News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Military technology: Magic bullets by ck2 on Sunday January 15, 2012 @06:52AM (#3466960)
There are lots of "end-runs" around the Hague

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet#Law

and note that domestically governments do not have to obey even the most basic "rules of war" when they set police against their own people

Re:Military technology: Magic bullets by __alexs on Sunday January 15, 2012 @07:01AM (#3466967)
Does Afghanistan even get covered by that stuff since no formal declaration of war has been made according to Hague Convention III?
Re:Military technology: Magic bullets by sharpneli on Sunday January 15, 2012 @08:01AM (#3467050)
IANAL but that has some problems. First of all the convention mandates 'declaration of war' in a sense that you have to tell someone you're attacking. If it was skipped then it was against the part of the convention mandating such notification.

Secondly the other parts of the convention do not talk about war as a set of specific circumstances (e.g requiring declaration of war) but just hostilities regardless on how they originated.

So by skipping the declaration of war one simply breaks one additional part of the convention, the one mandating the declaration.

Re:Military technology: Magic bullets by thisrod on Sunday January 15, 2012 @06:30PM (#3468628)
I understand that changed when the UN was formed. Its member states aren't permitted to start wars, period.
Re:Military technology: Magic bullets by jcurbo on Sunday January 15, 2012 @11:09AM (#3467419)
The US follows the Hague Convention and other 'rules of war' regardless of if the other side does or not.
Re:Military technology: Magic bullets by anamax on Sunday January 15, 2012 @10:58AM (#3467387)
Does it matter whether both parties are signatories?
Re:Military technology: Magic bullets by JamisonM on Sunday January 15, 2012 @03:20PM (#3468115)
No