Do you think there should really be laws in warfare?

This is something that's puzzled me for a long time. Maybe because I've never been in a war. But...war itself is one of the most brutal and violent things mankind can participate in. Whatever the reason, your goal in war is to kill your enemy. Whether that's for protection, retaliation, or for some benefit (Claiming land, resources, etc.) as well as other things. I just don't understand why we have "rules" for something already so awful. Is it to give humanity the illusion that we still have some semblance of civility even in killing? I just don't understand the usefulness of them when your goal is to kill. Yes, it's cruel to use certain methods of killing and torture and all that bad stuff. But, what is the opposition going to do, kill you MORE dead than they're already trying to? I'd appreciate all points of view on this, thanks! :)

killing your enemies doesn't mean slaughtering the people caught in the crossfire.

@kyrees: That's awful, yes. But isn't the point of a war to either A. Get the other side to surrender or B. Completely kill your opposition? Looking at it from a completely strategic point of view, killing/capturing everyone from the opposition, civilian or not, is the best way to get a surrender. "You want your citizens to stop dying? Surrender and they will". Again, I realize it's terrible but so is war itself.

war is terrible but you need to see what happens after the war ended. there is no point in rehabilitation if the other side doesn't exist. look at japan, if USA opted to wipe it out, would it be major world player it is now ?

@kyrees: That's why I listed surrender as a primary objective over annihilation. Most logical entities would surrender if they were being decimated to that point, thus earning victory. I am talking from a strategic point of view more so than anything else.

in a strategic point of view, killing your enemies's innocents would galvanize them to a point that you would meet stronger opposition than expected and you will suffer more losses to it. losses that would hamper you in the long run.

make it a lot more likely for them to go after your non-military targets as well.

As of yet wars are not waged by machines, it's easier to convince a man to wage war against other men than it is to get him to kill women and children, the former is a bastardization of his competitive drive, the latter goes against nature, you need to convince the man that he is doing this either for the greater good of his own or warp his views to achieve the latter.

"There are no absolute rules of conduct, in either peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances "

-Leon Trotsky

It escalates by how you react to your opponent. If i take out one of your villages, you will take out my cities. If you rape all my women, I start dropping nukes, etc etc.

@dextersinister: @kyrees: It depends on the entities involved. The strategic importance of it depends on a lot of variables. But in some situations it'd be a very viable method to achieve victory. So, why the rules? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

@rd189: That's my point. The rules just seem redundant.

@saint_of_origin:

It depends on the entities involved.

Well yes it does which leads on to the next part.

So, why the rules? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

Think of it like a maths question, we can get the answer if we have the numbers, if we don't have the numbers/entities then it's silly to expect an answer.

Only on Nuclear weapons

@saint_of_origin:

Exactly, you can't put rules on something that, by its very nature, has no rules.

@dextersinister: But we have rules in place for warfare in general. Without knowing the entities. Why? Shouldn't war just be a "React to the situation at hand" instead of having rules in place without knowing specifics?

@saint_of_origin: We have rules in place for murder, theft, rape, etc without knowing the specifics to each case, only difference is scale

All of these rules are agreed upon and enforced by powerful entities. These entities can choose to ignore the rules just as much as the government could decide to let someone off the hook for murder but in doing so you lose credibility if caught.

We should always have rules to it, if we didn't it's unlikely we'd all still be here. Also wars profit the rich that fund them, if you're gonna profit from it then it's best to set rules to maximise profits.

Of course there shouldn't be rules in war. No idea why it's like that

No

Yes I think so. Even if it's to make ourselves feel better or give us an illusion of still having a semblance of civility. For example, killing of innocent people, use of certain types of weapons (chemical, biological, nuclear), etc.

Though I do see your way of thinking and how you can come to this thought/conclusion. Humanity would be many times shittier, if nations were openly and allowed to use all types of means to kill people. If leaders of most nations around the world can come together and agree on laws and limits of warfare, then why not? We can't just throw everything out the window and let shit hit the fan. Especially with the weapons we have today. We have a responsibility young grasshopper.

I look at this thread, and it always reminds me of how people complained about how God (in this case) had no rules of War.

And who exactly would enforce these laws?

it's a romantic idea, but war will always be chaoss

@silkyballfro94: But it's war. It's killing other human beings that individually have done nothing to the individuals of the opposing side. That's not civil by definition. Why fool ourselves with false hope? It's like a murderer who kills murderers in grotesque ways feeling good about themselves for their actions. It's an illusion. We're still committing awful acts.

