NationStates Jolt Archive

All international law aside, do you think it's "fair" to use snipers - that is, to use people who shoot from so far away who are so concealed that the people who are being shot at have no idea where it's coming from?

It's perfectly legal under the rules of war, as long as you're shooting people under arms.

Case in point:

I don't agree with the headline that Sgt. Place "won" the Silver Star, it's not a contest. But it's a good article anyway. IIRC, four of these kills were in rapid succession at 960 meters - four members of a mortar crew who had no idea where the shots came from.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la...l=la-news-state

Marine Sergeant Wins Silver Star for Iraq Combat
Marksman who killed 32 insurgents in the battle for Fallujah is called a hero as he receives the military's third-highest honor.

By Tony Perry, Times Staff Writer

CAMP PENDLETON — Boyish-looking and Midwestern to the core, John Ethan Place loves football games in the fall and traipsing through the woods hunting quail and deer with his dad, a retired school administrator.

Back home in Lake St. Louis, Mo., he's a regular at the nearby Baptist church.

He's also an expert at one of the most difficult aspects of warfare. He's a sniper, able to kill an enemy at 1,000 yards or more with a single shot.

On Friday, the 22-year-old sergeant received the Silver Star, the military's third-highest honor for bravery in combat.

In the battle for Fallujah, Iraq, in April 2004, Place had 32 confirmed kills, from April 11 to April 24, of insurgents who were trying to sneak into position to attack Marines from Echo Company of the 2nd Battalion, 1st Regiment.

Many of the kills came after he maneuvered amid the rubble of the Sunni Triangle city and then waited for hours in a concealed position for just the right moment to pull the trigger. It's likely none of the 32 knew Place had them in his rifle sights.

Maj. Gen. Richard F. Natonski, commander of the 1st Marine Division, said Place has earned a spot among the Marine Corps' top heroes, including the legendary sniper from Vietnam, Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock.

To the public, the sniper may be seen as a killer who strikes from ambush. But the troops of Echo Company are certain there are Marines who made it home alive solely because of Place.

"He didn't kill 32 people. He saved numerous lives by protecting our perimeter," said Sgt. Maj. William Skiles. "That's how the Marines look at it."

Natonski said the insurgents were so afraid of Place and other snipers that they pleaded with the U.S. to withdraw them while negotiations were underway. "It's hard to believe that one individual could have had such an impact on our combat operations," Natonski said.

The citation accompanying the Silver Star does not mention the figure 32, and the sniper mission is described in military-ese: "Place's keen observation skills ensured his supported rifle company maintained a lethal, long-range response to enemy attacks."

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Saville, the battalion chaplain, told Marines and civilians gathered for the award ceremony that although all life is precious "evil must be restrained sometimes by force."

The sniper school here, where Place was an honor student, has a motto taken from the Chinese: "Kill one man, terrorize a thousand." That's the role of the sniper: Keep the enemy off-balance, deny him the opportunity to rest and regroup, destroy his morale and will to continue fighting.

Looking slightly overwhelmed at the praise from Natonski and others, Place sought to deflect the compliments to his instructors at sniper school. "I just had the right training," he said.

At sniper school, Marines are put through a 10-week course in marksmanship, concealment and detection. The attrition rate is high.

Snipers and their spotters work as teams separated from the rest of the battalion. There is no time to ask for orders from higher authority before taking a shot.

"They're independent operators," Skiles said. "If they don't have the maturity, it's suicide for them. That's why the course has to be so severe: so that they can survive in combat."

During the assault on Baghdad in 2003, Place served as a radio operator.

Afterward he decided to attend sniper school. His mother, Lynn Place, an elementary school principal, said the Sunday school at the Baptist church in Wentzville, Mo., prayed for him to make the right decision.

During the Fallujah battle, she and her husband, Richard, heard only sporadically from their son. Even when he contacted the family, he offered few details.

Like.. it wasnt fair, the sniped guys didnt stood a chance.

But that's too bad, its war, the American just did is job well..

o.o

What is wrong with that?


Edit: It would have been unfair if both forces had lets say, agreed has gentlemen not to use snipers, like it would have been unfair in old pistol duels if someone cheated to win.

Like.. it wasnt fair, the sniped guys didnt stood a chance.

But that's too bad, its war, the American just did is job well..

o.o

What is wrong with that?

Well, realistically speaking, the insurgents didn't have a chance in any case. Should fighting be "fair"?

Is it "fair", for example, to use precision guided missiles against a group of people who have no means to stop the missile or the plane that fires it?

