnigger life or a chink life means nothing to me and I rather sacrifice hundred of thousand of them instead of one of my fellow citizen.

>>32641539
No twat face because they aren't in uniform and a trained professional. If it was a case of shoot this downed pilot or he is going to get in a new plane and bomb your family, I'd shoot him.

>>32643358
>If you kill or force a man to kneel he or his son will seek revenge.
This is exactly my point, which the entire rest of your post directly contradicts.

>Get shot down
>Taken prisoner
>Given food and shelter, generally treated well until you are exchanged or the war ends
>tell this story to your son
>I MUST SEEK REVENGE DEATH TO WHITEY

vs.

>Child watches his father, mother, sister and all hid friends get executed in the streets in your attempted "genocide"
>I MUST SEEK REVENGE DEATH TO WHITEY

Which scenario seems more likely to you?

>>32643399
Solution : kill the son too

>>32643431
Not actually viable.

>>32641140
It's not a law so much as a convention. Saying that it's a law means that it is applicable to everyone which is not the case with these conventions. They are applicable to member countries. If you sign a convention than you are bounded by its limitations and have the right to enjoy it's privileges, but if the other side didn't sign it, they get shit and have to do shit.

>>32640996
>There is no reason why POW/MIA flags exist.
Pretty much. The whole reason they exist is because some retards accused Vietnam of not releasing POWs after the war which is total bullshit.

>>32641057
You're a retard. A medic picking up arms is something you only see in Hollywood movies. It's illegal for one.

>>32643389
>get a new plane
Do you think real life is like the battlefield games?

>you can't shoot them during the chute
Shoot at them as soon as they touch the ground.

>but pilots are valuable prisoners
Fucking no. If you are that much in need of money, you are not in condition to make war and it's time to give up.

>exchange of prisoners
Enjoy your endless war while being bombed again and again by the same guys.

>intelligence goldmine
Fucking no. Torture is illegal, and even if you do it it's highly inefficient. And anyway the enemy changes its plans each time an officer is captured. Forget it.

It's not 1940 anymore, nowadays a pilot costs fucktons of time and money to train, each pilot lost is a huge lost for your enemy. A lost plane can be replaced in a week, not a pilot. They are precious to your enemy, not to you.
Kill them by any means.

>>32643577
>Torture is illegal,
Literally never stopped anyone before
>and even if you do it it's highly inefficient
Anti-torture propaganda.

It's pretty horrifying, but it's fast, it works, and it saves lives.

>>32643577
>lmao why would u want money if you want money then just give up your so poor lmao

just wow

>>32643647
Torture works only in very specific situations. With time, the opposition will always change plans. Even in case of terrorists, loss of a someone with intel will ether cause them to accelerate plans or to drop them.

>>32643647
>Anti-torture propaganda.
No that's from a report of the French army during the war in Algeria. The percentage of reliable informations was around 20%. Still better than 0 information, but taking into account the waste of time to check the other 80% it was considered as inefficient.

>>32643680
Can you imagine the USA selling its prisoners for 100k $? No.
This is Isis-like behaviour.

>>32643812
No but I could see the US exchanging its prisoners and using them as leverage you daft cunt

If the crew of a bomber all bail out can you consider that to be an air assault and respond to it as such?

>>32643948
I'd presume no, since they are bailing out of their aircraft

>>32640879
Chivalry, Rules of War, and intel.

Fighter/Bomber/Logistics pilots for most air forces are officers, they could have valuable information.

>>32640879
It draw back to the idea of pilots being the Knights of the sky. Most pilots are/were officers. Therefore, officers are generally treated a bit differently than your average grunt. There was a sense of nobility even amongst enemies that if you fought and downed a pilot, you would have hoped he would be okay. After all, tomorrow you may be the one taking the silk elevator down to earth.

Finally, from an operational perspective: a pilot is worth much more alive as he can become a source of information and intelligence.

>>32643948
>aircrew bailing in distress
>airborne troops
This whole fucking thread is filled with edgy kids looking for the faintest excuse to kill.
No matter what Patton said, the purpose of warfare is not to kill, unless you're a genocidal idiot. Killing is just one of the means to achieve your goals, and when it's superfluous, you don't.
You want to kill things, you get a job in a slaughterhouse or practice hunting.

>>32642688
>you don't shoot an unarmed person just because they just jumped out of a jet.
It was my understanding that pilots carried a sidearm under their seat in case they had to bail.

>>32640902
>muh war crimes

>>32644043
>It was my understanding that pilots carried a sidearm under their seat in case they had to bail.
A fucking sidearm isn't going to be much good for anything other than last ditch self protection.
Medics carry weapons too, for self defence.
Stop looking for excuses for useless killing.

>>32642380
And how do you suppose the international community would react, once word gets out that you're actively targeting civilians of a country?
It's the perfect pretext for economic sanctions and open war.
If the US had bombed Baghdad like the Allies bombed Dresden or Tokyo, you'd see the coalition fall apart in no time.

>>32641140
>War
>Laws
Hahahahaha.. ehhh *sobs*

File: 1483406506826.png (12KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 160x160px

>>32640879

Because killing somebody who is not in a position to fight back is generally frowned upon and if you side does it, then the other side will start doing it as well.

>>32641057
>>32643542
The military long ago stopped giving a shit about that rule. Something to do with fighting illegal combatants. Medics get issued a carbine

>>32643542
> It's illegal for one.
No it's not. Medics have every right to use a weapon for their self defense and that of those in their care.
t. actually had to study the Geneva conventions, Hague conventions and associated additional protocols.

