Question: If Iran targets and hits a U.S. military camp in the Middle East region, what should the U.S. response be?
A. Hit back, and hard.
B. Do nothing. Maybe warn Iran not to do it again.
C. Other?
The doctrine of a proportional response would apply.
The doctrine of proportional response refers to a principle in international law and military ethics that dictates the appropriate level of force in response to an attack. It emphasizes that any military response must be proportional to the threat faced.
Key Principles:
Proportionality: The response should not exceed what is necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective.
Distinction: Combatants must distinguish between military targets and civilians to minimize harm to non-combatants.
Necessity: Force should only be used when necessary to achieve a specific aim.
Application in Conflict:
This doctrine is often invoked in discussions about the legality of military actions, particularly in asymmetric warfare where one side may have significantly greater military capabilities.
It is a key component of the laws of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions.
Challenges:
Determining what constitutes a proportional response can be subjective and context-dependent.
Different interpretations can lead to disputes over the legality and morality of military actions.
Sources: The principles are grounded in international humanitarian law and are discussed in various legal texts and military manuals.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000000101010202020303010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.
Question: If Iran targets and hits a U.S. military camp in the Middle East region, what should the U.S. response be?
A. Hit back, and hard.
B. Do nothing. Maybe warn Iran not to do it again.
C. Other?
The doctrine of a proportional response would apply.
The doctrine of proportional response refers to a principle in international law and military ethics that dictates the appropriate level of force in response to an attack. It emphasizes that any military response must be proportional to the threat faced.
Key Principles:
Proportionality: The response should not exceed what is necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective.
Distinction: Combatants must distinguish between military targets and civilians to minimize harm to non-combatants.
Necessity: Force should only be used when necessary to achieve a specific aim.
Application in Conflict:
This doctrine is often invoked in discussions about the legality of military actions, particularly in asymmetric warfare where one side may have significantly greater military capabilities.
It is a key component of the laws of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions.
Challenges:
Determining what constitutes a proportional response can be subjective and context-dependent.
Different interpretations can lead to disputes over the legality and morality of military actions.
Sources: The principles are grounded in international humanitarian law and are discussed in various legal texts and military manuals.
Under my scenario, what do you think would be the appropriate “proportionate” response?
Personally, I don’t subscribe to that doctrine. I think any attack on us should be met with a bigger attack. Make them pay.
Under my scenario, what do you think would be the appropriate “proportionate” response?
Personally, I don’t subscribe to that doctrine. I think any attack on us should be met with a bigger attack. Make them pay.
Forget that Jesus said to turn the other cheek?
Turning the other cheek doesn’t apply to nations. If this were the case, governments would have no obligation to protect its people. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, should we have turned the cheek then?
There certainly is a time for peace. But there is time for war as well. Jesus isn’t a pacifist.
There certainly is a time for peace. But there is time for war as well. Jesus isn’t a pacifist.
WTF?
Uhhh, no.
His disciples weren't pacifists.
If Jesus is a pacific it’s, why is He leading God’s Army in the final battle/
Oh, sorry.
I don't do mysticism.
See, that’s the difference. Non-believers view Jesus as this hippie-like historical figure who went around preaching liberal values. Christians view Him as the living Son of God who is very much alive today. God sent Jesus to earth to live among man, teach God’s Word and, ultimately, die for our sins so we can have eternal life.
BTW, "an eye for an eye" is often misinterpreted as being about revenge. It's not. It's about appropriate punishment, i.e., "let the punishment fit the crime." And it wasn't original in the Bible, also found in the Code of Hammurabi.
But here's the thing - nobody will ever win an argument, errrr, "theological discussion" when the Bible is the basis of premise. For as long as there's been a Bible, scholars and lay persons have argued, interpreted, translated, adapted, quibbled down to the most minute level. Quotes are taken out of context, and it's easy to find built-in contradictions. It's always easy to find some quote to support a view, whatever that view might be. Bottom line, a theological basis for laws is appropriate only in a theocracy - which Iran is, and which the US is not (yet).
BTW, "an eye for an eye" is often misinterpreted as being about revenge. It's not. It's about appropriate punishment, i.e., "let the punishment fit the crime." And it wasn't original in the Bible, also found in the Code of Hammurabi.
But here's the thing - nobody will ever win an argument, errrr, "theological discussion" when the Bible is the basis of premise. For as long as there's been a Bible, scholars and lay persons have argued, interpreted, translated, adapted, quibbled down to the most minute level. Quotes are taken out of context, and it's easy to find built-in contradictions. It's always easy to find some quote to support a view, whatever that view might be. Bottom line, a theological basis for laws is appropriate only in a theocracy - which Iran is, and which the US is not (yet).
LOL
The Bible is the trump of books, it says so many things at different times that anyone can find a quote or passage to support their arguments.
Hey, maybe he is the messiah.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000000101010202020303010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.
Not to mention that a lot of modern religious beliefs aren't really in the Bible to start with. Like where does it say priests must be single? It doesn't - that came from the middle ages when priests owned their church (lc) property and the Church (uc) didn't want women inheriting it.
Overall, it's a lot like the I Ching, all answers subject to interpretation.
Not to mention that a lot of modern religious beliefs aren't really in the Bible to start with. Like where does it say priests must be single? It doesn't - that came from the middle ages when priests owned their church (lc) property and the Church (uc) didn't want women inheriting it.
Overall, it's a lot like the I Ching, all answers subject to interpretation.
In books written by men who weren't there, before and after the birth of Christ.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000000101010202020303010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.
Listening to some military talking heads while driving home tonight.
According to them this is not strictly an air operation even with the Big Beautiful Bomb (it made sense and sounded right), it's gonna take some boots on the ground.
Betcha TACO TACO's.
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000000101010202020303010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.
