[georgemcbay]

> Until it is clear that the use of AI in "actually fighting wars" doesn't put senior military people at risk of never being able to leave their own country again for fear of prosecution for war crimes

I don't believe that's a real concern that the senior military people have anymore. War crimes are legal in 2026. That ship has sailed (and was double tap struck by the US Navy). Nobody is doing anything about it.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

War crimes are unlikely to be prosecuted within the USA. On this we agree.

Which is why I specifically mentioned the risk of not being able to leave the country, because I'd be willing to wager a bit more than international prosecutions for war crimes are significantly more likely, and would be occuring in a world that is growing noticeably more "America needs to be taught a lesson" in spirit.

[megous]

Primarily, countries should prosecute their own criminals. That's the whole sovereignty thing. If you don't, and these are international criminals, your country as a whole is what we call a state supporter of terrorism, or some such, if those international crimes have political goals and are directed against other countries and their people as a whole (and don't fit the high bar of self-defense). If the crimes are done by those in power, it's just state terrorism.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Actually, we call them "war crimes" and have done since at least WWII.

[megous]

I'll rephrase my previous post for you, to make it clearer:

Lack of prosecution of high-level war criminals makes your country a state supporter of terrorism. (the claim in the post)

Because that's what US war criminal leaders do. They terrorize entire nation by threatening population's survival via destruction of all their power plants, which I assume includes nuclear fallout from their nuclear power plant.

[edgyquant]

War crimes have never been anything more than a way the west can punish its enemies. It’s hilarious people think this norm continuing is some refutation of the system as designed.

[mullingitover]

> War crimes have never been anything more than a way the west can punish its enemies.

They're the way winners can punish their enemies.

If Germany and Japan had won WWII, US/British/Russian military and political leaders absolutely would've been on trial.

At the same time, agreements between peer countries to follow basic rules have generally held. Note that neither side in the current conflict is using dirty bombs, or dropping nerve gas or bioweapons on civilians, etc.

[georgemcbay]

> War crimes have never been anything more than a way the west can punish its enemies

That's a fair point, the major change isn't that we suddenly started committing war crimes, it is that we've dropped all pretenses of trying to justify why what we did isn't one.

[roenxi]

Isn't that an improvement? It seems better to have people who are honest about what they're doing, even when committing war crimes. At least then people can have an honest conversation about whether the policy is working.

One of the most frustrating things about wars is people adopt policies that don't advance their objectives and then lie about what they're doing, what happened and why. This sets up an environment where militarys do things that aren't even in their own interests, let alone anyone else's, and the public discourse is busy arguing about some wild imaginary scenario that isn't related. Better to have people focused on the real world and accurately understanding both (1) what the policy was and (2) what the outcome of the policy was.

[michaelt]

If I admit to killing someone in court, because I regret it, I acknowledge I have a debt to society I need to pay, and honesty is the first step on my route towards eventual reform - that's an improvement.

If I admit to killing someone because I want everyone to know I'm a tough, viscous killer and they'd better not piss me off or they'll be next - that's not an improvement.

[fc417fc802]

You'd rather a vicious killer who pretended to be harmless and actively tried to fool you?

As to the behavior itself, I imagine the merits are heavily dependent on context. International politics depends to some extent on demonstrating a willingness and ability to engage in violence. That's not the whole story but it's definitely part of it.

[georgemcbay]

> Isn't that an improvement?

Not really, IMO. Their goal isn't honesty and transparency, they just DGAF to hide it because they correctly realize there won't be any personal consequences for their actions.

They are still lying about most everything else - why the war was started, suppressing the amount of causalities, etc.