>>32641222
>bomber crews were executed
Go read a book, faggot. If the bomber could still limp back but was obviously fucking totalled, Germans would frequently escort the things back to Allied lines.

>ITT, /k/ displays open contempt for the rules of war
Genocidal fucks. You're all citizens of civilized nations, not a pack of fucking dindus. Act like it.

File: scoffing sloots.jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

>>32643027
>>32643037

>>32640879
Because air power became more and more important to combat and the cost of 1 pilot is larger than 1 infantry in terms of both training and effect on the battle. Also they might have more Intel that your side can get out of them.

>>32644267
>>32643542
>https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/470-750018?OpenDocument
1. The protection to which civilian medical units are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.

2. The following shall not be considered as acts harmful to the enemy:

(a) that the personnel of the unit are equipped with light individual weapons for their own defence or for that of the wounded and sick in their charge;

(b) that the unit is guarded by a picket or by sentries or by an escort;

(c) that small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick, and not yet handed to the proper service, are found in the units;

(d) that members of the armed forces or other combatants are in the unit for medical reasons.

>>32644306
Nah, just kids thinking that if war is not like WH40K, then it's gay.

File: Ratko_Mladic.jpg (85KB, 780x520px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 780x520px

>>32641383
>Seriously, nobody gives a shit about legality in war

Tell us more, Professor

>>32641791
L O N D O N ?
O
N
D
O
N
?

I'd like to comment that the same courtesies afforded to fixed wing pilots aren't always afforded to rotary wing aviators, which are arguably more valuable with the only difference being you can draw from a larger pool of individuals to fly rotary.
I'd also like to point out Special Forces Operators, of any country, are a much more valuable intelligence asset than an aviator, not only that but operators are drawn from a very limited pool and the training time investment involved mirrors that of aviators. Although it may be cheaper to initially train an operator, career training and retention, not taking into account aviation maintenance, is probably more costly for an operator. A pilot gains experience whenever he's flying or in a cheap simulator even if the mission objective isn't training, meanwhile for an operator training for retention can never end.

Granted the variable is there, a SF operator is an exponentially more valuable intelligence asset, but also an exponentially greater risk as a POW, not just escape wise but a risk to friendly personnel and materiel

>>32643647
>>32643577

both of your dumbfucks are fucking stupid. you can gain a lot of intel just by asking nicely, treating humanely, and listening and waiting for them to slip up. which you can't do to a corpse. pilots know a lot of classified shit, so it behooves you to find out.

>>32641539
>women and children are combatants by that definition
They ARE combatants. Welcome to Afghanistan.

ITT Air Force pilots' butthurt. There's not a single reason not to kill an enemy pilot. Defining it as a war "crime" is just stretching abstract bullshit.

>>32644668
>you can gain a lot of intel just by asking nicely
>Can you maybe provide us with some inter, pretty-pretty please?
>Baaawww, but sure, if you put it like that!
Riiight...

>>32644027
>This whole fucking thread is filled with edgy kids looking for the faintest excuse to kill.
More like it is filled with wannabe humanists looking for the faintest excuse not to kill your fucking enemy in a fucking war.

>>32643263
>A pilot without a plane is useless
Surviving pilot is a pilot that will return on another plane.

>>32644818

you'd honestly be surprised how much intel you can gain by treating another human being nicely and letting them talk.

>>32644794

other than it being a war crime by international law? holy shit, a guy with a Makarov or a M9 by himself with no gear and no experience fighting on the ground. such a massive threat that the intelligence gains by interrogating him are outweighed by just shooting him.

>>32644830
>wannabe humanists looking for the faintest excuse not to kill your fucking enemy in a fucking war
Oh look, another "NO PRISONNERS I AM LE EDGY FAGGIT KILL EVERYTHING"
Holy shit grow up.
>>32644851
If you can't manage to capture a lone dude lost miles away from his pals and you feel like your only option is to kill him, frankly you're a lousy excuse of an armed force. The guy will probably not even offer any kind of resistance, gun or not, when he realise he's completely fucked. This is real life.

>>32644818

Yes you can, you reckless faggot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff

>After a prisoner's fear had been allayed, Scharff continued to act as a good friend, including sharing jokes, homemade food items, and occasionally alcoholic beverages. He was fluent in English and knowledgeable about British customs and some American ones, which helped him to gain the trust and friendship of many of his prisoners. Some high-profile prisoners were treated to outings to German airfields (one POW was even allowed to take a BF 109 fighter for a trial run), tea with German fighter aces, swimming pool excursions, and luncheons, among other things. Prisoners were treated well medically at the nearby Hohe Mark Hospital, and some POW's were occasionally allowed to visit their comrades at this hospital for company's sake, as well as the better meals provided there. Scharff was best known for taking his prisoners on strolls through the nearby woods, first having them swear an oath of honor that they would not attempt to escape during their walk. He chose not to use these nature walks as a time to directly ask his prisoners obvious military-related questions but instead relied on the POW's desire to speak to anyone outside of isolated captivity about informal, generalized topics. Prisoners often volunteered information the Luftwaffe had instructed Scharff to acquire, frequently without realizing they had done so.

>>32645567
I'm saying it should not be a war crime, not that taking captives is useless, retard.

It's a shame to let educated pilots die in a war. Dumb grunts dying is ok though.

