"Rules" of war.

[Negachrist]

Why do we have so-called "rules" of war in our society?

Surely the object of war is to destroy your enemy, totally and utterly. Imposing self-restrictive rules on this act is counter-productive.

Either you want to win, or you want to "play fair". If you want to play fair then play a game a sport, do not engage in a war where you will intentionally limit your potential for success.

The whole concept of having rules in an activity where your goal is the complete annihilation of those who declare themselves your enemy, is ridiculous.

[OpenedUp]

Why do we have so-called "rules" of war in our society?

Surely the object of war is to destroy your enemy, totally and utterly. Imposing self-restrictive rules on this act is counter-productive.

Either you want to win, or you want to "play fair". If you want to play fair then play a game a sport, do not engage in a war where you will intentionally limit your potential for success.

The whole concept of having rules in an activity where your goal is the complete annihilation of those who declare themselves your enemy, is ridiculous.

Warfare has rules not in order to play fair but in order to be waged relatively humanely. Think of the rules of war as being an adjunct to the golden rule, you do not want your people to die horribly painful gruesome deaths, so you make an agreement with your opponent not to use weapons specifically designed to do so. WWI demonstrated just how nasty a war can get without rules.

It should also be noted that your concepts are a bit confused, the name for the activity whose goal is the complete annihilation of another group is not war, it is genocide.

If another country isn't following these rules, its not like you can give them a red card.


Maybe if we just convinced everyone that there was a War God who rewarded you for following the rules of war and sent you to a fiery death pit for not, then everyone would follow the rules. What do you think?

[Greatest I Am]

Why do we have so-called "rules" of war in our society?

Surely the object of war is to destroy your enemy, totally and utterly. Imposing self-restrictive rules on this act is counter-productive.

Either you want to win, or you want to "play fair". If you want to play fair then play a game a sport, do not engage in a war where you will intentionally limit your potential for success.

The whole concept of having rules in an activity where your goal is the complete annihilation of those who declare themselves your enemy, is ridiculous.

Your basically right.

The rules of war are there to insure that an aggressor does not incur the wrath of other nations out of fear that you will destroy utterly. If they see you do this then they will likely organize a defence against you. It serves you then to follow the rules.

The rules are often broken by those who think they can get away with it or if a decisive dirty trick will change defeat to victory.

If you look at the Bible then there are no rules to war. God and the genocidal flood are proof of this.

The rules that we have for war began when people started wars for nothing more than to capture nobles that could then be ransomed. It was OK to kill off the lower classes but the higher classes were there to get or give wealth.
In other words a game for the rich.

Regards
DL

[Voco]

There are rules becasue those rules are a good idea. Sure, some of them may also happen to be ethical, but that's not really why they are followed.

Following these rules makes winning wars easier and losing wars less painful. It is entirely in the self-interest of the nations involved to adhere to them.

Take the "rule" that surrendering soldiers are to be provided for adequately and treated humanely. In observing this rule, you create motivation for enemy soldiers to surrender, costing you less in equipment, time, and the lives of your own troops.

Take the "rule" about not harming civilians. While it may complicate an invasion, it makes the ensuing occupation much less costly and minimizes resistance movements, especially if the efforts of their own side caused harm to the populace. Generally speaking, if conditions improve when your occupation begins relative to the time immediately before, you will have less trouble holding onto your new territory.

These "rules" are simply good ideas, and have less to do with ethics than with success in war.

[Greatest I Am]

There are rules becasue those rules are a good idea. Sure, some of them may also happen to be ethical, but that's not really why they are followed.

Following these rules makes winning wars easier and losing wars less painful. It is entirely in the self-interest of the nations involved to adhere to them.

Take the "rule" that surrendering soldiers are to be provided for adequately and treated humanely. In observing this rule, you create motivation for enemy soldiers to surrender, costing you less in equipment, time, and the lives of your own troops.

Take the "rule" about not harming civilians. While it may complicate an invasion, it makes the ensuing occupation much less costly and minimizes resistance movements, especially if the efforts of their own side caused harm to the populace. Generally speaking, if conditions improve when your occupation begins relative to the time immediately before, you will have less trouble holding onto your new territory.

These "rules" are simply good ideas, and have less to do with ethics than with success in war.

I would question whether or not there is a more ethical way to kill versus another way to kill.

As to rules. I wonder if a rule that says you will not go to war for oil would be handy?

Regards
DL

[Wyvern]

I would question whether or not there is a more ethical way to kill versus another way to kill.

Although the end point is the same how you get there is what makes the difference. Generally weapons which are designed to cause extra pain and suffering are considered less ethical than other means to the end. Some examples, WP rounds versus regular ones, mustard gas and phosgene versus nerve agents and dirty nukes versus h-bombs.

[Greatest I Am]

I would question whether or not there is a more ethical way to kill versus another way to kill.

Although the end point is the same how you get there is what makes the difference. Generally weapons which are designed to cause extra pain and suffering are considered less ethical than other means to the end. Some examples, WP rounds versus regular ones, mustard gas and phosgene versus nerve agents and dirty nukes versus h-bombs.

I understand your point and agree that killing quickly is better for the victim than slowly.
From the aggressors point of view though the slower he can kill the better it is for his side as long as he is not using undue manpower to deliver the pain. to wound and have the enemy use it's manpower to help or nurse their wounded means that fewer of them are available to kill the aggressor.

A good military tactict is to wound.

Regards
DL

[Voco]

I would question whether or not there is a more ethical way to kill versus another way to kill.

War is about a lot more than killing, and the "rules" of war are usually in reference to the ways soliders who are NOT killed are delath with. Wars are not won by putting every enemey soldier to the sword. No, wars involve surrenders, positioning, and morale, and as I already described, the "rules" relate primarily to this aspect of war. As mentione dbefore, things like giving adequate food and shelter to captured enemies encourage peaceful surrender.

That said, there are indeed "rules" about specific weapons and methods of violence. Certain shapes of bayonet, for example, are forbidden in warfare, but you'll find none of these agreements are based oon faith alone. They are mutual threats masked in civility. Essentially, these bans are an agreement between a group of nations to gang up on anyone that violates the agreement, not unlike a group of castaways agreeing to beat up any of thier number who steals food from another. It isn't kindness or honor that keeps each meber nation in line, but the fear of retailation. That said, each signatory also wants the other nations to fear such consequences, and it is this desire that motivates the creation fo the treaty in the first place.

As to rules. I wonder if a rule that says you will not go to war for oil would be handy?

Regards
DL

It's already forbidden to attack another country to take thier land or resources, and this includes oil. It is, in theory, why the United States attacked Iraq in the Gulf War. Again, however, such treaties are only as compelling as their ability to inspire fear in the signatories.

What you want, then, are more powerful, committed nations able and willing to retailiate agaisnt nations that violate the rule.