If you’re only focusing on the 1949 Geneva convention then yes but there is more added later in 1977 that is also part of the convention. That mentions more than what the 49 one does, also not everything to be a war crime has to be mentioned in the Geneva convention.
Just as a final good faith effort to put a final nail in this really stupid coffin that should never be reopened again:
1977 adds
and
The applicable section you're referring to is part 2 and 3 from article 54 of
In short, electrical, most railways, most roads, airports, seaports, airport runways, and internet/communications infrastructure are always fully legitimate targets no matter what. Water pipelines, water sanitation infrastructure, sources of water, food production, and stores of food are not. If you want to get nit-picky beyond the defined text by arguing that some roads still must be left intact to ensure food and water can be transported to civilian populations, then technically PLA could leave only one main road intact for each city. If domestic food production is insufficient, then PLA could leave one seaport of the island intact. If the enemy military then decides that they will use that road or seaport in direct support of military action, OR MONOPOLIZE ITS USE TO SOLELY FEED AND SUPPLY THE MILITARY, then PLA is within their right to temporarily disable that road or seaport until the enemy military has been destroyed or dislodged from their local positions. PLA could then take control of that road or seaport, repair it to a minimal baseline of operational status, strictly control its use to enable food and water to flow only to civilians, and still remain fully in-line with geneva conventions.
I feel pretty confident that most members of this forum would consider that completely reasonable even in a time of war.
Art 54. Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population
2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of food-stuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works,
for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.
3.
The prohibitions in paragraph 2 shall not apply to such of the objects covered by it as are used by an adverse Party: (a) as sustenance solely for the members of its armed forces; or (b) if not as sustenance,
then in direct support of military action, provided, however, that in no event shall actions against these objects be taken which
may be expected to leave the civilian population with such
inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement.
In other words, even the 1977 additions to the geneva conventions do not entitle Taiwan's civilian populations to electricity, unconstrained mass/public/vehicular transit, communications infrastructure (the original interpretation being phone, and a modern interpretation being cell phone signal, phone landline access, or internet). So long as there continues to be enough access to food, water, and shelter that there is no starvation or forced relocation, then that is the bottom line.
The key giveaway that you were arguing in bad faith is that you were unwilling to post the specific and official text that specified what you were asserting. And now that somebody finally has, it now makes sense why you never did that. The text itself clearly articulates the limits and conditions and it turns out you were arguing in favor of something that goes very far beyond that. Now, if you had just argued that China should go way above and beyond the geneva conventions, that would be one thing. Instead you outright lied by pretending that your own extreme and fabricated definition is what is defined in the geneva conventions when it clearly is not.
In short, to stay aligned with even the 1977 additions to the geneva conventions, China only needs to make sure they don't INTENTIONALLY starve or displace the population through EXCESSIVE water, food, and shelter deprivation. That is much more in line with what I expected of the document to begin with rather than your argument that near-total protection of almost all civilian infrastructure is the only acceptable standard (with only the most strict and extreme exceptions).