>>32645672
It's not a warcrime if he is a moron and tries to play hero. Otherwise you're shooting a non-combatant.

>>32645669
about the BF-109 story:
the pilot on landing said something like "what a great fighter, you can do some maneuver in it that we have no hope of doing in the Spitfire" or something like that.

>>32645669
>Anglos
>Loyalty
Never computed anyway.

A "Take no prisoners and kill all" policy could result in the enemy adopting a similar policy.
And if you have less manpower, you will lose that war of attrition quicker. Then you're left with a defeat, a pissed off enemy looking to hammer you for War Crimes (Even though they did the same), and the best of your population (The young, skilled, men) are dead.

Good job.

>>32645669
That shit works

>>32645703
According to what twisted logic an enemy that dropped bombs at you just a second ago all of the sudden becomes a non-combatant?

>>32645738
>Take no prisoners and kill all
Nice strawman.

>>32645746

the one where you're shooting somebody who can't wage war on you anymore, and isn't parachuting down to attack you.

>>32641566
>Japanese
>nothing happens
they got fucking nuked twice you dip

>>32645746
By the same logic that the wounded man who fired his rifle at you a minute ago is now a non-combatant.

>>32645746
The fact that he is effectively out of action.

>>32645768
He can and will wage a war at you at the very moment he gets back into the cockpit. He is parachuting down with this sole purpose in mind.

File: Mosaic.jpg (155KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 800x600px

>>32645669

This guy also made art after the war in his life as a normal american.

>>32645798
>He is parachuting down with this sole purpose in mind.
No fucker. He parachuted because his plane got shot down and he wants to live.

>>32645798
And it's your job to take him prisoner then get either information out of him or keep him until the end of the war.

File: CinderellaMosaic.jpg (66KB, 359x600px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 359x600px

>>32645800

>>32645785

he's hors de combat the same way the pilot is.

in real life, no pilot bails out of a plane to shoot you on the ground.

>>32645798

and so you gain much more by capturing him and interrogating him. keeps him out of the fight, ensures your POWs are treated fairly, doesn't cede moral high ground, and you get to talk and gain intel.

>>32645785
Depends faggot. Did the man with a rifle drop it after being wounded, or is he on the ground still trying to plug your dumb ass.

>>32641671
It amuses me to no end that the krauts still complained about the "inferiority of american bread" to red cross inspectors

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_prisoners_of_war_in_the_United_States

>>32645785
Maybe, if he's dead. Still could have a hand grenade or an IED.
>>32645790
This fact only gives you a choice between capturing him and killing him. He poses a potential threat like no infantryman.

>>32645807
He wants to live and bomb his enemy.
>>32645808
>>32645816
>and so you gain much more
Your job is to kill your enemies. Whether to kill him or take him prisoner is up to you, but killing him being a war crime is complete and utter bull crap.

>>32645845
>He poses a potential threat like no infantryman.
Only if you are somehow unably to catch up to him. And let's be honest, in a real situation, if you end up being able to kill that lone guy, you're able to capture him and there's a 99% chance he won't try much.

>>32645845

nigga i've been in the AF for 4 years, and i've shot 90 rounds in my entire career on-duty. i qualified with the M9 and never touched it again.

what the fuck is one pilot going to do to you? he's got a shitty radio, a M9, and that's it. he has no idea how to do any infantry shit and no desire to either because he's not special forces or infantry.

>>32645868

your job is to win the war. intel helps you do that. only a dumbshit irregular troop would kill an intelligence goldmine like a pilot.

>>32645873
I'm not advocating taking to captives, I'm saying it shouldn't be a war crime to kill your enemy.

>>32645888
>what the fuck is one pilot going to do to you?
Return in an aircraft carrying metric shit fucking ton of bombs.
>your job is to win the war. intel helps you do that.
Killing enemies does too. Why the fuck one is a war crime and other is not?

>>32645868
>Your job is to kill your enemies.
No. Your job is to complete the mission you are given.
No matter what ideas you might get by watching movies, there is no mission parameters that obligatorily involves killing your enemy save for SF stuff. You can check the STANAGs for that.
>He wants to live
Yes
> and bomb his enemy
Can he?

>>32645894

it's a crime to kill wounded men. are you civilized in any way? and don't give me that "the enemy would do the same" bullshit. live to your standards, don't stoop to theirs.

>>32645909

and if you capture him for the rest of the war, he's not going to hop into another jet anytime soon, is he?

and one's a war crime and the other's not because killing wounded/helpless men is barbarity.

>>32645894
>I'm not advocating taking to captives, I'm saying it shouldn't be a war crime to kill your enemy.
Literally WWII Japanese-tier.
You don't kill non-combatants, and non-combatants include enemies that are out of action, unless they act stupid.

>>32645944

i wonder if he's one of those fags who prattle on about how America is being degraded by uncivilized minorities. yet he insists that acting like the worst irregular troops.

>>32645916
>Your job is to complete the mission you are given
So it his. Yet somehow his job that involves killing infantry that poses no threat to his aircraft is not a war crime.
>Can he?
Yes he can.
>>32645930
A wounded man is as dangerous as any other soldier. Hell, he's even more dangerous.
>if you capture him for the rest of the war
Given that you will be able to capture him in a specific situation. And if captive exchanges were not a thing.
>killing wounded/helpless men is barbarity
>killing is barbarity
Please. He has arms, legs, hand, eyes. He can and will kill you if you won't kill him or take him prisoner.

