Is it a war crime to not accept the enemy's surrender? What if you literally do not have the manpower required or logistical ability to take any prisoners?
Is it a war crime to not accept the enemy's surrender?
Is it a war crime to not accept the enemy's surrender? What if you literally do not have the manpower required or logistical ability to take any prisoners?
Depends, but you usually just pass them on to the next unit (without weapons of course)
>What if you literally do not have the manpower required or logistical ability to take any prisoners?
Then you strip them of their weapons (not allowed to strip them of protective gear) and pass them on. Whether they actually go to surrender or walk back to their lines is anyone's guess, but to harm someone who has already made their intent to surrender clear is a war crime.
>not allowed to strip them of protective gear
Does this include ballistic plates?
Yes, but it depends. If there is a likely threat of them being shelled or shot at, then by law you should leave them. If you have moved them to the rear and its unlikely then yes you can. Its as simple as thinking 'would I do this/take this gear off my own troops'
It isn't a settled debate.
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/legal-practical-challenges-surrender-drones/
>Is it a war crime to not accept the enemy's surrender?
Yes
>What if you literally do not have the manpower required or logistical ability to take any prisoners?
Let them go or commit a war crime.
It is only a war crime if your country loses the war so hard that the leadership can be put on trial by the winners afterwards. Americans killed surrendering japs and germans at mindboggling rate. Don't even ask what the russians did.
War crimes are a tool to dab on the side of the war that lost. Nothing more.
>this cope again
post hands
But he's not wrong?
Hes not wrong. Who is going to try you if you won?
Dead men cannot report war crimes
But the other people in your platoon and company can, and will, because killing surrendering troops endangers everyone's lives there.
So you're saying friendly fire really is friendly to one's career?
Sometimes war is killing, sometimes it's saving lives.
>Is it a war crime to not accept the enemy's surrender?
Yes
> What if you literally do not have the manpower required or logistical ability to take any prisoners?
Then you disarm and leave them
>Then you disarm and leave them
Or you can just kill them so they won't return
Helicopters don’t have to accept surrender.
Practicing it consistently is a war crime but with careful application it saves you some trouble assuming you actually win the war of course.
>Is it a war crime to not accept the enemy's surrender?
if the other side stops playing by the rules first, there are no rules
Only a war crime if you lose.
And in the circumstances you are talking about - where you literally are not capable of taking prisoners its best just to shoot on sight.
No one will be able to call it a war crime unless A) there are survivors or B) it was obvious (ie they were lined up and shot or dumped in a mass grave)
If you just shoot them on sight it will just look like they died fighting
Just surrender harder. Everyone throw away weapons and gear, tie hands and cover eyes.
Make it easier for them so they accept your surrender.
ITT: Dumbasses.
Enemies must be treated IAW standards if you take them prisoner. But you do not have to take prisoners.
well TECHNICALLY you do its just very easy not to and evade all consequences