Edit:
I will list my concerns, points of view, and arguments (to the limits of my knowledge):
1. I am not saying that refugees shouldn’t get out of the warzone if they want or that there are constant fights everywhere that stop civilians from having a pretty much normal life. I am saying that there are other ways of moving in and out of warzones that are maybe safer (idk) and that they don’t have such high safety standards that would prevent their activities.
2. I am talking from a civil aviation authority pov. I understand that since they are not taking the kind of measures that i am talking about, there is a logical explanation that i am trying to find out.
3. I am not talking about how the war should be handled or about what decisions regarding the situation should be taken by other authorities. I am talking strictly about how different (mostly geographic) civil aviation safety institutions work with warzones, considering the size, dynamics, or density of the conflict.
I am sorry if i still haven’t made myself clear, english is not my first language.
I am not trying to argue or make a point. I am just trying to find a pretty mutch on-point answer, a direct answer to my question, if there is one.
In: Other
Because life doesn’t stop for however long a war takes place. Even during WW2, life went on for non conscripted folks. Low intensity wars can go on for decades. Technically north and South Korea are still at war, and so are China and Taiwan. Just very rare instances of flare ups. Countries like Nigeria , Myanmar, Ethiopia, and the Sahel nations are constantly at war with domestic armed groups since the birth of those nations. It Doesn’t make sense to cut off entire nations like that.
Latest Answers