It is essential to understand that the precaution rules are subject to operational realities. For instance, using a particular platform e. Or striking a different target to achieve the desired effect, but the attack on which risks less harm to civilians, may not be feasible because of significantly increased risk to the forces used to attack it. And many warnings will not be viable when attacking individuals because they would be alerted and might seize the opportunity to enhance their defenses, take shelter, or flee.
That said, precautions in attack rules require attackers to do the best they reasonably can in the attendant circumstances to limit civilian harm. This could involve, for instance, tasking a drone in advance of the attack to monitor a potential target for the presence of civilians in and around that target; tasking a second drone to scan-out and look for transients at the time of attack while the primary drone focuses on precise weapons delivery; and selecting a weapon with less blast effect where the integrity of civilian structures in vicinity of the target area is at particular risk.
Once the precautions assessment has been conducted, an attacker must evaluate proportionality. Importantly, it is the expected collateral damage and the anticipated military advantage that drive proportionality analysis.
Thus, proportionality determinations are made ex ante , not post factum. In practice, this is a highly subjective determination because it compares dissimilar values — collateral damage and military advantage — that are themselves hard to measure. As a result, while still important, the more protective rule on the battlefield is that requiring precautions.
Compliance with these rules by those conducting attacks is operationalized through guidance imposed by higher echelons of command, processes designed to assess the likelihood of collateral damage and identify ways to avoid causing it, and technologies that offer the attacker precision, greater clarity in the battlespace, and redundant capabilities. We turn to these next. ROE are more restrictive than LOAC, for they also incorporate policy and operational constraints and are usually tailored to the specific battlefield environment in which they apply.
The rules can restrict such matters as acceptable targets, the geographic range of operations, time of operations, and the use of particular munitions. ROE also sometimes reinforce LOAC provisions that might be of particular significance in certain combat environments, such as the prohibitions on the destruction of religious and cultural property when being applied in situations of internecine conflict.
In many circumstances, they tighten them, as in the case of restricting operations against religious facilities being illegitimately used by the adversary to self-defense scenarios only.
Depending on the nation, operation, and composition of a coalition, limits, and restrictions designed to protect the civilian population may appear in other forms of guidance. For instance, a Targeting Directive might contain granular guidance regarding attacks that require the use of multiple weapons to achieve the desired effects.
This might be so, for instance, when a close grouping of buildings comprises the object of attack. In such cases, the guidance, in whatever form it might take, would likely require the interval time between each munition striking its desired point of impact DPI to be limited to not more than a few seconds.
The rationale for such a stipulation would be to avoid the risk of civilians rushing to the initial blast site, only to fall victim to a subsequent attack on the same or a nearby objective. The Directive also restricted when and how ISAF forces could enter civilian houses and prohibited the use of force against religious sites such as mosques, except in self-defense. No-strike and restricted target lists also contribute to the avoidance of civilian harm.
They typically include, for example, medical, non-governmental, educational, diplomatic, cultural, religious, and historical entities. It is important to emphasize that they are tailored to the operation and the area in which it is occurring.
For instance, an NSL might include a factory, a strike on which would risk environmental or health hazards because of the possible release of chemicals. No-strike entities are identified, analyzed, verified, cataloged, and disseminated through a formal no-strike process to ensure U.
Only in exceptional and very narrowly defined circumstances, such as a need to defend oneself or friendly forces who in an on-going engagement involving the entity, may the NSL be overridden. They differ from no-strike lists in the sense that restricted targets are valid military objectives, but restrictions are placed on attacking them for various reasons, as in restricting damage to a bridge that needs to be crossed by friendly forces later in the conflict.
Such restrictions can also be driven by a desire to avoid collateral damage that is not prohibited by LOAC rules in the attendant circumstances. For instance, attacks on specified restricted targets might be limited to nighttime, when civilians are less likely to be in the area, or the RTL may mandate the use of particular weapons, like precision-guided munitions, when the targets in question are located in population centers — even in situations where the restriction will negatively affect the military advantage likely to be gained by attacking the target.
