That just about sums it up and no disrespect to you or anyone else. I deliberately avoided using aircraft as an example but the decisions are the same. The commanding officer has NO IDEA regarding what that target is or if that missile will fly true or if things have changed without our intelligence services being aware of that change.
War is a bitch and making these awful decisions is not something everyone can do. Far better to let them 'film their bumble bees'
Seeing as you persist, I would say that both the case of the submarine commander and the helicopter pilot are not that dissimilar in that if either had committed a crime against humanity they would both be liable to answering for it in court.
Having said that though, I would imagine it might be easier for the submarine commnder to plead his innocence at not knowing he was committing a war crime in that he was underwater and several hundred miles off shore at the time.
For the helicopter pilot flying over a populated civilain area in perfect visibility and firing rockets into that populated area (
if that is what he was doing - the images of the downed helicopter appear to show it had rocket pods fitted), he might find his plea of innocence a little harder to prove.
Both cases would be a matter for the court to decide. Either way, if they had committed a crime against humanity they would have to offer a defence that goes beyond just obeying orders - the one and
only point I have been making all along!
The fact that I don't know if I would obey the hypothetical order you fielded is neither here nor there - my original point and subsequent postings on the subject have nothing to do with what I would do in any particular sutuation, but with the fact that you cannot use 'obeying orders' as a defence against war crimes.
If you don't believe me, go ask the UN.