Megha Vemuri called out MIT for having research ties with the Israeli army and "aiding and abetting" the country with its "assault on the Palestinian people."
That is a good shout, withdrawal =/= surrender. You’re not wrong to clarify rules of war, as false accusations lead to propaganda reinforcing against the real accusations.
Though my statement does stand - “they design drone technology for war criminals to pursue fleeing targets” is a factual statement.
Plus, we will almost certainly see a new version of the Geneva convention in response to drone warfare in our lifetime.
Oh, they’re absolutely selling weapons to war criminals that use them to commit crimes, I 100 % agree.
Just wanted to clarify that “persuing fleeing targets” isn’t a war crime, it’s the targeting of civilians itself that is. Your statement,
It’s unreal that they can just say “We design war crimes”
Made it sound like you thought chasing down fleeing targets was itself a war crime, regardless who the target was.
I can see there being some changes to laws of war, or at least interpretation in response to drone warfare. Specifically, there’s a law against “causing unnecessary suffering” which prevents the use of weapons designed with the intent to maim rather than kill. Most countries have banned anti-personnel mines, and use this as part of the reasoning (another being the non-directed nature of the weapons, and long-term effects after the war is over).
Drone-dropped grenades have a clear tendency to wound rather than kill, and I can see an argument that when infantry throw grenades they usually follow up with gunfire rather than leaving the enemy in a field. With this in mind, I can see an argument against drone-dropped light grenades. Then again, drone-dropped grenades give such a massively asymmetric advantage that I have a hard time seeing any army giving them up.
That is a good shout, withdrawal =/= surrender. You’re not wrong to clarify rules of war, as false accusations lead to propaganda reinforcing against the real accusations.
Though my statement does stand - “they design drone technology for war criminals to pursue fleeing targets” is a factual statement.
Plus, we will almost certainly see a new version of the Geneva convention in response to drone warfare in our lifetime.
Oh, they’re absolutely selling weapons to war criminals that use them to commit crimes, I 100 % agree.
Just wanted to clarify that “persuing fleeing targets” isn’t a war crime, it’s the targeting of civilians itself that is. Your statement,
Made it sound like you thought chasing down fleeing targets was itself a war crime, regardless who the target was.
I can see there being some changes to laws of war, or at least interpretation in response to drone warfare. Specifically, there’s a law against “causing unnecessary suffering” which prevents the use of weapons designed with the intent to maim rather than kill. Most countries have banned anti-personnel mines, and use this as part of the reasoning (another being the non-directed nature of the weapons, and long-term effects after the war is over).
Drone-dropped grenades have a clear tendency to wound rather than kill, and I can see an argument that when infantry throw grenades they usually follow up with gunfire rather than leaving the enemy in a field. With this in mind, I can see an argument against drone-dropped light grenades. Then again, drone-dropped grenades give such a massively asymmetric advantage that I have a hard time seeing any army giving them up.