>>32645944
>non-combatants include enemies that are out of action
Not even dead people can be out of action if you mine the body. And a pilot is an enormous potential threat.

>>32645993

are you fucking serious right now.

infantry pose threats to aircraft. or have you not heard of MANPADS.

moreover, a downed aviator or a wounded man both lack any serious capability to resist. i'm not going to attack your base with a gut shot any more than i would with just a M9 and a twisted ankle from a bad PLF. nobody's dumb enough to resist to the point of death against overwhelming odds with just a pistol unless you kill everybody. then you could reasonably expect reprisals of some sort.

tl;dr grow up. either learn about war or shut up and listen to those of us whose job it is to wage war.

>>32646020
And what if you're a B-52 pilot, and not chopper one?
>shut up and listen to those of us whose job it is to wage war
All I see so far is a bunch of AF dudes who think they are special.

>>32646078

no ejection seats on choppers. a MANPAD is a threat to a BUFF given the right circumstances.

and i've told you fucktards that from a military capacity, i'm useless under silk or on the ground. i'm not going to sneak in and sabotage a munitions plant or something.

>>32640879

it's a stupid holdover from WW2 because pilots are nearly always officers. That means they make good torture and intel targets with trading them back to the enemy being a possible benefit as well.

In reality it's a stupid move because pilots take years to train and cost millions of dollars. May as well torture them and shoot them after. Non-combatant because he's unarmed is a retarded notion.

By the same logic a tanker without his tank shouldn't be shot either because he's probably unarmed. But you don't get that dogma.

File: Alligator.jpg (39KB, 525x350px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 525x350px

>>32646098

I beg to differ... or you were talking about inferior non-eyectable US copters?

File: iraqi.jpg (227KB, 736x1167px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 736x1167px

>>32645993
You sound like a teenager. Fortunately, the conduct of war is not of your concern.

>>32646014
Stop. Just fucking stop. Defining people as "potential threats" when the only risk would be caused by your incompetence is a slippery slope you DONT want to get into.

>>32646098
>>32646078

plenty of people get unique treatment under LOAC.

>>32646112

torture doesn't work.

>>32646112
People like you are the reason Japan got nuked twice.

>>32646139
>torture doesn't work.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crist%C3%B3v%C3%A3o_Ferreira

>Ferreira was captured and renounced Christianity after being tortured for five hours

Yes it does.

>>32646169

it doesn't work for getting accurate, actionable intel vs. just being nice to them and getting them to lower their guard.

and before you point to Bin Laden, there's debate about what intelligence sources worked best in getting his location.

>>32646169
Who should I trust

Edgy teen quoting wikipedia

or

General Mattis, who has hands on experience?

>>32640879
Enemy PWs have no value as humans except for interrogation. Rules for war are effeminate and only make sense in chivalrous nation-state wars. Unconventional war should have no rules, and there should be zero actions defined as war crimes. Combatants free of rules have the advantage because ALL rules of war are restraints, and post-WWII only one side, the West, obeys them now and then.

Defenders of LOAC don't really know why it's there. It exists to make war PC enough for idiots.

>>32646227

t. Edgelord

>>32640902
Tanker jumping out of a burning vehicle is not much of a threat either. The same standards don't apply to him.

>>32646227
Real war isnt a consequence free videogame where automatons rack up points until they win

>>32642799
I'd fire if I could get away with it. Why not? Shit's only illegal if you get caught.

>>32642688
>That's the difference between us and them.

We're not differ, anon, we're no different.

>>32646241
If he is wounded and/or unarmed, he is a non-combattant. That case may not be specifically covered as for aircrews in distress, but it's covered nonetheless.

Shooting him would be a dick move nonetheless. You destroyed a tank, the tactical effect has been achieved.

>>32646169
Torture doesn't work at getting actionable intel.
You can break a guy down and make him say whatever you want, sure. But that's not the goal- it's to get him to tell the truth.

>>32640902
> war crime
Popular misconception, that grew from people misinterpret the Geneva convention. It's is completely legal shoot them, but it's considered "ungentlemanly" because he can't defend himself, and because people misinterpret the Geneva convention.

>>32642835
Actually thats the perfect response.

Because even if the guy can't be a jet fighter pilot any more then he can at least train 10x his number in more pilots.

The main reason they are left alive is the intel they provide and potential to trade for your own officers.

Chances are that you will end up shot nowadays as an enemy pilot that doesn't outright submit. War is alot more personal than it's been before due to the media and propaganda does an AMAZING job of making every enemy national into Hitler.

Just look at Iraq and Iran but not at Israel.

Who gives a fuck? It's war; anything goes.

>>32640879
Because they're officers.

>>32646320

it's in international law. Protocol 1 of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

>>32646327

why not kill all children because they'll grow up to attack you some day?

>>32646320
>Popular misconception, that grew from people misinterpret the Geneva convention. It's is completely legal shoot them, but it's considered "ungentlemanly" because he can't defend himself, and because people misinterpret the Geneva convention.
You haven't read the conventions at all.
It's completely legal to shoot airborne troops.
Aircrews bailing out are NOT legal to shoot at in any way, unless they are monumentally stupid and pull out their guns.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=0E0BF3B27E4F4E8EC12563CD0051DB78
>Article 42 [ Link ] -- Occupants of aircraft

>1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

>2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

>3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article.

