Questionable War Time Ethics

No, not really. Just a random image of an army-soldier that I just figured to used as a cover image because I did not have any other image to compliment the topic.

it's only cleansing and genocide, if they continue after the enemy has surrendered.
Trying to break the enemy's spirit is valid tactic in war.
They are trying to destroy your land and people, holding back and fighting nice is not a luxury you can afford.
As long as non-combatants aren't rounded up and slaughtered in the streets in mass, it is all fair.
Distasteful, yes, but that is the nature of war.

FIRE EMBLEM FAG BTFO

Unless the enemy is a godless Saraceen scum, of course. In which case it's his sacred duty to follow the OP's list.

What God calls us to do upon those godless people is one thing: complete purge and destruction of their lands so that nothing of them remains, wiping them forever from the face of the earth and of history.

>be me, trooper sent to wreck the shit out of some craptacular 3rd world country which name I can't be bothered to give a damn about

>the other joes and grunts decide to go and act like savages and rape the womyn while i watch on since at the same time I could care less about them wenches

>amazingly the grunts decide to not continue through since the idea of having to share one hole with other horny bastards was distasteful

>however the fem operators and other female personnel and soldiers take fun in plougin' the handsome and attractive men they could find

>even young youthful boys are not spared by the ever horny fem operatives

>Radio Operator and Comms Officer Jenny who's often known among us guys as a country-born sweetheart totally changes into virtually a rape monster the moment she seized herself a cutie farm boy with blue eyes and blonde hair

>wow what a week this has been

DEUS VULT

...

>3rd world countr
>farm boy with blue eyes and blonde hair
Wait, what? 3-d world country populated by caucasians? Where's that?

USA?

>Just imagine the enemy you're fighting is not only hated and vilified by your nation and government. But the International Community also hates and vilifies the nation/country you and your fellow forces are warring with, so therefore any war crimes and "atrocities" against the enemy would not be give a damn about. Because the enemy and country you're warring against just so happens to be hated and vilified so very much.
That'd make it boring, remove dilemma and dumb it down to the level of d&d crusade against orcs/demons. Since every horrible thing is ok and encouraged, it'd just be an excercise in edginess.
I'd rather run it with your government declaring total war, your leaders encouraging atrocities but the international community actually contempting them. At some points you'd need to cover up the dark shit and wonder wheter it will be you or the colonel who will be hanged after the war for doing this. And then sprinkle some random motivations for players, depending on dice give them backstory details such as "enemy killed your family/friends", "you just hate enemy, never in your life did you have a good interaction with somebody from that country" but also possibly "enemy soldier found you dying after a battle, tended to you and left you to be found by your reinforcements".

I'm pretty sure USA is populated by mexicans and blacks

Touché.

If i served my proud nation, i'd have to follow its laws on the subject and not commit war crimes, including telling my superiors to go fuck themselves when give me orders to commit war crimes.

It would require a setting with significantly different ideology and values and a departure from current political climate.

Maybe if we ended up in a total war against russia or china with an uncertain outcome i could see it happen. Haven't had a total war since ww2 so morals and ideals have been easily affordable, vietnam proved how shaky that is.

Alternately, deus vult memery wins over and kebab removal becomes mainstream.

I dont understand the purpose of this thread. do you just want an expanded list of asshole acts?

Look at history, compacts about war crimes and such are if anything a product of total war between roughly equal powers.

bersaglieri are qt's

You fetishists are the worst. Women don't rape the way men do, because women can get laid literally whenever. Not to mention how ludricious having female soldiers on a campaign of extermination would be.

Hell, given that the enemy is considered subhuman, where would you find someone blonde and with blue eyes?

Shhhh! Magic Realm friend, Magic Realm.

I would play this completely straight, with a focus on systematic extermination. No inherent comedy, but with an emphasis on the 'Three Alls' used by the Japanese army on WWII, which was part of their doctrine: burn all, kill all, rape all.

I suppose I would mainly focus on destroying infrastructure and culling 'breeders' i.e. fertile women. To exterminate an enemy, their ability to reproduce must be removed.

>Women don't rape the way men do
Yeah, it involves more... thraumatic methods.

>burn all, kill all, rape all.
In that order?
Well, I guess i shouldn't be surprised - that's Japanese we're talikng about.

Smash their wrists and ankles with the Humvee trunk, let the Iraqi police run a train on him then put one in his dome.

Glove up, smash their face in, call State Dept.

Pour gas on them, threaten them by flicking a zipo, and accidentally light them on fire.

I literally cannot believe this is what someone is gonna rp.

Well, there's enough people who love playing Sabbat in VtM to warrant entire spaltbook.

