[ibejoeb]

>These people should always wear military uniform and live in a separate neighborhood

That is on the table, yes. Otherwise, while they mingle with civilians, it's clear that the civilians are in danger. If I'm one of them, and I'm intent on persuing this action, moving to military quarters is going to come to mind.

Imagine one of those pagers, hip height, at a shop queue or bus stop. Or you're on a bike in traffic next to one of them.

Everything about this sucks. It absolutely is indiscriminate. It's different than droning a guy at his house and accepting his wife as collateral damange. This is 3,000+ maiming explosive devices scattered all about with no way of mitigating the collateral damange.

[harimau777]

I definitely agree that it's a problem that fighters are dispersed among the civilian population. However, requiring them to wear uniforms and live on a base seems like it would make it impossible for a smaller force or an insurgency to stand up to a more powerful enemy that is able to wipe out any obvious military target at will.

What's the alternative that doesn't give powerful nations more or less absolute power to push around weaker nations or people?

[ibejoeb]

I don't think anyone, especially civilians, love the idea of militants hiding among the population. I don't know why they must in order to stand up to a more powerful adversary. Regardless, this isn't some kind of rule. It's more of a consideration for that individual, like "should I be hanging out at home with my family while I'm engaged in a dirty war with an adversary that is willing to strike my family to get me?"

1. It's really rather common for active duty military to segregate themselves in combat zones. One of the reasons is that there is mutual benefit in reducing the exposure of civilians.

2. There is no alternative to a powerful entity getting its way. We have the word power simply to describe that capability. It's not an annointed status.

[harimau777]

Guerrilla warfare has been a reliable way for a less powerful entity to resist a more powerful one. However, it often requires the less powerful entity to hide within the general population; which results in the problem that we are seeing here.

[echoangle]

Being reliable doesn’t mean it isn’t a war crime. If you hide among the general population, you might be committing war crimes, even when it works.

[harimau777]

That could very well be. However, you aren't really engaging with the point I'm making. If weaker powers aren't supposed to do guerrilla warfare, then what are they supposed to do? Just letting other groups roll over them isn't a viable option.

[underlipton]

Likewise, if you target enemy personnel knowing that civilians are going to be the primary victims, you might be committing war crimes, even when it works.

[readams]

Using civilians as human shields is a war crime. You are advocating for war crimes.

[ignoramous]

"By the same token, it's totally fine for Hezbollah to raze Tel Aviv, because the IDF is based there, thus using civilians as human shields. And almost all Israelis become soldiers at age 18."

https://x.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1836331295770632514 / https://ghostarchive.org/archive/QWVJ0

[harimau777]

I'm not advocating for anything. I'm just saying that it's unrealistic to expect people to just roll over for an enemy with greater conventional warfare capability.

Hiding among the civilian population is bad, but so is a situation where powerful states can oppress others without any check.

Personally, I'm not sure what a better alternative is. Which is why I asked my question.