This thread for me has put into a new light all the war-related PR-fuckups that end up being hugely detrimental to a war effort.
This whole "anything goes lol its war" mentality is how you end up with photos of guys pissing on dead hajjis, which end up being a huge recruiting boon for those same hajjis.
That dude pissing on the hajjis may have thought himself clever, but he indirectly caused the death of several guys in a French platoon in Afghanistan, because an Afghan ANA soldier felt obligated by code of honor to avenge the slight.
But congratulations dude, that photo was sweet. Hope it was worth it and the decredibilisation of the entire effort.

>>32641774
ISIS isn't a state actor, despite their claims otherwise. The best they can hope to be is a gang of bandits, or possibly a local warband. Common criminals, in other words. Gallows bait.

Catch them, try them, and hang them.

>>32646466

obeying international law is one way for a group to enhance its claims to being a sovereign nation state.

>>32646478
That's good then, because ISIS doesn't.

It's just a dumb fucking American/Brit meme

They had their courageous bomber forces fire bombing women & children, and they got upset when some of them died

In reality most of these people very much deserve to die for the willful murder they engage in

>>32641443
>But that's the Pacific where things were a lot more brutal between enemies
>it is justified when we do that
Fuck off.

>>32641791
Stalingrad? Coventry? Port Chicago, California?

>>32646434
Bullshit, the "entire effort" is a giant fucking waste of time and can never succeed, nor was ever intended to succeed in the first place.

They volunteered for the military, they got fragged by muslims while muslims flood into France, I think thats karma

>>32646608
>Bullshit, the "entire effort" is a giant fucking waste of time and can never succeed
So he was justified in deciding at his level to fuck up the entire effort to satisfy his want for war trophies?
>They volunteered for the military, they got fragged by muslims while muslims flood into France, I think thats karma
>I think thats karma
>I think
No you don't.
You're the N-th instance of edge-faggotry on this thread and not even trying to hide it anymore.

>>32641311
the responses to this are all spooks

>>32646014
>Pilot is an enormous potential threat
A lone guy, with a handgun. Maybe a spare mag. Against what forces? Conventional or irregular who typically armed with assault rifles.
>b...but he could be dangerous if he gets in a plane.
What's he going to do? MacGuyver a fighterbomber out of his parachute, a leafblower and his own bottled flatulence?
Besides, IF he makes it back to his own forces the lucky fuck gets a commendation, neato ribbon or medal for his effort, debriefed and a nice little vacation. If he's from a civilised country that is.
Tl;dr all these edgy fucks living in a total war mindset that hasn't been necessary for...71 years?

>>32641371
>flying right by so the prop wash collapsed the parachute.

That's fucked up

>>32640879
Pilots tend to be a bit sentimental regarding aircraft and other pilots. It's seen as a sort of brotherhood. Unless the modern military is very different from WWII military and modern civil aviation

International law aside.

T. Pilot

Can't you basically commit as many war crimes as you want as long as you win the war?

I mean real total war, not modern "wars" where you need to look good to the international public and win hearts and minds.

>>32647124
>real total war
Cite me a SINGLE war that can be described as a "real total war".

>>32642881
>If you believe it is cowardly, you clearly can't think for yourself.

That makes no sense. It is a war crime, and more to the point, it is a breach of discipline and good order. That is the truly unforgiveable sin. If you can't figure that out on your own, you clearly can't think for yourself.

>>32647160
American-Japanese War in the Pacific
the French invasion of Russia

>>32647160
Eastern Front.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a0_1366841683

>>32642925
By law a parachuting pilot is incapacitated. You know, there's more to this than just your feels.

When you get old enough, if you decide to enlist, if you make it through MEPS, you'll find out some of the irl factors and restrictions that come into play.

>>32647175
>no german-russian war in russia
>america vs japan: an italy-tier nation stretched pathetically thin over a worthless overseas empire vs a small percentage of the opposition's military strength
Are you even trying?

>>32642881

so AAA and MANPADS have ceased to exist. got it.

>>32647223
>an italy-tier nation stretched pathetically thin over a worthless overseas empire
yet they needed to be burned out of their holes, and resorted to suicide attacks instead of surrendering
if the war where they only surrendered after the US firebombed or nuked any civilian industrial site of note isn't total war, idk what your definition is

>>32643139
It took me an unreasonably long time to figure out what you were getting at. Very subtle. I smirked.

File: 1483399146742.gif (2MB, 659x609px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 659x609px

>>32641825
But that's exactly what justifies it, you fucking normie.

>people who bomb civilians think they deserve rights

>>32647272

denial of rights to some because they're suspected of crimes means that those rights are meaningless. we don't have free speech laws in place for speech that we agree with.

>>32647272
>"Civilian" women and children with rifles that will shoot you in the back this they deserve rights
War "crimes" bullshit as it is.

>>32647297
>rights are meaningless
Any rights are completely subjective.
>we don't have free speech laws in place for speech that we agree with
But that's exactly what we have nowadays.

>>32647308

you dense motherfucker. speech that needs to be protected is speech that the mainstream disagrees with. you either extend the right to all people or you don't bother having the right in the first place.

>>32647322
Just like how felons aren't entitled to the 2nd Amendment, and criminals on death row aren't entitled to the right to life, rights are not inalienable.

If you are a pilot who bombs civilians, you don't get to complain about muh rights if someone kills you.

>>32647355
they've been given a trial. mere suspicion of crime is not sufficient reason to suspend rights, dumbass.