Okay so I've imagined it.
What exactly has the enemy done that means they're vilified by all and sundry?
Does this extend to the whole of the enemy's people or is it particular to a subgroup?
Has the enemy always been vilified or is this a new development?
If it has always been the case, how is it that they're able to wage war with no allies or trading partners?

>What exactly has the enemy done that means they're vilified by all and sundry?
Let's say they've commited a capital crime of having oil.

They're aliums

Why is this enemy hated if you're the one committing rampant war crimes? What did they do that trumps even your abuse of them?

If you wage war like that you have to ask yourself what the goal is. You would have nothing left but ashes, ruins, corpses an unihabitable land and whatever survivors you leave behind, soldiers or otherwise, will have to migrate to survive and likely ferment insurgency and terrorism.

If you wage war like OP and your goal is NOT ethnic and cultural cleansing then you are in for a big fuck-off failure

Onions?

This is the counterinvasion. They struck first, were repulsed, and this is payback for the many atrocities committed by their soldiers.

And then they up the ante and forget about them, then make up a bunch of new ones after the war that they will break in the next.

>not knowing how to read different language

>retarded

How about you get off your high horse and come down here with the rest of us here buddy

Actually the third all was 'loot' rather than 'rape'.

>Why is this enemy hated if you're the one committing rampant war crimes?
Proper competent propaganda can make soldiers hate whatever high command wants them to hate.

Ogres actually

It's easy. You must understand one thing: People are not capable to empathise beyond certain number of people let alone remember anyone's name. At some point, everything becomes numbers. Soldiers naturally feel themselves part of a tribe or a family and see everyone else as another tribe.

A platoon (40 to 50 people) is the top size for micromanage people in any detail and keep a track of. A company (80–250) is the top number that you can remember the soldier's name and one or two thing, basically a small town. Beyond that number, command becomes depersonalised and much formal.

>See words
>Don't understand words
>Act like a smug condescending asshole anyways and assume that everyone is as ignorant as you
>Not acting retarded

Well, I'd be alarmed that my proud nation is encouraging acts of petty malice on par with the savages we fight instead of just swiftly neutralizing them. I'd begin to question what exactly I'm proud of. I'd participate simply if I was ordered to, but would likely have my nationalism shaken afterwards. Depending on future actions I may lose faith altogether in my country

Plundering and pillage is the natural form of warfare before the the development of logistic lines from home. Before that, soldiers lived of the land. Some soldiers were not even paid for their services, not even their equipment, and were rewarded by looting.
That's why the early modern wars including the 30 years war were so devastating, the armies became bigger and bigger, mostly composed of mercenaries, but without the supply tail to feed them.

Story that I figured is semi-related to this thread:

>pastebin.com/bMiTvcB7

We are playing pretty bad people. Middle-class soldiers hired by the ultra rich in a world where every resources is running out. Overpopulation and governmental collapse has arcologies and self contained communities house the few people that aren't trying to survive in ruined landscapes that wouldn't look out of place in Elysium.

Pretty much the only 'middle class' left are security people. We get paid to shoot the desperately poor to keep the ultra rich safe. Most of the people we fight have weapons that are only theoretically able to defeat our armor under good conditions, while we have high tech weapons and drone backup.

We are kind of bad guys, but the truth is that even if the nineteen million people outside the walls in what used to be Rio were able to breach the Arcology we guard.. 1) They don't have the technical know how to keep it running and 2) They'd exhaust all the resources, medical supplies, fuel and food that the arcology has in a month or less. It's made to indefinitely support a little over half a million people by careful recycling.

Yeah, excatly my thoughts after seeing Elysium.

>Italia
Friendly reminder that pic related will get shot because the slut you posted was too lazy to do her job and simply paid the Taliban to leave her alone.

Eh, it's actually usually better at making civvies hate them. The soldiers are the ones who have to see them face to face. Not saying they love their enemies but when they hate them it's usually for other reasons.

Peace is an anomaly. War is the natural state of mankind. In ancient Rome, there was the temple of of the god Janus, the two-faced god of boundaries. During wartime, the doors remained open. They were closed during peacetime. The later rarely happen. The Empire was constantly at war, small wars against this tribe. Peace has to be enforced by someone.

Being in a state of war justifies some of the worst of human nature. War gives permission to hate and demonise the other. It turns brutality and wanton destruction, which should be the rarest of activities, into normal. It paves the way for charismatic dictators who promise easy answers if the populace will just give up a few more freedoms and give blind trust to their unscrupulous power-grabs.

In many ways, war simplifies life. All turn the focus to winning the battle and destroying the other. Seeking peace turns out to be far more difficult. Real peace, not forced subservience that may stop immediate violence but solves nothing in the long run, insists that we treat the other as human beings, with the same rights and privileges as the rest of us.

