Ready to smile? Advanced Stealth Technology Might Breach Geneva Conventions

I got a good chuckle out of the article. The argument is that any technology allowing a combatant to mimic a noncombatant would be illegal. Many of the optical stealth active camouflage technologies could do that. And, thus, the argument is those technologies ought to be banned.

This is somewhat reminiscent of the lawyerly argument during the late 90s about whether or not they ought to arm drones. From at least 98 until the Predator fired its first Hellfire, many lawyers argued the Predator ought to be counted as a land based cruise missile, which are banned under the international treaties. It was a pretty big deal under the Clinton (male) administration.

Yet, in the end, it was moot. The argument above, much like the autonomous weapons and space based weapons debates, will only last until its really an advantage for one side or another to deploy those same weapons. Its just like when the Russians and Chinese were arguing to ban asats and space based weapons all while developing their own.

For your amusement:

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: anzha

If you can't counter it with technology, get it banned. The new stealth aircraft are going to render a few anti stealth technologies much less effective, and they know it.

These people just do what they want.. These treaties are not worth the paper they are written on to certain nations..
Just look at how many war crimes and over the last 10 years or so..

a reply to: anzha

Lawyers will be lawyers. Somehow I think this was more about making money or a name than making palpable change. If something is written to show the US down, the US will summarily ignore it.

originally posted by: Misterlondon
These people just do what they want.. These treaties are not worth the paper they are written on to certain nations..
Just look at how many war crimes and over the last 10 years or so..

And what happens to countries when they use "weapons to kill people, but NOT like that, c'mon...that HURTS!" Killing weapons?

A nasty shake of the finger.
Phosphorus, Cluster bombs...
War is hell. The sooner most of the world learns that you are only fighting to make a rich person richer, the better off we will all be.

Are flame throwers still banned by the Geneva Convention?

Either way, mimicking a non-combatant sounds somewhat dubious, almost like raising a white flag to surrender then shooting a now-trusting foe. It's an ethical question.

Invisibility though, bending light, fancy materials and such sounds perfectly ethical in combat. As the article states, it's advanced camouflage.

a reply to: Jason88

Yes they are but WE can buy them.
WHY I don't know ...BOOM comes to mind if you misuse one.
We never signed the Geneva convention we just lossely adhere to it.
I LIKED WP 203 grenades for clearing fox holes and buildings,myself...

It amounts to countries not being able to counter Western technology advances and trying to use the GC to defeat them in the future. I think the MoD had a liberal lawer there anyway. For terrorists and insurgents they are all in violation of the Law of War by not wearing uniforms. That makes them indistinguishable from civilians. They even wear women's burkas and hide their weapons under them. So, basically they will later try to sue saying the military were killing civilians. Well, when you dress as civilians you are illegal combatants and you can't use the Law of War for protection.

War is Hell and anything to ensure our soldiers are able to better conceal and protect themselves and make the kill will be a non issue to the US. Just like the F22 and F35. Pilots don't even know they are there and get smoked every time. 2 F22's on 8 F15's they were bored because of being repeatedly killed and not even seeing the other aircraft. The first time one knew it was there was when it flew over the top of it and rattled his canopy. There is other stories out there. You won't get into a dog fight with these guys, you will be dead before you even know they are there. So, in this scenario are they going to try and say it is against the GC? Pffft.

a reply to: anzha

I have to share your amusement at the article, no country at war (or in todays terms, a big country blowing the crap out of another smaller country or particular group of people) gives a sh*t about the Geneva convention.

LOL. th eonly thing that current MIlitary craft can mimic is from BASF and it can mimic IR signatures. its just camoflage so their reasoning is flawed. all you have to do is VISUALLY identify th e target even If i t looks like a VW on FLIR. Sheesh COmmon sense people.

Lawyers gonna lawyer.

originally posted by: anzha
I got a good chuckle out of the article. The argument is that any technology allowing a combatant to mimic a noncombatant would be illegal.

Does that include aircraft transponders too? Could cause some problems for air trafic control. I'm assuming that Russia would stop using the IL 76 incase it gets confused for a civilian version and that the Voyager/MRTT couldn't be used as it's possible that it'd be re-liveried and used for covert insertion.

You just know that someone is making a lot of money out of this farcical bull.

a reply to: Zaphod58

seems more like fud to keep the well intentioned but wrong crowd to help you run interference until you can catch up.

Note: Russia and China no longer protest American ASATs.

Segue:

Have you had a chance to look at Thornberry's bill? It seems to institutionalize the RCO office for *all* the military for tech development. I'm intrigued, but knowing my family's experience with the Army, I'm waiting for the US Army to frak that up. gah.

Camo is camo.

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: anzha

Lawyers will be lawyers. Somehow I think this was more about making money or a name than making palpable change. If something is written to show the US down, the US will summarily ignore it.

He has a book coming out - enough said!

a reply to: anzha

Hell one of the big reasons for getting rid of the D model TLAM, I think it was, was because people THOUGHT it violated international law. It didn't but the popular belief was that it did so they killed it.