Given the rapid and increasing rise of AI use in actually fighting wars, I suspect data centers won't just be a big target, they will eventually be the #1 priority target. Taking them offline won't just be of interest in terms of economic damage, it will be a direct strategic goal toward militarily winning the conflict.
I don't believe that's a real concern that the senior military people have anymore. War crimes are legal in 2026. That ship has sailed (and was double tap struck by the US Navy). Nobody is doing anything about it.
That's a fair point, the major change isn't that we suddenly started committing war crimes, it is that we've dropped all pretenses of trying to justify why what we did isn't one.
One of the most frustrating things about wars is people adopt policies that don't advance their objectives and then lie about what they're doing, what happened and why. This sets up an environment where militarys do things that aren't even in their own interests, let alone anyone else's, and the public discourse is busy arguing about some wild imaginary scenario that isn't related. Better to have people focused on the real world and accurately understanding both (1) what the policy was and (2) what the outcome of the policy was.
If I admit to killing someone because I want everyone to know I'm a tough, viscous killer and they'd better not piss me off or they'll be next - that's not an improvement.
As to the behavior itself, I imagine the merits are heavily dependent on context. International politics depends to some extent on demonstrating a willingness and ability to engage in violence. That's not the whole story but it's definitely part of it.
Not really, IMO. Their goal isn't honesty and transparency, they just DGAF to hide it because they correctly realize there won't be any personal consequences for their actions.
They are still lying about most everything else - why the war was started, suppressing the amount of causalities, etc.
They're the way winners can punish their enemies.
If Germany and Japan had won WWII, US/British/Russian military and political leaders absolutely would've been on trial.
At the same time, agreements between peer countries to follow basic rules have generally held. Note that neither side in the current conflict is using dirty bombs, or dropping nerve gas or bioweapons on civilians, etc.
Which is why I specifically mentioned the risk of not being able to leave the country, because I'd be willing to wager a bit more than international prosecutions for war crimes are significantly more likely, and would be occuring in a world that is growing noticeably more "America needs to be taught a lesson" in spirit.
Lack of prosecution of high-level war criminals makes your country a state supporter of terrorism. (the claim in the post)
Because that's what US war criminal leaders do. They terrorize entire nation by threatening population's survival via destruction of all their power plants, which I assume includes nuclear fallout from their nuclear power plant.
President Davis The First isn't going to lift a finger to stop the ICC prosecuting former Secretary of Defense Hegseth, and, I suspect, neither would quite a few other potential future presidents.
That being said, if it has meaningful military data on it, then it is a valid target. And that would be their argument.