See why war is so much easier? War frees us to hate and to blame. Peace asks so much more. With war, the enemy becomes two dimensional, without nuance or shading, only evil. And we ourselves leave behind nuance and shading and see ourselves as only good.

War says, “I must be the most powerful and the most capable of destroying the other.”

Peace says, “I will lay down my power and seek to heal.”

Armies defiantly did have supply tails and logistics, but also used forage parties. Foraging simply can't be done without leading to war crimes, that's the damn truth.

Also, that's a goddamn absurd picture of terricos.

>4 deep pikes
>cannon just rolled out ahead of them
>guy right next to them giveing orders.
>one lonely gunner.

Especially since the one recorded instance of Japanese soldiers doing organized rape - even by the US Army, as most of the postwar propaganda spread by the US was intentionally taken from unchecked statements by shell-shocked soldiers and Japanese left-wing intellectuals who never touched a gun - was a camp in Indonesia where a few local women were imprisoned by a petty officer and his cronies.
The ring was discovered after a few months, and the ringleader was lined up against a wall and shot within the week. The Japanese Army went all-out in war, expecting that an honorable enemy wouldn't expect to be spared and that a dishonorable enemy deserved death - that's why they killed, but rape, much less organized rape of the kind the US, Korea and China worked together to fabricate after the war, was a stain on the entire nation's name and was thus summarily punished with death or labor to the point of death.
There's less evidence for the "comfort women" than an average copypasta, and the US Army's reports from actual Japanese encampments showed that the Korean prostitutes were already experienced, were paid well, were allowed to go out on their own, were given grammophones and reading in their quarters and received free contraceptives and gynecological care.

The ram has touched the wall.

>Let's have the player actively committing scores of atrocities
Sounds like a good plan OP, what could possibly go wrong

We need women, slaves, money, and resources.

What is "roleplaying" for 100?
Hint: it isn't acting like a thin-skinned hysterical Tumblrina and assuming that the players either do only what they would do themselves or that being exposed to a violent ideology automatically makes you a death cultist.

>Sounds like a good plan OP, what could possibly go wrong
If the game have morale / moraliry / sanity system putting players in a situation where; they;re forced to use it is a solid move on DM's part.

are you a retired elder in the United Methodist church?

In ancient times a city was given two options: Surrender and pay tribute, or resist and be wiped out. Many soldiers hoped to see the later because it would mean they could pillage, enslave and rape the city especially after a long and costly siege.

>on a Japanese imageboard
>can't read moonspeak
>disguises retardation through aggression

A lot of the people here saying they'd lose all sense of nationalistic pride are discounting how a common enemy can unite people. Let's say they invaded, killed entire families and made trophies out of them, and made a show of raping and enslaving our women. Sure it violates the Geneva convention but we know the capacity is there. Then we pushed them back and now we're on their territory. It would be far too easy to flip a switch and stop seeing them as human. So let's say someone bankrolled ISIS to spite your country after some extremely hostile negotiations and they do a hit and run. Do you really think there would be any mercy if your countries soldiers encountered a village that supported them in such a situation?

Hell look at WW2. The Japs only bombed Pearl Harbor, and people practically wanked to the idea of frying Tojo with a flamethrower for ages.

>>literally dump the bodies of slain enemy forces on their besieged people (gather ALOT of dead enemy soldiers and put it in a high altitude cargo plane and then drop teh bodies of the slain foes over the besieged enemies and their people to scare them and make 'em sick)

I get you're really trying to exterminate your enemy and its people. But how exactly is gathering a ton of their fallen and dead loved ones in a plane or bomber and dropping those bodies on the besieged city/cities where the enemy's non-combatants are taking refuge in exactly productive?

Why not just plain ol' bomb the beseiged people? Whats the use of "dropping dead bodies of their slain forces" productive or efficient in any way?

>Yeah, it involves more... thraumatic methods.
I want a serious explanation of this for honestly and unironically non-fetishistic reasons.

My uneducated guess is that, because women hate men and their dominance, women would be more focused on inflicting harm and mutilation than actual pleasure

>Reee tumblr
>Muh roleplaying
Even if you have fun pretending to kill a bunch of people in cruel ways, torture em, toy with their corpses, bomb hospitals and schools, sow famine and watch civvies die in the streets, use primitive bio-warefare to make them puke out their guts and die stewing in piss shit and rotting meat in the noonday sun, most people don't.

>It's a thread about cute girls doing cute warcrimes
>Nobody has posted Youjo Senki yet

Fucking normies

A cancer anime going with a cancer thread. Very fitting.

You quickly see your morals decay once you keep seeing your companions in arms and friends dying all the time, or hearing your family has been killed of or raped by the enemy. Also, war crimes are addictive.

Mostly reverse-rape involves blocking vains on the dick with a medical harness to induce perma-erection. It's not a pleasant experience for a man in the first place and can cause long-term traumas up to gangrene.

