[BigV]

BigV, I associated placebo with noncombatants.

You disagreed; but, by associating placebo with combatants.

Apples and oranges.

Ok, you opened by talking about an apple, and I asked you, as an orange expert what it was like for those experts. We are still talking about the same one subject, right, Laws of Land Warfare.

Soldiers of most militaries are indoctrinated into believing things that will give them a perception of moral superiority to enhance their motivation and resultant combat effectiveness.

Wow, harsh. So for soldiers the Laws of Land Warfare are indoctrination.

Someone's been watching too many reality TV shows.

No need to be bitchy. You and I both know that there are such rules in real situations. How effective/sensible/respected/disregarded those rules are is a subject whose vigorous discussion extends before and beyond my lifetime.

Applying what I said about noncombatants to combatants sounds like the opposite to me.

You've made your point that you consider Laws of Land Warfare to be a placebo for non-combatants (a point with which I don't agree, still) an apple. I'm not applying it as you suggest, I'm asking for your opinion.

Yes, as I explained above, soldiers [combatants] of most militaries are indoctrinated into believing things that will give them a perception of moral superiority to enhance their motivation and resultant combat effectiveness. The same laws which enable this also provide a placebo effect for noncombatants. Two birds with one stone.

Waitaminit. You've gone to some trouble to distinguish these Laws of Land Warfare for non-combatants as apples and these Laws of Land Warfare for combatants as oranges. Now you're telling me they're the same stone? Of course they're the same stone, they're objectively the same laws, regardless if you're a combatant or not. That's exactly my point. My questions were an attempt to learn about their effect/importance/etc among a population of which I am not a member.

When the shit hits the fan, those agreements won't be worth the paper they're written on.

Sure. That puts them in exactly the same box as all the other laws we have.

Laws can be rescinded, superseded; or, suspended (simply not enforced). The leaders of most nations (incl. ours), or movements, already have the autonomous authority to do this in the interest of national security.

I am highly suspicious of the implied "legal" autonomous authority you speak of, though I don't for a minute doubt or deny that such autonomy is being exercised. *This* subject, most importantly to me, in the United States, is an important and serious matter. Of course laws by themselves are inert, and require people to enervate them. People who believe.

In the case study of one dwellar, placebo was entirely effective in diminishing the participant's reading comprehension to the point he was able to rationalize that apples and oranges are the same without suffering any of the ill affects associated with being a pumpkin head.

Apples, oranges, pumpkins, whatever. It's all fruits basket!