Brief History
The Verona Convention is the largest, most significant international law. It was written in Verona, Los, from the 15th of April 1945 to 20th of May 1947 by Conish, Lasa, Baaish, Takish, and Azkhar politicians, and was first implemented in Communist Con, Baaland, Kingdom of Los, all of the members of the Lasa Union at the time (Azkharia, Anti Los and Camania). Ever since then, it was slowly implemented in every nation's military, until in the 8th of July, 1988, Meteorite implemented it too, making the Verona Convention the first, and so far only Truly international Law.
Article 17
Long story short, it's the Article that describes how civilians are involved, and it has barely changed for over the 78 years it has been existed, until now.
2025 Rewrite
It is only against convention laws, if civilians are targeted
For example, if a blast furnace used to make Titanium is struck out, the civilians casualties from the workers do not count as directly killing civilians (There will be repercussions for the sloppy usage of weaponary, though not as heavy as bombing a suburban area), but if a suburban residential area is struck, that does count.
There are also civilians inhabiting military weaponary (inhabitants of the HACs, AWA mother ship, and people living in the base of the Babylonian railguns), and taking out the weaponary is still acceptable, even if it could lead to the death of civilians (maybe except for the Babylonian Railguns, as you could just destroy the cannon).
And civilian casualties as a complete byproduct (for example, civilians dying during a landing ship operation) are a mostly fifty fifty split between the attacker, and the defender (exceptions will be made if needed)
Attacker: your strategies were not precise and your command wasn't concentrated enough to avoid civilian deaths.
Defender: Your evacuation policies are inadequate and it lead to civilian deaths.
@BOSSentinel
@MetallicBeef6572
This is mostly a counter to "Haha I have civilian you can't attack, or the @JSTQ "using civilians as a meat shield"
@SPWithLizzie @BOSSentinel First, I want to confirm the event—Bos, because 444 did not follow his instructions within the specified time, carried out the strike as threatened using a private company's vessel carrying a large number of civilians. However, the intensity of the strike was too extreme, or the action itself was too radical, which provoked dissatisfaction from others. The situation even escalated to the point of threatening to blow up the vessel, and then it fell into the dilemma of how to define this vessel. Is that correct?
@JSTQ
Sure come on in
@BOSSentinel
If you have a gun, you're not a paramilitary force
If you use a railggun to blow up a country's military bases while claiming to be civilian, you are a paramilitary force
I can't directly @ you, since you have blocked me once again, but BOS, I want to mention your argument: "if a civilian has a gun, does that make them a paramilitary force?"
The answer is no, however, does that citizen kill somebody with said firearm or discharge it, harming somebody, or do they purchase the firearm specifically for harming people?
It isn't as black and white as you make it out to be, but sure, the Bismarck would be a passenger liner if a few civilians were onboard
Also, what happened to you leaving duo? Same thing as what happened to you getting rid of your taglist and then bringing it back a few days later?
@JSTQ I agree, you can join.
@JSTQ By all means my observant ahh bystander
@SPWithLizzie @MetallicBeef6572 @BOSSentinel Sorry, but regarding the "paramilitary organization," I have some thoughts, so I would like to request permission to join the discussion. If anyone disagrees, I will withdraw.
@MetallicBeef6572 Mk. You don’t know the lore mate!
I said, if Avgeek doesn’t accept the new terms, the post I made will be cannon.
@BOSSentinel
@SPWithLizzie
uhhh, dont different countries have different standards? What may be a paramilitary force to one country could be a mercenary group or a criminal organization or in this case, somehow, the group in question is an alleged humanitarian organization which has just leveled entire regions of a country with a "civilian vehicle" because they refused to adhere to demands made by said organization after said country bombed civilians. In other words, this situation makes absolutely no sense without context😭🙏
@SPWithLizzie mine is classified as a civilian vehicle.
So, if you say “Oh but it has weapons”
If you owned a gun for self defense, are You a paramilitary force?
@BOSSentinel
But I can go off of what makes the most sense
The closest thing I have to the AWA Mother ship are the HACs
The HAC-1B is outta the question as it's actually owned by the RLAF, and its only inhabitants are the maintenance and crew
But the HAC-1A on the other hand
It's owned by a private company (Fusion Corp)
It has mostly civilian inhabitants
It's very well armed (mostly for defence, the HAC-1B has the offensive weaponary)
And that's classified as a paramilitary force under most conventions, as it's an armed force unaffected by the government mostly consisting of willing civilians
And the Ishkik war convention states that paramilitary forces aren't allowed to be killed/destroyed, only disarmed
@SPWithLizzie you can’t decide what it is.
@SPWithLizzie no.
@BOSSentinel
Fine
But as long as civilians are on that
The mother ship's a paramilitary force
@SPWithLizzie it’s under construction.
@BOSSentinel
You guys have f♥king moon base go use that
A-also you used the ship to attack
And you get mad when we kinda rightfully try to blast it out
Those Railguns in the sip are not defensive
Like the weapons in the HAC-1A for example
They're pretty defensive ig
But if it went on an offenssive strike, it would be shot down
Or would it?
Maybe it could classify as paramilitary (police force, civilians with guns typa stuff)
Where the main response would be to disable/dearm, not kill
So it's make more sense for me to destroy the weapons instead of the whole ships
Military: Kill
Paramilitary: Disarm
Civilian: ignore/protect
@SPWithLizzie
@BOSSentinel
Uhhh... What did I miss?
@SPWithLizzie BECAUSE THE SHIP IS OUR LIFELINE!
@BOSSentinel
???
@SPWithLizzie I have never once used that.
@SPWithLizzie also so this just gets rid of me?
I will not agree, since I again, am not on duo.
Plus, you and con are the most advanced on duo. Yet not in the universe.
@MetallicBeef6572
kinda
It's the 50/50 situation
And this only talks about lives
Buildings/infrastructure are on Article 16
Soooo collateral damage is acceptable now, as long as its not intentional.