Isnt that basically the same premise of a cock ring but taken to another level?

In ancient times it was actually just as common for there to only be one option, "don't get any funny ideas or we will raze your city-state to the ground". Often times during the early days of empire controlled territories were patchwork as fuck and power was pretty evenly distributed, rebellion started to look like it made sense if you could try it and then surrender if you fucked up. This is part of the reason some of the early Mesopotamian civilizations got the reputation of being extremely vicious, because they simply couldn't afford to let anyone get any ideas.

I recall one time a rebelling city-state had the entrances and exits blocked with earth, had the population starved half to death, and then they set it ablaze.

Do you know what a strawman is?
No one was talking about the kind of mostly-fictional war crimes that only really happen with troops barracksed in a foreign country and nothing to do.
You're the one who's so obsessed with it that you had to go from "burning fields and smashing infrastructure" to "toying with corpses".
Call a shrink.

Yes. A very dangerous painful level.

>Do you really think there would be any mercy if your countries soldiers encountered a village that supported them in such a situation?
I would expect some professionalism from my soldiers, any who can't keep their feelings in check especially when dealing with civilians has no business being a soldier

Do Iraqi soldiers cleanse villages in Iraq that have tithed their kids to fight for ISIS? No they don't and with good reason. Some militias have had a go at it, but if nothing else that just demonstrates why militias are such a dangerous idea

>Also, war crimes are addictive
Like potato chips?

youtube.com/watch?v=2NIgqS47m5k

youtube.com/watch?v=jdVLAG_ptQM

>Then we pushed them back and now we're on their territory. It would be far too easy to flip a switch and stop seeing them as human.
The thing I never got with this argument is that it implies people would be perfectly fine with abusing nonhumans. But who the fuck wants to abuse a dog or a cat? Hell even pulling the legs off of bugs seems like pointless sadism to me.

Even if you dehumanize them, why would you want to brutalize them? Why would that be joyful?

Is there a way to combine both?

>basically me when this thread

Food and sex, things that can be quite scarce in times of war. It is normal that people will do absolutely anything to get both.

>John Green

>War crimes are fictional
Lel.
>No one ever said anything you mentioned
It's in the OP you dumb cunt.
>literally dump the bodies of slain enemy forces on their besieged people (gather ALOT of dead enemy soldiers and put it in a high altitude cargo plane and then drop teh bodies of the slain foes over the besieged enemies and their people to scare them and make 'em sick)

Nobody cares about fedora tippin duck girl.

Warcrime flavored potato chips?
Poisoning potato chips and dropping the bags over starving civilian populations?
Doing the same thing as above but instead of poisoned chips they are actually stale kettle chips, the kind that's really hard and cuts up your gums and the salt stings?

Ehh, I got nothing.

Can't believe none y'all has posted the best girl who does war crimes very often already.

He does not. You are violating several commandments of your faith. Free ride to hell for you.

>Warcrime flavored potato chips?
Shut up and take my money

>It's in the OP you dumb cunt.
>literally dump the bodies of slain enemy forces on their besieged people (gather ALOT of dead enemy soldiers and put it in a high altitude cargo plane and then drop teh bodies of the slain foes over the besieged enemies and their people to scare them and make 'em sick)

Since you mentioned that, I'm also with What the hell is the purpose and point of dropping that many dead bodies on people? Asides from intimidating your enemies by dumping the bodies of their fallen and comrades, what's the practical use of such a tactic instead of bombing them?

I would refuse to fight and conduct myself with that behaviour not only because I have been trained in and understand Values and Standards, such as Selfless Commitment, Courage, Integrity, Loyalty, Respect for Others, the rule of Law, Appropriate Behaviour and Total Professionalism, but also because not only would killing and mistreating my enemies disturb me on a personal level, it would make fighting far more dangerous both for myself and more importantly for the men under my command. I would also not destroy or loot the enemy's cultural aspects as I have respect for historiography and quite frankly would rather die myself than for many historical sites or records to be destroyed. The same goes for culture, history and heritage, memorials, cemeteries, etc.

Oh yeah, definitely. Fuck them. Gas and nuke them all.

Spicy anthrax flavour pringles?
Salt and bubonic plague kettle chips?
walkers sarin and vinegar?
Chocolate covered ricin puffs?

This. For most of human history, at least up until the rise of Christian Humanism in the Victorian period, peace was seen as the anomaly, the state which was actively enforced.

There is a complete difference between nationalistic pride and being a barbarian.

youtube.com/watch?v=zYlLTtS-tfQ

Causes disease and taints the area
Breaks the enemy's spirit and morale

Plus it's funny as fuck. Much funnier than bombing them, you could even get a best hits compilation of bodyparts falling on people.