• hactar42@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Fun fact: Writing on munitions can be considered a violation of the Geneva Convention. Under Article 23, it is forbidden to employ weapons with any substance intended to aggravate a wound. So unless that is a completely non-toxic marker, it could fall under that.

    • Dragonstaff@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      13 hours ago

      There is some distance between “intended” and “could conceivably”. Good luck convincing the ICC that a nanoliter of ink is being used as a chemical weapon.

      • hactar42@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I mean chances of it happening are almost infinitesimal, but it is still something to consider. I was a munitions troop in the US military for 6 years and this was drilled into us. If there was anything on a bomb or missile it had to be sanded and repainted.

        • Dragonstaff@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          shrug That sounds more like your officers just didn’t want you writing on munitions. But it is something to consider.

          • hactar42@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 hours ago

            I always thought the same thing until I had to unload a plane one time because they found some corrosion on a bomb. A dumb bomb that was going on it’s way to be dropped. Of course that was back in the Bush era when the US government was a little more picky about the war crimes they committed.