[EVA] Re: JSDF- good or bad? Life and death

Gareth Ortiz gao203 at is7.nyu.edu
Wed May 13 07:37:57 EDT 1998

I'm not quoting anyone because this is just a general response.  For 
starters, I strongly recommend looking at the UN Charter, the Hague and 
Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Charter, and the laws of armed conflict.
Yes, there are international "rules" to warfare, I promise.  (And I am
well aware of the fact that they are broken with relative impunity all the
time by many countries including the U.S.)  However, these are accepted as
the moral and legal restrictions which are placed upon soldiers and
nations involved in warfare.

Are these relevant in post-Second Impact 2015?  Maybe not, but who is
judging who here?  We are judging the fictional attack in 2015, and we ARE
bound by these moral and legal restrictions.  If we are to pass judgement,
we must do it by our own standards.

A few relevant passages:

Hague Convention with respect to the laws and customs of war on land

Article XXIII

Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially

b. To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile
nation or army;

c. To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no
longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

e. To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause 
unnecessary suffering;

Article XXV

The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings
which are not defended, is prohibited.

Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a
superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law,
provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. 

Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a 
crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under
international law. 

It should also be noted that one of the orders was to kill the "Children"
on sight.  An order to execute a specific individual, regardless of
whether or not the individual offers resistance, is an order for 
assassination.  It is technically murder under international law.  It is
an illegal order.

The fact is, the people who gave these orders are war criminals as are the
soldiers who followed them, and the other soldiers who did nothing to stop
them.  That is technically complicity in a war crime.

Ok, so if we can judge the JSDF to be war criminals according to modern
international law, and if we can saw that the law applies because we are
bound by it and we are the ones who are attempting to judge, then there's
only one thing left to deal with...

You can say that the JSDF was justified in committing these war crimes
because they were under the impression that Nerv was planning to start the
Third Impact.  They were given information that suggested that their
opponent had the means and the will to commit genocide.  So, it's fairly
reasonable to say that they should have taken whatever means necessary to
preserve our species, right?


All you have to do is ask yourself one single question:
If we have to give up so much of our humanity, if we have to murder 
children, burn women, and violate our morals and conscience in order to
preserve our species, then, are we really worth saving anymore?



More information about the oldeva mailing list