| Tango01 | 15 Mar 2016 9:10 p.m. PST |
…conventions. ""Invisibility cloaks" and other future advances in military camouflage techniques could violate the Geneva conventions, a top military lawyer has warned. Refinements of technologies that are already used on stealth bombers could breach compliance with international laws regulating armed conflict if equipment is disguised or soldiers' weapons are hidden, according to Bill Boothby, a former air commodore and deputy director of RAF legal services. Scientists and military contractors are spending tens of millions of pounds researching methods for generating effective invisibility through more sophisticated "metamaterials" – substances designed to absorb or bend light and/or radar waves in order to conceal approaching aircraft or troops…"
Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Mako11 | 15 Mar 2016 11:45 p.m. PST |
Yea, LOL, like that'll stop them being used. Time for another legal opinion. Note – you can always get another lawyer to come up with a contrary argument, for the right amount of money. I've personally seen that occur, firsthand, in the courtroom. |
| gunnerphil | 16 Mar 2016 2:56 a.m. PST |
The international law seems to work is, if the bad guys don't have it, it is illegal. Perhaps Battlefront or someone should come up with a points system so thing can be made nice and equal. |
| cosmicbank | 16 Mar 2016 3:53 a.m. PST |
War between nations has never been fair will never be fair. War between gamers has to be somewhat fair or its not a game.
If you use invisable units you don't have to paint them> |
| bsrlee | 16 Mar 2016 4:38 a.m. PST |
The definition of a 'uniform' used in WW2 was that it had to have at least 2 visible buttons of a prescribed military pattern, so the German white metal pebble finish buttons were 'uniform' buttons as were the various Commonwealth Bakelite buttons. SAS and Commandoes had 2 matt Bakelite buttons with text or a crest on their jumpers as that was the minimum to avoid being shot as a 'spy'. So a cameleon suit or light bending suit would be 'legal' as long as it had 2 visible buttons which were described in a published, official document. Hiding your weapon under it would also have to be 'legal' or it would have been 'unlawful' for pistols to be put in a flapped holster (as used since the introduction of single shot firelock pistols) or rifles in a rifle case. I wonder which theoretical Military would first introduce 'butterfly' and 'moth' pattern camo buttons? |
| gunnerphil | 16 Mar 2016 6:06 a.m. PST |
A while back I did a course on international law. The number of people who said various weapons should be banned because NATO or the west had then and poor countries did not was a site to see. They were happy for soldiers to be shot at or blown up as that gave the bad guys a chance. Oddly none had family in the forces |
| twawaddell | 16 Mar 2016 9:36 a.m. PST |
For every lawyer there is an equal and opposite lawyer! |
| Tango01 | 16 Mar 2016 10:43 a.m. PST |
|
| paulgenna | 16 Mar 2016 12:47 p.m. PST |
Maybe when all sides played by the same rules but that is not the case anymore. The purpose is to win the war not play by a certain rule. |
| Mako11 | 16 Mar 2016 3:24 p.m. PST |
Rules can also be rewritten. |
| GarrisonMiniatures | 16 Mar 2016 4:59 p.m. PST |
Realistically of course it is mainly the major powers that decide what is or is not legal. Also realistically, as long as countries such as the US, Russia and China (etc) have nuclear weapons, how can they honestly complain about non-nuclear powers trying to get their own, or at least something they consider helps to level the plying field. |
| capncarp | 16 Mar 2016 5:39 p.m. PST |
<For every lawyer there is an equal and opposite lawyer!>
Soooo…if we take a lawyer and its anti-lawyer and crash them together, the annihilate each other??? Why haven't we done this before???? |
