So in the Second Gulf War conflict in Iraq where the Coalition Forces (mostly US and GB originally) were on the offensive, the coalition forces were engaged in combat but Iraq was engaged in self defense? It isn't combat if you are not on the offensive?
didn't ya hear? The loyal republican guard forces routed US forces in a major counterattack. The explosions heard at the Baghdad Airport was celebratory fire.
This is a whacky thread. I am going to go out on a limb and say that combat is armed conflict that opposing organized units engage in to achieve some kind of political or economic goal for themselves or others. I could trot out the Tennessee chart for a more detailed explanation but that would take too long. The OP can feel free to correct any misconception I have.
I think an analogy is on order. Self defense is jogging around the neighborhood (maybe with your wife or buddy) dealing with the occasional aggressive barking dog and combat is playing professional football with ten of your closest friends against the dirtiest rivals you have ever played against, who will do anything to win.
From a legal aspect there are scant comparisons.
I can't drop a bomb on the guy who ripped off my car radio or send a hit team to sweep up the dudes who slapped my neighbors around and robbed them. But I might in combat. I certainly can't shoot a fleeing attacker in the back in a SD role whereas it might be highly advisable to do that in combat. If I (truly) accidentally kill the family next door to where the bad guys were holed up that I was trying to kill I most likely will never see the inside of a court room and the military will pay a condolence payment... maybe. In a SD setting they will put me under the jail and take away everything I have. There are dozens of other examples and I see no need to go through every legal situation.
Combat is a team sport.
While often times I was in a very small unit I was never once completely alone without any help. In SD you very likely will be alone as an attacker is looking for an easy target. I almost certainly won't have guys I have trained with for weeks/ months/ years, whose capabilities and shortcomings I understand well, whom I can communicate with easily and who understand what I am doing and I understand what they are doing around to help me. In SD if someone else is there and ready and able to help it is more a case of chance and circumstance and blind luck.
A true self defense situation means that most likely you can not pick the time, place and circumstances of the confrontation. A major point in combat is to either maintain or gain the initiative and bring as many of those factors on your side as possible before you make contact. Planning and detailed planning indicate something other than a SD type situation.
The goals are often times different. In combat there is little question that your attacker is trying to kill you to eliminate you from the face of the earth for whatever reason. In a SD role the goal could be rape, robbery, mischief or some other form of mayhem. The ambiguous nature and the uncertainty of intentions in SD often makes for a confused response.
I am just scratching the surface here. Read my analogy again. It is as close as I can come to making one well understood.
JDAMs are designed to kill? Not hardly.
LOL. I guess he should have said the 500 pound bomb attached to it. It is for whatever purpose put to it.
Too extreme? Short of handcuffing the guy and bringing him back to your basement for tortue, I don't think theres much that a 'highly trained' person can be accused with. Unless of course you're an Army Ranger named Nicholas Cage who is attacked by guys outside of a bar 