Just watch the prisoner exchange scene in the movie Stalingrad.
You'll see why we need rules, even in a fight, even in war.

If the fight is fair, you did something wrong.

Combat should be fought fairly… but there's nothing unfair about using snipers.

Well, realistically speaking, the insurgents didn't have a chance in any case. Should fighting be "fair"?

Is it "fair", for example, to use precision guided missiles against a group of people who have no means to stop the missile or the plane that fires it?


I don't think so, except we were talking about a duel (like those old knight duels, or even WW1 Fighter pilot duels, those happened too).

There are unfair reasons to go to a war, but once in it, how can something be "unfair"? What would the sniper do? Wave hello to the guys and say "hey, to make this fair, ill let you know im here, so you can shoot at me". I dont think so. Those iraquis were clean targets, they were armed soldiers. Morals and politics aside ("grin" and you know were i stand on this "grin"), they knew what they risked.

I think failing to distinguish oneself from a civilian, or kidnapping civilians and forcing them to fight for you, et. al. is 'unfair.' Other than that, it's (for the most part, with a few exceptions) fair game.

If having children detonate grenades when soldiers walk past them is fair, then I'm sure they can't complain about the unfairness of sniping ;)

Just as 'fair' that insurgents can wear civilian uniforms, hide among civilians to blow up Americans (as well as the civilians) fire upon US soldiers from "holy sites" knowing the Americans will be blamed should they shoot back, and still want to be treated like Enemy Soliders with all the rights and protections as if they were part of the country's official army.

Just as 'fair' that insurgents can wear civilian uniforms, hide among civilians to blow up Americans (as well as the civilians) fire upon US soldiers from "holy sites" knowing the Americans will be blamed should they shoot back, and still want to be treated like Enemy Soliders with all the rights and protections as if they were part of the country's official army.


Well... yes o.o


Realistically, if your country was invaded by a superior force, and you knew you could get away firing at the enemy by doing so inside a church, wouldnt you do it?

I mean, its the perfect place to shoot from!
a) The enemy wont fire back
b) The enemy will fire back, and rally people behind you.

Hell, if you think of it, the Iraqui that invented the concept of IED is a genious! those pesky things simply nulify the US tech advantage. They learnt. If you read the stories of battles between insurgents and the US, you see a patern of learning.. first they tried to attack like the chechens attacked against the russians: AK47's and RPG-7's. But that didnt worked, the Americans are far better trained, armed, and have faster air support! Those were suicide missions. So the insurgents changed tactics to the IED.

Another pivotal point was fallujah: I mean, if US soldiers were patriots, they would shoot Rumsfeld.. you gave the chance for every cold, saddistic insurgent to get away from the town before you attacked, leaving only the romantic jihadi, probably the only ones that actually were iraqui patriots, defending the city: Result: Mass overkill for the US.. and all the cold blooded killers got away, with:
a) A martydrom symbol: One more argument to prove that the US is bad, is the attack on fallujah. Hell, it would have been better to leave the place alone, or somehow bribe Kurds or shiites to go "clean" the place
b) Major weeding out of the weak: Being the weak, the decent resistance fighters. You left out the strong, the cold blooded killers, that have now upgraded their tactics: Suicide squads! I mean, a suicide is like a Tomawak, except it costs far less! Its genious!

If you think on a conflict like Iraq, you have Lebanon; The israelis tried to play the tribe vs tribe game (supporting the christian militias). That didnt worked well, but the US can try.. there arent many solutions, if any to get out of there.

Woa, that was a big rant o.o

Realistically, if your country was invaded by a superior force, and you knew you could get away firing at the enemy by doing so inside a church, wouldnt you do it?
It's been done before.
In Crete, during the Greek independance war against the Turks, a group of monks barricaded themselved in a church and blew it up when the Turks attacked.
They also used a monestary for fighting the Turks:
""The (Toplou) monastery also has a cannon from where it took its name (Toplou means “with a cannon” in Turkish). Toplou used to be a meeting place for revolutionaries and freedom fighters during the Greek Revolution (1821) and, because of that, the Turks hung 14 monks from the main gate.""

The Turks had vastly superior armement and resources, but the Greek had the spirit and support of the local population. They used hit-and-run tactics, and blended into the civiliand crowds.

So how should we call these Greeks?
- freedom fighters?
- terrorists?
- patriots?
- heros?
- martyrs?
- insurgency?
- intifada?