File: 1483418476360.jpg (78KB, 750x701px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 750x701px

>>32643358
Shitty bait. Can't even into word definitions.

>>32643577
>but pilots are valuable prisoners
>If you are that much in need of money, you are not in condition to make war and it's time to give up.
9/11 gr8 b8 m8

File: JUST F.jpg (87KB, 456x320px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 456x320px

>>32647245
>Total war is warfare that includes any and all civilian-associated resources and infrastructure as legitimate military targets, mobilizes all of the resources of society to fight the war, and gives priority to warfare over non-combatant needs. The American-English Dictionary defines total war as "war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded."
This is supposed to be the definition of total war.
Did they ever teach it to you in history class?

>>32647408
gr8 argum8 m8
Could you elaborate?

>>32640879
They don't have the opportunity of surrendering.

>>32640879

Because pilots are all Chads and Chads like sport.

So not shooting them down are more sportsmanlike.

Fucking Chads

>start shooting down enemy pilots
>enemy starts shooting down your pilots
>neither side gains an advantage, both sides take more dead

You would be able to figure this out if you were neurotypical.

>>32647921
Pilots are primary targets Mr. Bodihisattva, of course they're shot down.

>>32647921
>be native american
>war consists oh humiliation tactics like hitting your opponent non-lethally with a stick on the head
>enemy starts killing you
>you start killing them
>neither side gains an advantage, both sides take more dead

could have figured out to have zero casualties in war if you were neurotypical.

File: Internetofficer.jpg (265KB, 600x453px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 600x453px

>>32647921
>Shoot at the enemy
>The enemy shoots back
>Uhm, like wtf, you can not do this we're civilised!
Bitch, please.

File: Yes, for the love of god.jpg (78KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 720x576px

>>32648044
>>32648065
>not being able to understand the concept of competitive advantage

>>32643577
>Shoot at them as soon as they touch the ground.
Also illegal unless they shoot at you first after hitting the ground.

>>32640879
So it takes them longer to respawn

Really fucking annoying desu

>>32648100
He was shooting at me before he hit the ground. what difference does it make? None.

>>32641336
>mad because can't think of an argument against it

>>32640879
I've always assumed it's party from when enemy soldiers held a basic respect for one another, and mostly because a lone pilot is not going to engage the enemy. Most soldiers are not that willing to kill a surrendering enemy and will just take them captive. If however the pilot did engage I have no doubt that they would be killed swiftly. They would be insane to do that though, if you are behind enemy lines and alone you are not going to fight your way out. You either sneak out or get taken hostage if you want to live.

In modern times however, this is likely less true. I imagine you would and should do anything possible not to be taken by Islamic combatants, they are not known for treating their enemies with mercy. Also they are often don't have a "base" and have no use or place for POW's.

>>32643221

He's kind of right considering the war we're up against. All these drone strikes and shit only kill people which in turn makes their relatives want revenge or will at least harbour feelings of anger towards the bombing country.

I'm not saying we shouldn't kill terrorists or the enemy but he has a point.

>>32648218
We just need to wipe out whole families, and kill them faster than they can breed.

>>32648312

Why kill their families when we can not invade their countries in the first place?

>>32648370
too late to stop now, better to just see it through.

>>32642881
your fault if you dont have any AA defenses. he probably wouldnt have bombed you in the first place if you werent killing his friends on the ground.

>>32643358
excited for 9th grade, champ?

>>32644818
Torturing someone is hands down the worst way to get information from someone. Half of the time you make them want to stop talking to you, the other half they will lie to you so you stop torturing them.

>>32641026
>Pilots are officers.
>It's the enlisted man you kill however possible, an officer is for capturing.
Unless they are academy grads. Those can be killed. And should be.

>>32648312
>kill them faster than they can breed
This is why you have to kill the women in these kind of intractable ideological conflicts like dealing with any kind of muslims. It's the best way to cut their numbers down in a lasting way.

>>32648113
You're an idiot.

>>32648674
good. very good.

>>32643515
That's only partly true. Many of these norms are taken to be ius cogens, or binding even if you didn't sign convention.

>>32641336
>join the military
>get killed

wow didnt see that coming

Jesus christ whats w/ the influx of edgy kids?

Granted I won't have my wings for another year and a half or so, but I'd like to think that most civilized nations treat bailed pilots humanely. God save the first US pilot shot down over ISIS territory.

>>32649355

radiator grill, smash bug, single, or double anchor?

>>32648878
no u

>>32647815
>includes any and all civilian-associated resources and infrastructure as legitimate military targets
check, firebombed everything
>mobilizes all of the resources of society to fight the war, and gives priority to warfare over non-combatant needs.
check, all the factories were making things for the war and civilians were on ration tickets
>"war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded."
check, we killed Japs however possible and even used incredible new weapons from previously unknown areas of science to vaporize cities.
total war, famalam

>>32649415
single

>>32640902
this. the genevia convention frowns on it. but hey, alls fair in love and war.

>>32649621

not gonna like, kinda jelly of you guys having a few months off between phases. i wear smash bugs.

>>32640996
>>32643528

actually it started as a campaign from Anti Vietnam War activists, but was soon co-opted by the government.

>>32649647
I commissioned in May, and was stashed at my college for 7 months. I've never had so much free time in my entire life.

Then showed up to Pensacola, and had December off. I'm just now starting IFS, so after 9 months of being in the Navy I'm just now starting.

It's been a little too much of a break.

