this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
204 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29972 readers
2331 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

But a civilian target is not. So why not equip a civilian target with military gear?

Because it's against Geneva conventions and reduces your military's legitimacy, and opens up your civilian logistics to attacks because the enemy wouldn't have a way of knowing if a merchant ship is military or not, so you can't complain if the enemy starts bombing civilian infrastructure.

[–] TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, but the confusion with the enemy whether the target is legit or not gives you a little extra time, which can be critical. And it gives you plausible deniability. It's making war less black and white and more a massive complex confusing gray zone, especially for your enemy.

[–] tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It would make it just as confusing for you because the enemy would adopt the same method if everyone accepts it. It makes life for all people less safe. It's not necessarily a bad idea tactically but it is bound to increase the deaths of civilians.

[–] TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 hours ago

Yeah that's true. They are trying to gain the edge and it will come at the cost of many civilians, but the countries that do this hold little value to human lives.