>>65603475
Build the Wall(s)

>>65603475
>Intercepting incoming missiles is a war crime
Saar hours already?

File: pepe-are-you-serious-3080(...).gif (16 KB, 220x212)

16 KB GIF

>>65603475
>break into shipping container to find drugs or something
>its air defense

File: JUUST.jpg (38 KB, 537x303)

38 KB JPG

>>65603500
Q sisters, are we back?
>disguising military systems as civilian infrastructure is le warcrime???
Yes!

>long wall
>literally just a transliteration of the great wall of china
>American aerospace company
Anyhow how do they plan on doing datalink?
Also why does everyone insist on a horizontal container platform when the containers can be stored vertically for all the advantages already present with VLS?

>>65603500
They never really end

>>65603508
>metal shipping containers
>civilian infrastructure
Does it take effort to be this stupid? Or does it come naturally to you? If those were labeled "not a missile system" and loaded onto a civilian tanker which used its status as a civilian shipping tanker to facilitate a surprise attack then yeah, it could qualify as a warcrime depending on context and target. Putting missiles in a metal box and shipping it to deployment areas is so far remkved from your fantasy scenario one has to wonder about your mental faculties.

>>65603475
>xwitter thread

>>65603475
dahir insaat/10

>>65603509
> why does everyone insist on a horizontal container platform when the containers can be stored vertically
roads have overhead bridges and overhanging trees. how are you going to transport your missiles around? also, how are you going to store them? you gonna cut a giant door 6 storeys tall just so you can slot them into a building side ways?

>>65603508
Counterpoint: The Geneva convention allows for proportionate retaliation to war crimes. If the Q Ships did nothing but retaliate against attacks on what the enemy thought were unarmed merchant vessels then by default it isn't a crime as the enemy intent was to commit a crime in the first place.

It is no different than cops doing a sting operation.

>>65603509
Gee i don't know, why don't TELs drive around with the missile already pointed up to reduce deployment time?

>>65603586
>The Geneva convention allows for proportionate retaliation to war crimes
does it? article number please? thanks in advance

>>65603582
>how are you going to transport your missiles around?
Horizontally, then move it to vertical storage wherever it's being mounted (mostly ships/stationary bases) with a crane

File: Russian-Navy-to-Begin-Tri(...).jpg (147 KB, 950x641)

147 KB JPG

>>65603475
>China-style warcrime missile system to hide in shipping container style launcher
Wonder if they got the idea from the Russians?

>>65603503
>empty container, save for a Russian guy in a chair in the corner watching his lover get railed by a Chechen

>>65603475
Pretty sure the whole shipping container trick wasn't invented by China, it was either Russia or Iran if memory serves.

>>65603605
>>65603610
Yeah but China's the only one who could pull it off since their ships go everywhere.

>>65603589
Amended in 1949 and 1979 to be in line with the UN charter. 1949 was when a shitload of the Geneva convention was amended notably due to Japan getting away with starving POWs; originally you had to give POWs the same rations as your own troops. The Japanese argued successfully that they did exactly that, it wasn't their fault the POWs were wimps.

You have google, i'm not spoon feeding you every Hauge Convention and revision since 1864.

>>65603635
I'm surprised more people haven't read the relevant treaties and conventions regarding warfare. Most of them aren't very long and are written rather plainly.

>>65603653
Also 'you did it first' is consistently considered a valid excuse; this is how Skorzeny got away with his men wearing false colors and civilian clothes because the UK did it first which they testified to at his trial. Your only option is to either drop the changes, charge your own men or invalidate the legitimacy of the whole process.

File: ez-clap-ezyclap.gif (16 KB, 220x202)

16 KB GIF

very impressive!

File: 1782799079409296.png (789 KB, 1000x667)

789 KB PNG

>>65603509
>Also why does everyone insist on a horizontal container platform
The magical mystery of modular logistics.

>>65603475
for what it's worth, containers are an established standard and it makes practical sense to use them instead of reinventing the wheel just to move shit around
as long as the containers are explicitly marked as military equipment and not Joe Civilian's Orphan & Kitten Delivery Company™ I don't really see what would make it a warcrime

>>65603957
>containers are an established standard and it makes practical sense to use them instead of reinventing the wheel
Speaking of, remind us who invented the shipping container and what for....

>>65603957
Even if these were to be blantantly marked as military use, a hot war would still see truck-driven civillian containers being blown up regardless anyway

>>65603635
>The Japanese argued successfully that they did exactly that
lol they did?
personally I thought the same. I didn't know they actually did give out that defence

>>65603653
I have read the most relevant articles, and the Montreux Convention, and the various pre-war Naval Treaties. I don't quite recall a "we can bomb the shit out of them if they rape girls and behead babies" article, which would be quite relevant today
>I'm surprised more people haven't read
mate, I'm a career bean-counter, and I can tell you that statistically 98% of the people out there talking about the economy and private equity and Blackrock yadda yadda has never read an actual company financial report in their lives, and cannot describe accurately how the financial system is meant to work
I am willing to bet that the ratio is even higher when it comes to all the people shrieking "warcrimes! warcrimes! genocide!"; you would be hard-pressed to find one who has actually read the Geneva Conventions

>>65603964
A Scotsman, and to reduce costs?

>>65604525
>The Japanese argued successfully that they did exactly that
>lol they did?
>personally I thought the same. I didn't know they actually did give out that defence

They did do it, they also pointed out the firebombing, air dropped mines, nukes ect. Japan got away with with alot of shit by saying that the allies did worse to them and they were right.

