Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AutoModerator t1_iub3diu wrote

Welcome to the Prompt! All top-level comments must be a story or poem. Reply here for other comments.

Reminders:

>* Stories at least 100 words. Poems, 30 but include "[Poem]" >* Responses don't have to fulfill every detail >* See Reality Fiction and Simple Prompts for stricter titles >* Be civil in any feedback and follow the rules

🆕 New Here? ✏ Writing Help? 📢 News 💬 Discord

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

sennordelasmoscas t1_iub6zv5 wrote

UN: Tht counts as a biohazard

37

brainthinkin t1_iub8vps wrote

The werewolves don’t turn anyone and they’re all registered spec-ops so…

16

KevMenc1998 t1_iubidtl wrote

Aren't there rules about indiscriminate weapons like mines or carpet bombing? Werewolves, in their transformed state, are mentally unable to be discriminate or differentiate between valid military targets and non-combatants.

24

Specific_Tank715 t1_iucm4hg wrote

Depends on the werewolves, some are human wolf hybrids other are just wolves, some remain sane, others are indiscriminate monsters and some are just wolves, some can transform whenever whilst only do on the full moon.

12

sennordelasmoscas t1_iub9c3v wrote

UN: Alright smart guy, we'll let you off the hook this time, but just so you know, we're adding that

12

EllipsisMark t1_iubps1z wrote

Okay, so, the geneva convention is actually the geneva conventions(plural) and it's really wordy and spread across like 12 documents, but I'm pretty sure the wounds caused by werewolf fangs and claws would be considered a violation. Additionally, if the werewolf curse spreads that's definitely a violation and if they spread any other disease that's definitely a violation.

24

SufficientThroat5781 t1_iubx8j4 wrote

Your completely right, I just got to ask first, do they use dogs in war ? If they do then I think claws and fangs might be negated, just might be. Cause if they count as weapons then yeah, stabbing weapons that inflicts more pain then death, so it is a violation

9

EllipsisMark t1_iuc1dyn wrote

I think there might be a distinction between using dogs to search and capture and just letting them maul a limb of. Like my great grandpa use to always say "If the cops do it, then it's probably a war crime."

7

starship777 t1_iubejur wrote

Article 8: Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

Transforming into a wolf would give your body the biological age of an adult wolf. Wolves are adults at 2 years old.

13

AtheistBibleScholar t1_iubfvst wrote

Yeah, but they weren't recruited when they were under 15, so their age-regression during the transformation shouldn't count. Otherwise we're on a slippery slope where our plan to recruit the elderly and de-age them down to teenagers runs afoul of this!

Uh...I need to make some phone calls real quick.

9

Bevroren t1_iudoqr9 wrote

Sorry, John Scalzi beat you to it with Old Man's War. (Good series, btw if you are a fan of sci-fi)

1

DiscordAccordion t1_iubrw8f wrote

Werewolves also don't classically turn into pure wolves. It's much more common to see massive (bigger than people), pseudo-anthromorphic beasts that can go upright.

2

Andrevus2 t1_iud29nl wrote

This prompt sounds like a Love, Death and Robots episode.

3

Isares t1_iuczlzz wrote

This could be an interesting question. Not werewolves per se, but the use of animal species to decimate local ecosystems, or as a defensive measure against invasions. I'm curious if it would skirt the definitions of biological warfare by just the tiniest bit.

Stuff like locusts to decimate a crop harvest would probably fall under biowarfare (but would be absolutely devastating to morale), but what about releasing lionfish or stonefish as a defense against amphibious landings, or releasing carp into a river to harass supply chains?

1

GayWritingAlt t1_iue42jh wrote

Shouldn’t it be the international court at The Hague, instead of the UN?

1