• FactCheckerOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        I saw multiple pro-PLA people calling it a “present for Christmas for the West”

  • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    That’s just my AliExpress order. You know how it works, you have to spend $10 to get free postage so you may as well get the whole armoury.

    • Zonetrooper
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Disclaimer, not a lawyer, etc…

      In abstract, no. “Sailing under false colors” is considered a legally permissible act of deception under the laws of war, so long as the vessel clearly identifies itself as a military vessel belonging to its proper nation of origin prior to opening fire.

      In practice, obviously this is a bit of the law that doesn’t have a clear answer in modern, beyond-line-of-sight warfare. It worked reasonably through World War 2 (where, indeed, several nations used disguised warships for various purposes - my favorite being the time the British disguised an explosives-laden destroyer as a German warship, then rammed it into a drydock). But what would that look like in a modern scenario? Lifting a flag, even if no one can see it? A radio broadcast?

      There’s also the reverse side of it: That, if a nation is using warships disguised as civilian vessels, anyone fighting them would have wider defensible grounds to more aggressively engage any suspicious or uncertain vessels. This would, undoubtedly, eventually cause civilian casualties - but such is the risk (and sometimes, intent) of using a civilian disguise.

      • T00l_shed
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Fair points. That does sound reasonable, but it certainly would cause more issues