@saint_of_origin: I get what you're saying. But still so what. If we have the power to prevent worse things from happening, then why not. I'd rather get shot in the head, then inhale mustard gas or be exposed to nuclear fallout. It's also not always false hope. Many countries recognize and respect the Geneva Conventions. For example, 80.69% of chemical weapons stockpiles have been destroyed as of 2013. War will always be present. We should attempt to keep it from getting even shittier.

@silkyballfro94: I do not agree. It's shitty regardless. The destruction of chemical weapons is not a war rule as much as a standing global standard. Following the Geneva Conventions during peacetime is only because there are consequences that can be invoked if not adhered to. However, declaring war on a country is already just about the worst you can do, so there's almost no incentive for following these rules during war itself.

Edit: In fact, declaring war on a country that follows the set rules would give that country an incentive to BREAK said rules. "You declared war on me? Fine, I won't listen to your rules then"

@saint_of_origin: I think we should just agree to disagree then. I'd prefer nations and people get killed by more conservative means or more humane ways (yes I know that's kinda an oxymoron). Instead of just saying oh well and letting everyone nuke each other or kill each other in worse ways. We probably wouldn't be having this conversation if our leaders thought like that.

Yes, especially for chemical, biological and nuclear warfare.

@saint_of_origin: Well they tried with the Geneva Convention. Many countries in the NATO have tried to pay compensation for civilian and property damages (including America, which is rather surprising considering what it's objectives are.)

I'm using this as an example, so please don't flag me :)

What do you mean? America is very combat-centered, yes. But we also have an issue with being too kind when it comes to rehabilitating other nations. Natural disasters, war, disease, etc. We're not only the global police, but also the global relief for stuff like this. I know this opinion isn't well liked, but America is generally the country everyone turns to in times of crisis. We're the global superpower, and though we've been on the decline, we still contribute a lot to the world as a whole. But I digress, the Geneva Conventions as I mentioned earlier, only have real incentive to be followed during peacetime. So it's kinda pointless.

Yes, nothing cheep like nuking innocents or pulling hair, i use way to much product for it to get damaged

Only if you trust the person that knows you are trying to kill them

there is no strategic importance in killing innocents. at best, it's a double edge sword. either you inflict moral damages to the enemy and they cower down or you anger them for a retaliation which can range from equal damage to outright devastating. history tends on the latter though more often.

the rules are there for postwar reasons and the exception above

I can give you a situation where it's strategically sound to kill innocents.

You are facing an army much smaller than yours, let's say it's a war over land between two neighboring entities. You have enough forces to both defend and attack, however your enemy does not have that luxury, and must do one at a time. However, their force is far better trained and in direct combat, your forces generally don't fair too well. You need a surrender as fast as possible, as your opposition is getting close to your borders. However, you are already in theirs, and their civilians are unarmed and cannot hope to put up a fight against your well trained army. You know they're already going to your borders, but you also know the opposing force values the lives of it's citizens. Attack a few undefended towns, making sure not to wipe them out, and demand a surrender for a stop to the violence. This will either A. Force their hand into a surrender or B. Force a large portion of their force back to defend their towns, allowing your border defenses more time to prepare. The enemy (given that they're extremely protective of their civilians) would almost assuredly choose one of these two options, and not choose to press forward and attempt to cross your borders.

There are several other situations and this one may have more viable options other than killing the innocent, but it's just one off the top of my head wh ere killing innocents would serve a very valuable strategic purpose. Saying it has no strategic value is just ridiculous. It's cruel and ruthless, but there are scenarios where it would be very valuable.

@saint_of_origin: there's another answer for that: they go all out berserker mode and ignore your hostages and pretty much wipe you out of existence. there have been wars like that and the one who took hostages ended up getting defeated.

as much as you can say hypothetical situations on the importance of killing innocents in war, history tends to side with revenge most of the time with the surviving innocents being ignored if the situation needs it.