Realistically, if your country was invaded by a superior force, and you knew you could get away firing at the enemy by doing so inside a church, wouldnt you do it?

I mean, its the perfect place to shoot from!
a) The enemy wont fire back
b) The enemy will fire back, and rally people behind you.


The Marines operating in Fallujah realized something quickly.

Stone buildings don't burn.

The standard tactic for clearing people out of a building (after asking them to come out and letting them refuse) was to rig an 81mm mortar shell (white phosphorus) with a block of C-4, some time fuse, and a pull igniter.

Pull the igniter, toss the shell into the building, and wait.

Anyone in the room with the shell is cooked to a crisp, and everyone else in the building dies of asphyxiation from the lack of oxygen and the phosphorus fumes. Anyone who appears at a window gets shot.

Wait a bit, and the smoke clears, and you can walk in. The building is largely undamaged.

Combat is almost never fair. It's usually some guy living a normal life who's a decent person and wants to protect his country and family and friends, and he gets sent off to war because some politician thinks he needs to. Sometimes the politician is right, sometimes not, but it is most definitely not fair. People die, kill each other, endure extreme suffering, and maybe improve themselves. Families grieve, friends give their support, a nation mourns, but it's never fair for the guys down on the live risking their necks or for their families back home. The soldiers fight against each other with all they have, both usually dedicated and decent people who would probably be friends and have a drink together if it weren't for the way national, ethnic, cultural, and religious ties are used to divide us. None of it's fair, that's for damn sure.

There is no fair in combat. Anything goes, simple as that.

After the combat the survivors can worry about the legalities but in the fight? Kill first, moralize later.

The Marines operating in Fallujah realized something quickly.

Stone buildings don't burn.

The standard tactic for clearing people out of a building (after asking them to come out and letting them refuse) was to rig an 81mm mortar shell (white phosphorus) with a block of C-4, some time fuse, and a pull igniter.

Pull the igniter, toss the shell into the building, and wait.

Anyone in the room with the shell is cooked to a crisp, and everyone else in the building dies of asphyxiation from the lack of oxygen and the phosphorus fumes. Anyone who appears at a window gets shot.

Wait a bit, and the smoke clears, and you can walk in. The building is largely undamaged.


Okay, so its the perfect place to shoot if you are a jihadi bent on dying; They can still claim that the US attacked a mosque (if such technique was used against one).

Hell offcourse the marines learnt, armies are as smart as stegossaurus in peace time, but put them on a war, and they will learn!

I've heard that new techniques were being used to somehow impede IED's to be triggered (dunno how, im not a tech), but that doesnt seem to have stopped much of the attacks.

And now you have the nifty suicide bombs.. those will be hell to stop. What the US needed was good inteligence, bribe people, kill the recruiters, not the others.

You fought on Vietnam, didnt you? Realistically, if you had half the soldiers, and twice the information on who to bomb and kill, plus politicians that were 3242354 to 4653645745 times better, you would have won, wouldnt you?

Okay, so its the perfect place to shoot if you are a jihadi bent on dying; They can still claim that the US attacked a mosque (if such technique was used against one).

Hell offcourse the marines learnt, armies are as smart as stegossaurus in peace time, but put them on a war, and they will learn!

I've heard that new techniques were being used to somehow impede IED's to be triggered (dunno how, im not a tech), but that doesnt seem to have stopped much of the attacks.

And now you have the nifty suicide bombs.. those will be hell to stop. What the US needed was good inteligence, bribe people, kill the recruiters, not the others.

You fought on Vietnam, didnt you? Realistically, if you had half the soldiers, and twice the information on who to bomb and kill, plus politicians that were 3242354 to 4653645745 times better, you would have won, wouldnt you?

Currently, the insurgents in Iraq are extremely ineffective in comparison to the Viet Cong of old. We're at 1/8th the death and casualty rate for US soldiers now compared to Vietnam. And we're killing a large number of insurgents every time they actually make the mistake of engaging directly.

The IED is a method of getting around the direct confrontation thing. And since the jammers appear to work, and the wires can be spotted by someone alert, they have to resort to suicide bombers. They have to force some people.

Vietnam was lost politically - it certainly would have been possible to win on the ground - but the military strategy was being dictated by a civilian who used to work for Ford Motor Company, not by military people.

If you're in a fair fight, you didn't plan effectively
-(Some Admiral/General, I thing either Nimitz or Macarthur)

Indeed. If you spend time thinking about fighting war fairly, you have already lost.