An RTL will set forth any restrictions on effects caused for example, a prohibition on the total destruction of civilian airfields used by the enemy , the rationale for restrictions, and the approval authority for engaging the target or causing any specified effects such as incapacitation or destruction. Developed by the U. If collateral concerns are present, progressively more demanding mitigation techniques are used to remove such concerns.
Shielding and aim-point offset are further techniques that can remove the risk of harm. Suppose collateral concerns within the CER still exist after mitigation techniques have been exhausted. In that case, CDEM provides a numeric estimate of the number of civilians who may be injured or killed if the attack goes forward.
This estimate will then be used to determine if the attack can proceed under any circumstances at all e. Historically, the primary decision aid for determining who may approve a strike has been the noncombatant and civilian casualty cutoff value NCV that is set forth in the applicable ROE. Seventy people from Chalong joined the fight against Lon Nol after the bombing.
At least twenty people died. In March l, the U. Around Phnom Penh alone, 3, civilians were killed in three weeks. The bombardment intensified to 3, tons per day. Embassy, William Harben. A nearby village was annihilated; a single family survived. In , the Khmer Rouge were able to continue recruiting many peasants by highlighting the damage done by U. This approach has resulted in the successful recruitment of a number of young men… Residents … say that the propaganda campaign has been effective with refugees and in areas… which have been subject to B strikes.
They killed 50 villagers and wounded thirty. Journalist Bruce Palling asked a Khmer Rouge officer if his forces had made use of the bombing for anti-U. Chhit Do : Oh yes, they did. Every time after there had been bombing, they would take the people to see the craters, to see how big and deep the craters were, to see how the earth had been gouged out and scorched…. The ordinary people … sometimes literally shit in their pants when the big bombs and shells came… Their minds just froze up and they would wander around mute for three or four days.
Terrified and half-crazy, the people were ready to believe what they were told… That was what made it so easy for the Khmer Rouge to win the people over… It was because of their dissatisfaction with the bombing that they kept on cooperating with the Khmer Rouge, joining up with the Khmer Rouge, sending their children off to go with them …. On 3 August , U. The U. More like this. Watch options. Storyline Edit. Firefighter Gordon Brewer is plunged into the complex and dangerous world of international terrorism after he loses his wife and child in a bombing credited to Claudio "The Wolf" Perrini.
Frustrated with the official investigation and haunted by the thought that the man responsible for murdering his family might never be brought to justice, Brewer takes matters into his own hands and tracks his quarry ultimately to Colombia. The Act Itself Wasn't Personal Rated R for violence and some language. Did you know Edit. But after the September 11, terrorist attack, the scene where Vergara would hijack a plane was scratched from the movie. Moreover, scenes which might be considered unpatriotic have been excluded.
User reviews Review. Top review. Surprising, in more ways than one. I chose to rent this movie for a simple reason: I was in the mood for something nice and stupid - a no-brainer action flick starring Arnie would perfectly fit that mood. What I got was something else. The story: Firefighter loses family in terrorist attack, goes on revenge mission to Columbia to find and kill terrorist.
Sounds pretty dumb to me - and, let's face it, a lot of aspects of the movie are incredibly dumb. Mostly those parts of the movie concerned with Arnie getting to Columbia, travelling through Columbia and getting into the rebel camp But, and here's the catch, some are not. What starts out a simple movie with linear plot evolves slowly. After the rage comes a period of reflection.
There are twists and turns in the plot, and the first half is full of time-filling minutes spent getting to know yet-another-comedic sidekick, who will disappear entirely from the movie within minutes couldn't they have stuck with one sidekick? Or not bothered at all? Well, this being an action movie, the smart bits can last only so long, and then it all goes to pieces in a desperate attempt to have a traditional climactic good vs bad battle.
So the end is a big let-down. Still, the movie IS entertaining apart from a few minutes of boredom and confusion in the Columbia part and, surprisingly, well-acted. Arnie is no character actor, and the mess he made of End of Days was embarrassing. Sixth Day brought some more flexing of acting muscles, and I actually liked his performance in that movie.
Collateral Damage takes all he learnt and puts it to the test.
0コメント