https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/01/nobody-else-has-it-trump-confirms-mysterious-us/
Is Trump bluffing or pasturing when he says he has some kind of SuperSonic weapon? Does it cause temporary, or permanent, deafness ? would a permanent deafness weapon be legal under the Geneva code?
"Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." — 1 Samuel 16:7
AI GENERATED:
Yeah, this feels backwards at first glance, and you're not wrong to flag the moral tension. The key is that international humanitarian law is not built on a simple 'less harm = more legal' equation. It's built on how harm is inflicted, why, and whether it is avoidable. That's why the outcome can feel counterintuitive.
Here's the core distinction. A bomb that kills a hundred people is not legal because killing is fine. It is only lawful if it's used against lawful military targets, with distinction and proportionality, and if the deaths are considered an unfortunate but incidental result of attacking a legitimate military objective. The law accepts that death may occur in war, but it does not accept weapons whose primary purpose is to maim people for life. Death in combat is treated as an end-state of hostilities; permanent mutilation is treated as an enduring punishment imposed on a human being.
That's why the blindness precedent matters so much. The international community decided, explicitly, that deliberately blinding someone for life is worse than killing them in battle, legally speaking. Not morally worse in every sense, but worse in terms of what war is allowed to do to the human body. Permanent sensory destruction is seen as crossing a line into intentional cruelty, even if the person survives. Deafness would almost certainly be evaluated the same way if a weapon were designed to cause it.
There's also a practical reason. A weapon that kills is finite in its effects. A weapon that permanently disables creates lifelong suffering, dependency, and social harm that extends far beyond the battlefield and long after the war ends. International law tries—imperfectly—to limit wars from becoming systems of mass human ruin rather than clashes of armed forces. That's why reversibility matters so much. Temporary incapacitation can be lawful; permanent maiming is not.
So in plain English: yes, it can be lawful to kill enemy combatants in war, but it may be unlawful to intentionally cripple them for life, even if they would personally prefer that outcome. The law isn't asking, "What would this individual choose?" It's asking, "Is this a method of warfare that humanity has decided should never be normalized?"
You're pointing to a real moral paradox, and the law doesn't fully resolve it. It just draws a hard line where it thinks civilization collapses faster if that line is crossed.