I guess if you have an advantage, you damn well better use it.

There is no fair in combat. Anything goes, simple as that.

After the combat the survivors can worry about the legalities but in the fight? Kill first, moralize later.
Not really. Just imagine if the US troops were like medieval soldiers: they would loot, rape, kill everyone and after this is done, blow everything up and spread nuclear waste on the ground.

You can afford to fight it dirty only if...

SITUATION 1
1) you play it alone, with no allies (who might not agree)
2) you have no free/democratic population who'd be horrified and get noisy
3) you're sure to win
4) there won't be any next combat in which you might not win

SITUATION 2
1) you have already lost the major battles (example: during the Arab invasion of Spain, the Christians played it dirty while retreating to the north)
2) you are greatly outnumbered and outgunned
3) nobody might come to help you even if you play nice

Not really. Just imagine if the US troops were like medieval soldiers: they would loot, rape, kill everyone and after this is done, blow everything up and spread nuclear waste on the ground.

I was talking more about the actual fighting. If you have the time to rape and pillage you aren't fighting. And spreading nuclear waste is no use when your objective is Take and Hold.

When it gets down to an individual level where the sniper works at, it is a contest and that is how they see it. He did win his medals, had he lost he would be dead. Taking a third shot from the same position for a sniper is almost taboo, and generally considered sucide. Yep, I think he won it.

Historically speaking combat has been evolving so that you don't have to put yourself in danger inorder to engage the enemy. I mean look at tanks or ICBM's.

But as far as are snipers fair I would have to say yes! I mean what if the enemy had a sniper then it becomes a matter of who is better trained with the weapon. :sniper:

The truth of the matter is that when you meet force vs force the greater force will always dominate. Therefore if you know you are up against a stronger force you must find better ways to handle the situation. And by that I mean ways that will not envoke the force. If you use violence expect it back!

My list of "fair" and "unfair" controversial issues:

FAIR
Psychological Warfare
Sniping
Artillery
Cruise Missiles

UNFAIR
Using Human Shields
Targeting Civilians
Land Mines
Child Soldiers
Rape
Biological and Chemical Warfare (Nukes, unlike the other two, serve a semi-noble political purpose)

My list of "fair" and "unfair" controversial issues:

FAIR
Psychological Warfare
Sniping
Artillery
Cruise Missiles

It basically comes down to this; is Artillery "fair"? Its a war zone, therefore there is an "Assumption of Risk" you know you may be killed without seeing your opponent. Nobody in war really wants to go back to the days of "Stand and deliver" or anything like that.

Sniping is simply pin-point artillery, it suppresses enemy fire and blunts assaults. It can be used exceedingly surgically. Cruise Missiles fall into the artillery catagory as well.

It of course can be misused or go wrong. The sniper could possibly hit an innocent instead of a legitimate target. Such cases are extremely unfortunate.

And WL, I agree. That man did not "win" his medal for his kills. He earned that medal for his actions on duty; for saving the lives of his fellow troops. The number of men he killed is incidental, the point is he saved the lives our US soldiers through his actions.

I consider fair to be anything that does not kill needless ammounts of civilians. So, chlorine gas and napalm would be fair, unless they are released over a residential area and no military advantage was thereby gained. Also, freedom of the seas is a myth. Which ever nation has superior sea power has the right to determine which ships may sail where without being destroyed. Too many fairness restrictions ultamately undermine combat success, and it is war after all.

As a Platoon Leader in a combat engineer company, any method used to kill the enemy and protects my men is fair. It's pretty simple in my opinion.

All's fair in love and war.

No, there might be fair in a duell or a fight mano a mano, but not during war.
I was just wondering how a practising christ can consider changing from radio operator to sniper. How can he rationalise that?

No, there might be fair in a duell or a fight mano a mano, but not during war.
I was just wondering how a practising christ can consider changing from radio operator to sniper. How can he rationalise that?
He can't in a way that makes sense. By being involved with violence, the sniper acts contrary to his Christian beliefs. End of story. Rationalization is quite easy if you look at it in purely psychological terms. In this case it is merely a sub-conscious defense mechanism employed to keep this guy from having to confront the fact that he's not acting as a Christian. And to answer the original question for his thread, nothing is fair in war. There is nothing fair about being pitted against someone who would do anything to kill you. There's nothing fair about having your life taken from you by the actions of another man. Also, don't forget that there is nothing fair about having your home taken from you by a foreign force who you did not welcome.

