• archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    Pretty sure their military uses electricity and water, too, so that means their electrical grid and water supply are fair game, right?

    If they’re shared by civilian infrastructure then they’re probably using it as a shield, so that means it’s OK to hit them anyway

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      I don’t know. Has targeting those types of infrastructure historically been categorized as a war crime?

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        No, dual-use facilities are generally regarded as legitimate targets so long as civilian workers are not explicitly targeted in the way one might target enemy personnel.

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        The point is that the law is difficult to administer clearly because ‘dual-use’ is too vague. Russia’s been hitting electrical facilities all across Ukraine for over a year, and they’ve been saying they’re all legal military targets, even if they’re serving a major city (including hospitals, critical civilian services, ect). The more hawkish crowd here is pretty selective when classifying war crimes depending on the parties involved, and even the UNSC is unable to make clear rulings (they don’t have any teeth, anyway), especially when they involve an American-backed ally.

        Israel has been hitting schools, Mosques, orphanages, ect, and they’ve thus far gotten away with it by arguing they were being used by Hamas. I wouldn’t put much stock in what’s being said is ‘fair-play’ or not. It’s all questionable and it’s all an escalation that nobody really wants.