Mike said:
"Ken, use of civilian shields is only part of the picture when it comes to concealment warfare. What the legal research is attempting is important in this regard, I think, precisely because of some of the political points that have been made, and because many of the issues they have engendered have been poorly understood, poorly defined, and poorly operationalized."
All true -- but does not negate my point that there are three disparate things being discussed.
"The reason any of these, which have ample historical precedent, are being revisited now is precisely because: 1) politics has kicked crap out of what's meant by law in/of war; and 2) the shape and conduct of war today is entirely different from what it was when the LOAC were originally designed."
Even more true -- and, again, no contradiction to what I said. The first effect you mention in that quote is very much true and the driver of this sub thread. I realize 'politics' are an ever changing game and the trend is to leftist elements and I further understand that all politics are the art of the possible. The intent of many and of much of that ditzy maeuvering is to eventually outlaw war. I could approve of that with no qualms -- I can also doubt it will happen in any of your lifetimes. In the interim, if war is outlawed, only outlaws will start wars but not only outlaws will be involved in them.

I believe that comment merits some deep thought on the part of the anti-war types...

R.A. said:
"And a war were Ken served.

""But the AP found in researching declassified Army documents that U.S. commanders also issued standing orders to shoot civilians along the warfront to guard against North Korean soldiers disguised in the white clothes of Korean peasants.""

Were the North Koreans moral or immoral: justified or unjustified?"
All war is immoral; period, end of sentence. Everything everyone does in war is thus immoral and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

While they're all immoral, some are necessary. The degree of validity or necessity can vary depending upon viewpoint. Korea was obviously deemed necessary by most of the players at one time or another for one reason or another.

Neither you nor I are in any position to make judgments on the North Korean decision -- we aren't Koreans and our mores are quite different. I've been there four times over a 25 year period and I cannot judge them; the culture is too different.

I will, however, note that I said ""I know of no western nation or armed force that allows, much less espouses the use of civilians as shields. If anyone here knows of one that does, I'd like to hear about it -- and I am NOT talking about aberrations where some Commander locally gets or got stupid.""(emphasis added /kw) Having fired into crowds of refugees wherein there were NK troops in 1950 (didn't occur later in the war), I was well aware of that -- and they are far from alone in doing things like that, the Chinese and others have as well. That's why I asked if anyone could identify any western nation who had done that sort of thing -- so your attempt at diversion or obfuscation sorta falls flat...

Good try, though