All international law aside, do you think it's "fair" to use snipers - that is, to use people who shoot from so far away who are so concealed that the people who are being shot at have no idea where it's coming from?

It's perfectly legal under the rules of war, as long as you're shooting people under arms.

Case in point:

I don't agree with the headline that Sgt. Place "won" the Silver Star, it's not a contest. But it's a good article anyway. IIRC, four of these kills were in rapid succession at 960 meters - four members of a mortar crew who had no idea where the shots came from.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la...l=la-news-state

Marine Sergeant Wins Silver Star for Iraq Combat
Marksman who killed 32 insurgents in the battle for Fallujah is called a hero as he receives the military's third-highest honor.

By Tony Perry, Times Staff Writer

CAMP PENDLETON — Boyish-looking and Midwestern to the core, John Ethan Place loves football games in the fall and traipsing through the woods hunting quail and deer with his dad, a retired school administrator.

Back home in Lake St. Louis, Mo., he's a regular at the nearby Baptist church.

He's also an expert at one of the most difficult aspects of warfare. He's a sniper, able to kill an enemy at 1,000 yards or more with a single shot.

On Friday, the 22-year-old sergeant received the Silver Star, the military's third-highest honor for bravery in combat.

In the battle for Fallujah, Iraq, in April 2004, Place had 32 confirmed kills, from April 11 to April 24, of insurgents who were trying to sneak into position to attack Marines from Echo Company of the 2nd Battalion, 1st Regiment.

Many of the kills came after he maneuvered amid the rubble of the Sunni Triangle city and then waited for hours in a concealed position for just the right moment to pull the trigger. It's likely none of the 32 knew Place had them in his rifle sights.

Maj. Gen. Richard F. Natonski, commander of the 1st Marine Division, said Place has earned a spot among the Marine Corps' top heroes, including the legendary sniper from Vietnam, Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock.

To the public, the sniper may be seen as a killer who strikes from ambush. But the troops of Echo Company are certain there are Marines who made it home alive solely because of Place.

"He didn't kill 32 people. He saved numerous lives by protecting our perimeter," said Sgt. Maj. William Skiles. "That's how the Marines look at it."

Natonski said the insurgents were so afraid of Place and other snipers that they pleaded with the U.S. to withdraw them while negotiations were underway. "It's hard to believe that one individual could have had such an impact on our combat operations," Natonski said.

The citation accompanying the Silver Star does not mention the figure 32, and the sniper mission is described in military-ese: "Place's keen observation skills ensured his supported rifle company maintained a lethal, long-range response to enemy attacks."

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Saville, the battalion chaplain, told Marines and civilians gathered for the award ceremony that although all life is precious "evil must be restrained sometimes by force."

The sniper school here, where Place was an honor student, has a motto taken from the Chinese: "Kill one man, terrorize a thousand." That's the role of the sniper: Keep the enemy off-balance, deny him the opportunity to rest and regroup, destroy his morale and will to continue fighting.

Looking slightly overwhelmed at the praise from Natonski and others, Place sought to deflect the compliments to his instructors at sniper school. "I just had the right training," he said.

At sniper school, Marines are put through a 10-week course in marksmanship, concealment and detection. The attrition rate is high.

Snipers and their spotters work as teams separated from the rest of the battalion. There is no time to ask for orders from higher authority before taking a shot.

"They're independent operators," Skiles said. "If they don't have the maturity, it's suicide for them. That's why the course has to be so severe: so that they can survive in combat."

During the assault on Baghdad in 2003, Place served as a radio operator.

Afterward he decided to attend sniper school. His mother, Lynn Place, an elementary school principal, said the Sunday school at the Baptist church in Wentzville, Mo., prayed for him to make the right decision.

During the Fallujah battle, she and her husband, Richard, heard only sporadically from their son. Even when he contacted the family, he offered few details.

:eek:

I live in Wentzville, MO!

No quarter has been given in any combat since at least the Boer War. (Flags of truce excepted.) The whole idea of "winning the field" was replaced at the end of the Napoleonic Era.

That said, all combat since the beginning of time has been a trial of superior tactics (including logistics), numbers, or technology winning the confrontation.

Snipers improve the odds on our side. They can do likewise, but seem to prefer the suicide bomb.

Fair? Everything is fair. You're trying to kill each other... what do you expect, Queensbury Rules?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess_of_Queensberry_rules

We should try as hard as possible to not have war. But, once we are in it, then that is that. Gloves are off, the niceties are out the window. Fair is coming home alive and unharmed. Fuck the other guy.