>'Were your POWs so starved they engaged in cannibalism'?
>'No'
>'Ours did so we gave your POWs the same rations as our soldiers, we even gave them food when our troops had none. So how did we mistreat your POWs? We gave them the same rations or more than we gave our own troops'
>'It isn't our fault that your POWs are huge wimps who had more available food than us'

>>65603508
as long as you don't use protected symbols or camouflage it as a protected facility
and take precautions to protect civilians from an attack on it
its perfectly lawful under international law

like some argue it's perfidy but it's not the accepted view

>>65603475
Are we gonna get a pilot mistaking a crab for a sun IRL?

>>65604542
huh, I thought it was WWII logistics that drove it but that episode seems to be a footnote in the history of intermodal containers.

>>65604525
>I don't quite recall a "we can bomb the shit out of them if they rape girls and behead babies" article, which would be quite relevant today
There's a general consensus in the international community that crimes against humanity are free for anyone to intervene in if they want to. I couldn't say what codifies it specifically though, some countries have ratified laws saying that they consider such crimes in their jurisdiction regardless of where they happened or to and by whom.

>I'm a career bean-counter...and cannot describe accurately how the financial system is meant to work
I mean, can anyone?

>I am willing to bet that the ratio is even higher when it comes to all the people shrieking "warcrimes! warcrimes! genocide!"; you would be hard-pressed to find one who has actually read the Geneva Conventions
It's just a propaganda shill move now, they say "warcrimes" as a gotcha against the west because they got sick of us describing them in the same words and in their heads, so long as they keep saying words
It's the same move as saying that the US army are the real terrorists, or shit like that.

File: file.png (270 KB, 534x408)

270 KB PNG

>>65605170
>can anyone?
yes, you learn it when studying finance and you would, again, if you worked in banking and policy
>It's just a propaganda shill move now
no doubt, but besides that there are also an abundance of people who genuinely believe it and don't know what warcrimes are

my point was not (just) that people don't know it, the point is that people don't sit back and say "alright, this is not my area of expertise, so I won't comment"

>>65604653
>the allies did worse to them and they were right
no and no
>they also pointed out the firebombing, air dropped mines, nukes
at that point in the war, that wasn't a warcrime, the juice was worth the squeeze
Japan cannot simultaneously be actively arming its "civilian" population and at the same time claim that it's wrong to kill "civilians"

>>65603508
Civilian shipping has always been a complicity valid wartime target thoughbeit, by virtue of the fact that the ICC and UN can't be arsed to prosecute it and never have.

>>65603957
>Donbass Orphans Shipping Co.
>putting the 'ward' in 'freight forwarding'

>>65605369
>Civilian shipping has always been a complicity [sic] valid wartime target
Mainly because it is recognised that nations use ships to get supplies and resources to manufacture weapons

>>65603475
The metal container is not what makes it a war crime retard, it's intentionally mischaracterizing the container as civilian cargo

>>65605978
>the military doesn't use intermodal shipping containers
begone, fuckwit

File: 1697683991348957.gif (1.94 MB, 413x498)

1.94 MB GIF

>>65603475
This is great, it gives the US complete legal justification for targeting civilian shipping in a hot war with China. After all, those cargo ships could contain offensive missiles :^)

File: why.jpg (26 KB, 933x773)

26 KB JPG

>>65603475
>defense system
Arguably not even a warcrime. Pretty gay dude.

>>65603475
As long as the ship raises the Chinko battle ensign just before firing, it is not a warcrime.

>>65605362
>at that point in the war, that wasn't a warcrime, the juice was worth the squeeze
>Japan cannot simultaneously be actively arming its "civilian" population and at the same time claim that it's wrong to kill "civilians"

So any US civilian that is capable of holding a weapon is a legitimate target? It is a bullshit cycle of justification for atrocities, it is wrong and i will call it out for being wrong.

>>65609821
If the US was at the level of recruiting every civilian from junior high upperclassmen aged 14 and up, both male and female, and giving them weapons, then yes that is unironically correct
The very same Japanese High Command produced a report in 1945 saying that they could defeat the Americans if they mobilised the entire civilian population in defence of the Home Islands and estimated the civilian casualties in such a case would be about 20%, saying that this is an acceptable maximum figure for victory
That is roughly 14 million civilian militia. The same people willing to let 14 million civilians aged 14 and up die for victory cannot turn around and cry foul that killing 100,000 of their citizens (civilian and military both) with a bomb is somehow immoral.

>>65603475
Very good for a sucker-punch attack, very very bad for immediately suiciding your economy and having your shipping ports bombed.

>>65604653
saw this utterly retarded post and of course its this retarded tripfag still shitting up the board. please end your life sooner rather than later

File: special-operation-the-web(...).jpg (120 KB, 640x853)

120 KB JPG

>>65603508
>>65603522
Yes!

>no wait not like that!

>>65603475
Kino

>>65606039
>Implying the US wouldn't target them otherwise

Kill vehicles are weird
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dy_qly4yHuM&

>>65610413
Thats the thing, every shipping container, container park, and ship instantly becomes a legitimate target. Like the qships...

>>65603590
Lower effort and higher profit margin if you include vertical launch hydraulics in the container, ground bases don't have the same space considerations that a ship does that necessitates a tight pack of VLS