Except they wouldn't because I already stated the entity in question cares about it's civilians' safety. You're treating war like it's some game. Like the soldiers are all gonna get really mad and stay mad and get some sort of stat boost because they're pissed off. It doesn't work like that. At best, it'll raise morale for the cause, at worst it'll completely devastate their morale as they feel like they've failed. Show me some of this "revenge history" please. With credible sources.

as callous as it sounds, war is a game. it's a game of attrition with minimizing losses and balancing resources with propaganda to trick anyone as well. you don't sacrifice your whole army just because you can save a few lives. even in your hypothetical situation, a commander wouldn't just back down like that especially if he/she knew the enemy would just rebuild in the long run.

it works exactly like that or else you wouldn't be seeing worldwide news of various armies killing innocents like they intended to (which could either be intended or not to begin with).

as for "revenge wars", i can site the whole entirety of the japan-US war with japan being the aggressor and ending up getting the nukes by the end.

i would also like you to read this at this point.

https://sites.google.com/site/globalsim08/costs-of-war/war-and-revenge

@saint_of_origin: I've never thought there should be rules in war. Kill everyone. Any way you can. Torture prisoners. NO RULES

@saint_of_origin: Every time someone disagrees with your basic "no rules" concept you refuse to acknowledge it. I'm not really sure why you asked for other views on this point if you're unwilling to listen to them.

War is not about "killing all the enemy" it is about removing your enemies ability to wage war on you. Yes, the most common viewpoint of that is killing soldiers, but its also destruction of infrastructure, disruption of supply chains, removal of allies, etc.

Even at the basic level of soldier vs soldier, using your argument you still have to convince your military to commit genocide against every force they oppose. That just won't happen in the majority of major first world conflicts. Or do you honestly think the US military for example, would quite happily kill every civilian they see if told to? and even if that happened the US population would quite happily go along with it? and then the rest of the world would just turn a blind eye?

if they have the numbers and they have the advantage, then why wouldn't they take it ? humanity ? just because you are unsure your push can go through does it mean you forfeit your chances and let the enemy recover. why commit a bigger blunder just because you can save people ?

i'm sorry but have you actually seen the media at this point ? have you seen how the media play on every side is ? how gaza and israel play the victim on their own ? how the talibans and USA use their media as word play ? you seem to be on focusing on enraging when in fact propaganda works in whole lot of ways you seem to be forgetting

and the japanese wasn't committing their atrocities on south east asia then just because they have already conquered it. i did say the whole war of japan and usa which practically started with japan being the aggressor and end with them getting the nuke.

of course you had to use numbers to this but in a situation where you are better off not pissing off the enemy, then why even do it ? what's the point of killing innocents in a war then ? you're the one who made up a scenario where a commander with superiority in it has to choose to save his people or destroy the enemy and you are practically saying that commander choose to separate his forces and risk his enemy getting stronger in the long run.

I actually disagree with the premise that "your goal in war is to kill your enemy" wars are pretty complex events/occurrences with more variables, psychology, motives, causes, so on, thus the goals can be different, and because wars aren't fought between two individuals with one single purpose between them… of course killing your enemy is a large factor and variable in war, don't get me wrong, just that its more complicated than that. Add in politics, pretense, psychology, deception… a better line of questioning is why and how laws in warfare arose and why? How and when do participants in warfare obey and conform to rules and why? How and why do participants in warfare deviate and break laws and why? Continuing down that path.

The illusion that we still have some semblance of civility is one variable, but consider other things, like the perceptions, mood and ethics of a population, self government/governing. Even if some countries have factions, groups that enlist and train child soldiers? Should the USA? Britain? Australia start using and deploying child soldiers? Those countries lack of need to, is one reason they don't, but say in World War II there are instances where teens not of age could sneak in, hypothetically if things got really dire and desperate… though of course just because some groups abide by rules don't mean others do, you have to weigh up the costs/benefits, short term consequences and long term consequences.

@saint_of_origin: I'm looking at this from a first world perspective because I live in a first world country and have served in a first world military.

My arguments are not flawed, they are just contrary to yours. Yet are instantly dismissed as flawed because of that.

As for the Nazis, they were trying to remove their oppositions ability to wage war at the same time as they were conducting ethnic purging. Not as a part of their war, otherwise there would be no surviving allied POWs would there? The Nazis would have executed them on the spot.

Just because a tribal leader in some tiny third world nation thinks commiting genocide will work to make him Emperor for life does not make it a valid military tactic.

Honestly, if their ever was another war we'd all die in hours so it doesn't really matter anyway.

I gotta say, this is one of the best conversations I've ever seen on the vine, and it's still on its first page. Please, carry on, good sirs and madames

@saint_of_origin: Rules don't necessarily change just for benefits, and what are considered benefits can differ and vary as well. Humans ethics, individually and societal of today have changed over time, does that mean ethics are pointless? What I gather, correct me if I am wrong, but you view rules as only having negatives and no positives or…?