This doesn't mean the convention has nothing to do with it, but it's not surprising that the Geneva convention would choose to adopt the rules that everyone was already following a lot of the time.

Also note that your history indicated that "sawback" bayonets were mainly used by the German armies. Adopting a prohibition against them may have been a political move to allow retroactive condemnation of the "uncivilized" enemy army.

Causation in the real world is usually a complicated thing. Especially when politics and treaties are involved.

Does a uniform count as military equipment?

That actually makes sense.

I do not believe that "cap and trade" is a viable solution. There doesn't seem to be a single implementation around the globe that isn't a nest of loopholes.

Carbon tax could be implemented in quite a straightforwards way internally to a single country. Imports and exports would need a more complex adjustment, however, to balance things so that penalties were not unfairly assessed or bypassed.

OTOH, I'm actually more in favor of a more general "environmental degradation tax", though I can't imagine any generally acceptable way of figuring it.

Sorry, but while it adds fresh water *ICE* to the ocean, it gets added almost entirely as ice without undergoing a melt phase until it gets far north of Antarctica. So you aren't getting a lot of fresh water added to the Antarctic ocean. You're getting ice (which is, indeed, fresh water) added to the ocean. It gets a considerable distance from Antactica before it typically melts. (Except, of course, a little bit, which lubricates the flow of the glaciers.)

OTOH, if the sea ice were trapped around Antarctica, I suppose it would melt. Fresh water has a higher freezing point than salt water. But I don't believe that's what typically happens.

AGW?? I read that as "Anti-Global Warming", but it doesn't match the rest of your message. Perhaps you should spell out your abbreviations a bit more. I suppose it could also be "Anthropogenic Global Warming", but I see that phrase much less often.

When the same TLA could mean two totally opposite things, it might be a good idea to avoid it...or at least to define it in context.

unhhh.... you do know that the Arctic Ocean is essentially clear of ice during the late summer these days don't you? And that passenger ships are starting to ask for the right to route their trips through that area? (It's still not safe enough for a standard ship, because one iceberg can ruin your whole day...but it's getting there.)

Sorry, the *sea ice* volume is probably much higher. You can't as easily measure that from a satellite, but it's what is to be expected. What's happening is the glaciers that were on the Antarctica land mass are moving out into the ocean and floating. This increases the area of sea ice coverage and decreases the amount of ice on land. But sea ice melts as it moves around, so it keeps disappearing as it moves towards the equator.

P.S.: Another way of saying the same story is "Antarctica has been spawning icebergs faster than the bergs have been melting".

The laws of war generally oppose weapons intentionally intended to maim rather than kill. Mostly dates to popular revulsion around the WW1 era over weapons designed to inflict nonlethal but gruesome casualties to hobble the other side by flooding their hospitals and supply chains. As a result, countries agreed to a ban on various chemical weapons, expanding bullets, weapons designed to blind people, etc.

"We might stop worshiping veterans and start questioning if all the wars we're in are necessary "
1. It is respecting veterans. They do not decide which wars are just and which are not the voters and elected officials do.

Maybe but isn't a great thing that we have a peace loving president in the Whitehouse.....

I can shoot you in the head and kill you but I can not just intentionally blind you?

Actually it seems like a simple enough technical problem. When you go to fire the first burst is a range finder burst and then you set the power for the range. Of course this would all be done by the weapon and not the user.

"ad hominem" is not always a logical fallacy if the person expressing the opinion is some how has value added to because of position or expertise and is applicable when issues involving morality or ethics.
Musician that posts material that is offensive to a large segment of the population complains about the , tastefulness, morality and or ethics of getting a free album from popular band. That does seem to fit a valid use for an ad hominem based reply.
 

What negative social actions has U2 done?
It would be more like what if George Strait album showed up on my phone. A musical act that I do not really like but has done nothing extremely annoying or offensive.
I would just delete it and by on my way.

Put them on YouTube, DropBox and so on.

Maybe they are still hip and cool because.
1. They still have lots of fans.
2. They still get lots of airplay.
3. All the social causes that Bono and the other members of the band are involved in like Amnesty International.

Sure they are not cool and hip like Tyler The Creator with content and actions that push for social change like Homophobia and Violence towards women but they still have some fans.