>>32649866

get a Tin Cow burger for me sometime.

you guys get breaks between API, Primary, and Advanced, right? the AF basically works like a train - get on on this day, leave this day with your wings. get a day or two behind and congratulations, you're in the next class. or maybe you need to find a different job.

>>32649905
I know pilots get breaks, but apparently NFOs are getting pushed through fast, w/ little or no breaks between.

>>32641650
>Italy commited no war crime
I know you think 'these funny pasta eater couldn't kill no one' but we had our fair share of war crime and genocide

>>32641311
If he tries to run or fight, he's a combatant. If he's not in imminent danger of escaping or is shooting at you, he's not a combatant.

>>32651248
Yes if he tires to evade and escape. Shoot him dead. If he surrenders. Detain him until the end of the conflict.

>>32649905
This is pretty correct for the USAF side. As soon as I graduated from pilot training I had 4 days until SERE (2 of those being a Saturday and Sunday) then a week later orders for IFF, then two weeks after finishing that it was the F-15E b-course and a PCS for that. From talking to other people it seems like Navy pilot training is a lot slower paced. AF instructor pilots I had who were around back when they exchanged air force and navy pilot selects to the different bases said they had jobs outside of the Air Force because they had so much free time in pilot training at navy pilot training... Not the case in USAF pilot training. I wish I could use any of the 50 days of leave I have built up right now but there's been no breaks at all from UPT and beyond. If you get a heavy you might get more leave depending on the airframe.

>>32641791
Was it Belfast?

>abubu the pilot was just shooting at me a while ago, so rood I'm going to kill him

An actual human being with moral standards does not kill surrendering combatants. This is also effective military doctrine, because getting people to surrender is way easier if they know they're going to get some food and the chance to see their families again instead of tortured and eventually a bullet in the back of the head.

Would I ever surrender to ISIS? No, look at all the goddamn beheading videos, fuck that noise. Would I surrender to basically everyone but the Japanese and Chinese in WWII? Absolutely.

Yes, pilots do have pistols but the only reason they would fucking use them is because being captured alive isn't an option because you fucks, and fucks like you, don't understand common fucking decency.

>>32641791
Warsaw

>>32640992

Clive Caldwell, australian WWII fighter ace, made a point of killing enemy pilots *after* he saw a German machine-gun his best friend underneath his parachute. But even Caldwell only did it if they were coming down in their own territory. Pilots bailing out over Allied territory were as good as captured. As he put it, he just didn't want the bastards coming back for another go.

>>32652698

WHERE ARE YOU FUCKERS WHEN WE NEED YOU

https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/28985331

<rant against fucking normies getting laid instead of lurking here>

>>32641417
they way they shot him down was genius

>>32640879
>Why is killing an unarmed (or very lightly armed) officer who is stuck behind enemy lines completely alone considered immoral?

Really activated my almonds.

>>32640902
This

>>32646320
>Muh "actually it's a popular misconception" pretentious correction

>Still wrong

Christ

>>32656368
lol at "jacking off around the barracks today" as I sit around at my house. That post is getting more into the weeds. I haven't done BFM in the eagle yet but the basic shit they teach you at IFF is you do a 1 circle or a 2 circle fight. 2 circle is a rate fight where you keep up airspeed instead of bleeding it all away at the first merge so you keep up the energy and after a few merges you have more and more of a lead turn into each merge, eventually bleeding the energy for a shot. One-circle is where both fighters turn the same direction and you're bleeding off all the airspeed you have at the first merge to turn your nose as quickly as possible and get the tightest turn rate you can get to be behind the other fighter, which normally turns into a scissors fight.

Not completely sure what the scenario is in that post. An illustration of the lines in the fight would probably help put it into context.

>>32641336
the unassailable meem

>>32652698

if you're the dude in the B-course right now, i hope you took the go pills on the ground trial before the systems test.

as cool as the stuff you're doing now is, wait til you get to ops.

>>32656634

2 same, i need lines and examples of fighters but i could figure it out for you. the higher speed plane would probably rate better so he wants to turn it into a two circle to get back to the merge at a position of advantage, while the more maneuverable plane that's beat down on power would want to turn it into a 1 circle or turn it into a tree fight.

i've only gotten into the scissors once or twice, and never the rolling scissors. it's badass but it's so hard to get into a situation where it is advantageous.

>>32656922
Of course I did, then used them again for I think the next one or two avionics tests.

I wish I had a nonstop supply of them, most productive I've ever been in my life.

File: 1371702313211.jpg (18KB, 288x239px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 288x239px

>>32656634
>2 circle is a rate fight where you keep up airspeed instead of bleeding it all away at the first merge so you keep up the energy and after a few merges you have more and more of a lead turn into each merge, eventually bleeding the energy for a shot.

Aaah, keeping the energy (thus rate) up to close in (outside the bandit's circle) then bleeding E for angles only when you're ready to take the shot.

>One-circle is where both fighters turn the same direction and you're bleeding off all the airspeed you have at the first merge to turn your nose as quickly as possible and get the tightest turn rate you can get to be behind the other fighter, which normally turns into a scissors fight.

This is exactly the scenario I was working out, scissors developing into a rolling scissors.

>>32656958

Here's my problem - I was writing fiction to submit to an e-zine (Battletech universe) of a dogfight between two "aerospace fighters." This universe is based off a tabletop game but they only track a few stats, so I was free to extrapolate differing performance from the art.

