… between the US and say, China, what would happen to US air travellers on the way to the opposing country? Assume we’re in a plane and have passed the “point of no return”.
Would we be allowed to land and sent back home or would we become POW’s? Would we be shot down?
I already know that one of your answers will be that diplomatic relations would have deteriorated long before and all civilian air travel would have been grounded anyway, but what if it came as a complete surprise?
The reason I posted this here and not in GD, is so that we can “attack” this question from many different aspects. Admittedly, this has the properties of a multi-faceted discussion which I will enjoy reading as y’all ponder the possibilities. However, if the mods see it as being better discussed under another forum, please move it.
Flight 669 (or whatever) is en route to China when war is declared. Using your situation in which air travel had continued, the pilot, after receiving word via the radio, lands in a neutral country, or the country of one of the US’ allies. If Japan is neutral or friendly, then I would think that the plane would land there. Of course, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Most likely the flights would be diverted to a friendly or neutral country (like Taiwan). US citizens already in China may be detained as “guests” or sent home at China’s discretion.
I don’t really see any other directions to “attack” this problem from.
Also keep in mind the only type of war that would be a complete surprise is a nuclear war. In that case, it really wouldn’t matter where the plane lands.
My own WAG would be that if we have passed that “point of no return” we would be forced to land by an Chinese fighter. (Actually, first they’d radio up to us that we have to land, then maybe they’d send up a plane to “escort” us down.) If we didn’t want to land and tried to turn around, they’d threaten to shoot us down. I would think that they’d see the political viability of grabbing POWs, since it would show both their own people and the rest of the world that they’re serious about winning.
If it’s the beginning of a shooting war, I believe both sides would be very careful NOT to be the first to look as the aggressor in the eyes of the world. IOW, shooting the plane down and be done with it is probably not a likely decison for an Air Force officer who wishes to one day become an Air Force general.
The IVth Geneva Convention has a few things to say on the subject - not all of them in complete agreement, however.
Basically speaking, civilians, even enemy nationals, are protected persons under article 4 - unless there’s evidence that said civilians are involved in activities against the state.
Article 35 has this to say about protected persons:
IOW, the default is: Let the civilians go, if they wish - and if you don’t want to, you have to at least provide a rationale.
Setting law aside for a second, I believe most would agree that it would be a PR disaster not to return such civilians as may be in your territory or en route to it immediately. IMHO, they are liabilities, not assets.
Oh, and just to nit-pick: Civilians don’t become POWs - they are interned. POW status - with its regulations and privileges - is for combattants only.
Couldn’t their rationale be that they wish to use them as bargaining chips? If, for example, one country already has a citizen of the second country imprisoned for a crime - murder, treason, what have you - but have not extradited him back to his native country, couldn’t the second country just grab people from that airliner and say something like, “You release our man and we’ll release yours”? Now, I know that might not be an acceptable rationale for the US to give to its citizens, but would another country think so?
Sorry about the POW issue - didn’t know that only applied to comabatants.