This is the attacker: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/6/66/Sabre.gif

And the defender: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/b/b9/Centurion_ASF_3057.png

Naturally the attacker looks likely to have a better turn rate, (lower wing loading) whereas the defender's got narrower, higher-loaded wings (superior roll rate) and higher TWR. My problem is, lower wing loading == superior turn radius is simple, but I have no idea what aerodynamic relationships produce better turn *rates.* So I have no idea if the good-rolling, highly-loaded fighter or the lower-loaded, tighter-turning fighter would have the rate advantage, and since they are merging nose to nose, this has some pretty steep consequences for the evolution of the engagement. I went with the defender having a slight rate advantage, which led to a rolling scissors.

Planes are hard.

>>32657514

i've yet to see a flat scissors go to a rolling scissors. it's much more likely that a tree fight (where both aircraft point up and the goal is to cover as little forward as possible to preserve 3-9) will go into a rolling scissors as airspeed stalls and both pull for high 6 o'clock. so i'd say 1 circle (maybe two merges) goes to a tree as the faster jet has a larger turn circle, but wants to preserve 3-9, but then the attacker keeps pulling for his high 6 when neither has a 3-9 advantage, and then the guy higher on the tree dumps his nose to gain airspeed which would develop into a rolling scissors.

1 circle is a radius fight - you want to have the smallest turn circle even if you don't get to the merge with more energy because you're in a WEZ sooner. 2 circle is a rate fight - you want to get back to the merge as soon as possible because you deny his WEZ but preserve your own.

>>32657304

ops BFM is crazy fun. was doing high aspect in a tanked jet with a 188 pod vs a slick jet flown by a former squadron DO. we got our asses kicked and i ran out of flares. it was awesome.

>>32657514

The lines are a classic nose-to-nose turn after a zero-separation merge, nothing too fancy there. Examples of airframes... uhm. This'd be somewhat like a... Phantom merging with an Eagle? All my airframe feels are for fucking WWII shit. Attacker would be similar to a P-51 (middling turn rate, fine against a poor turner but don't push it against a good one, good roll rate, good TWR/climb) and the defender'd be a an FW-190 (shit turn, phenomenal roll, slightly inferior TWR.) I might say Eagle versus a Hornet, but I was under the impression legacy Hornets roll *and* turn like a motherfucker, so.

>i've yet to see a flat scissors go to a rolling scissors. it's much more likely that a tree fight (where both aircraft point up and the goal is to cover as little forward as possible to preserve 3-9) will go into a rolling scissors as airspeed stalls and both pull for high 6 o'clock. so i'd say 1 circle (maybe two merges) goes to a tree as the faster jet has a larger turn circle, but wants to preserve 3-9, but then the attacker keeps pulling for his high 6 when neither has a 3-9 advantage, and then the guy higher on the tree dumps his nose to gain airspeed which would develop into a rolling scissors.

I'll be damned. I've seen this happen before but I had no idea there was a name for it - "tree fight." Thank you, I can use that.

>>32657683

glad to help.

>>32657631
Sounds great. You at SJ? Have any experience with the 229 equipped jets at Mountain Home or Lakenheath? I imagine that extra ~10k pounds of thrust makes a big difference.

>>32657773

i have not flown a -229 jet yet. maybe one day. friends from my B course/other dudes around the squadron who have say it's night and day. are they giving you guys JHMCS yet?

File: hmmm.jpg (66KB, 850x567px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 850x567px

>>32657631
>1 circle is a radius fight - you want to have the smallest turn circle even if you don't get to the merge with more energy because you're in a WEZ sooner. 2 circle is a rate fight - you want to get back to the merge as soon as possible because you deny his WEZ but preserve your own.

Okay, I got it right then. After turning nose-to-nose I wrote the defender (knowing he couldn't turn tighter than the attacker) only pull enough angles to defeat the attacker's crossing snapshot, preserving energy to get through his gunsight quicker, then rolling into a reverse turn to tempt the attacker into the scissors (favoring him), leading the attacker to counter with a yo-yo, leading into the scissors. But come to think my initial reaction on merging with something better rolling is typically to reverse in the vertical, which would lead directly the scenario you just described.

Re-write in order, then!

>>32657789
Nope. I was under the impression we'd at least get the gucci earplugs as all my friends flying C models got those along with JHMCS in their b-course. We do get PBG though so that's kinda nice.

Also my friends in the C model who I went to IFF with are already getting their assignments, as I haven't even had my dollar ride in the eagle yet. IDK how they push them through so fast seeing as how my class is still in air to air academics...

File: beanie hat retard.jpg (28KB, 292x292px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 292x292px

>>32657799

Er, leading into the vertical scissors.

>>32657826

yeah you get your assignment in the B-course around when you transition to the A/G phase so they can pair you up with a new crewmate going to the same base.

i didn't get ACCESS until ops. it's pretty amazing - split volumes works, and there's radio volume positions other than full up or nothing at all.

>>32645820

There's also this

> Tensions between the German and Arab prisoners simmered from the moment of their arrival, and fights frequently broke out between the two groups. The Arab prisoners were assigned a separate barrack from the Germans in order to prevent additional conflict. The spokesman for the German prisoners protested indignantly to camp officials that "Arabs are confined with the Master Race" and requested the transfer of the Arabs to another facility. Scribbled in the margins of a subsequent report was a curt reply from an anonymous American officer: "Too bad. They were good enough for gun fodder."