Do you think there should really be laws in warfare?

Well I'm not exactly sure how to phrase it. Let me give an extremely hypothetical scenario (Not necessarily logical, just to get my point across)

Say we make a rule, never to EVER kill a child during war. However, the enemy starts using child soldiers exclusively. They are slaughtering our soldiers because we must adhere to the "rule". However there is a meeting held and the rule gets lifted for this war, because of the circumstances.

Then we go and make a rule never to attack a civilian city. However (again), the enemy moves their forces into a hospital in the middle of an "undefended" town. Their forces excel at long range combat and are once again devastating our forces. So another meeting is held to once again change a rule for this scenario.

My overwhelming question above all else, is:

Why do we make rules for something that is by it's very nature, circumstantial and varied? And what incentives do countries or entities have (during a time of war, not peace) to adhere to these rules?

What is the point of it all if these rules can be easily ignored, or have the possibility of needing consistent change to fit the circumstances?

@saint_of_origin: I think the reason for, the schism between your ah understanding and curiosity? Then others ideas understanding, might be how literal and absolute rules are viewed, perhaps? Using terns like never ever in a rule would make for a poor rule. Rather the rules should be conditional with understanding of costs and benefits. For example, several countries and nations have rules about limiting combat age, some factions/groups don't. Lets say that aliens attack Earth and threaten to wipe us all out? Say the USA may not use its resources to track, and reprimand/punish teenagers that are 14 for running around with illegal weapons helping their fathers and older brothers protect others from aliens. The positive there would be more potential ground troops and people fighting back, the problems/negatives could be younger individuals may not be as skilled, reasonable, patient, etc as older individuals. Things like friendly fire may go up… and as dire the circumstances may get, its unlikely that say… handing over automatic weapons to 4 year olds would be a good thing, as the costs/negatives would out risk the positives. However some groups/factions ideas of what are positives/negatives may differ. Small illegal armed militia in an African country may think the rewards are worth the risks and so put automatic weapons in the hands of children, so in one way they may have an advantage of sorts but their priorities and goals can be quite different, to say a large country like the USA.

I would say its because things are vary in nature, situations vary, things can be circumstantial that we do have rules. Rules can help create order, and understanding and outline consequences, negatives, positives. Rules can be ignored, consequences may not be as easy to ignore. Rules also often adapt based on new knowledge, information and understanding. They should never be thought of in an absolute or final way. As far as rules shared between various parties, well usually modifications and alterations need to go through some process to discern the technicalities and benefits of new/modified rules before they are passed. Constant change is relative and not necessarily solely positive, or negative or neutral. The way you phrase that is as if a negative? When done well its a positive, so something to be encouraged.

@saint_of_origin: Ok I'll break it down to the simplest variable- how do you convince your troops to kill innocent civilians?

Your premise as I see it is that every soldier is a barely constrained savage who's only reason for not slaughtering everything in front of him/ her are these faulty laws.

Its all well and good hypothesizing you can do away with them, but you still need to convince the people who would actually do the killing that its perfectly fine.

Even if you manage that, you then have to contend with your troops fear that the same thing will happen to their families while they're off fighting. But one thing at a time, how do you do it?

You're right. It's nonsensical. Even the concept of "war crimes" is itself absurd. War is killing and destruction and annihilation. Why is there such a thing as "going too far" when human beings are being killed? Why does them (soldiers) wearing a uniform make it "fair" to kill? Rules prohibiting chemical stockpiling and air borne viruses, to POWs and penalties for civilian casualties; they don't lessen the barbaric acts of warfare. There is no "good" kind of battle. All are designed to destroy and slaughter.

Sanctions imposed (economic and otherwise) on countries at war are themselves mind boggling as instruments of rule enforcement. It's all exactly what it appears to be. Total bullshit. There is no complication, there is no need for exhaustive "treaties" or agreements to act as "guidelines" for war. Outside of nuclear war, which all sides should recognise as an end game, all bets are off. If anything, they only serve to shackle those who hold themselves responsible to their citizens and allow the corrupt regimes and unseen factions to get away with atrocities that further their causes.

War. What is it good for, right?

@ms-lola: Not you too Ms Lola!!!

What happened to "war is politics by other means"?

Like I keep trying to get across, theories are great but wars are still fought by people. People who you have to convince to "take the gloves off" I've yet to meet, or work with a military person who would even contemplate the idea of committing what is now classed as a "war crime" solely because the "crime" part is removed from the title.

I'm not saying war is pretty or polite, but it isn't just people running around screaming "WAARRRR!!!" with giant axes covered in blood.

There is no difference between obeying laws in civilian life that you may not agree with, or see the sense in, than there are in battle. Most laws are there as a reinforcement of what is essentially "right" eg. you don't execute prisoners not just because it's illegal, but because its wrong and most people wouldn't do it anyway. Its not just because its written down somewhere that these things aren't generally carried out.

The concept that people think that my former brothers in arms and I, are even capable of what is actually involved in war without laws honestly saddens me beyond what you could imagine...

Strategically speaking, in a modern day country you'd be more likely to piss off other neutral countries or your local populace, which would be bad in the long term for the sake of some short term fearmongering.

This would mean other countries now have an "excuse" to invade or get involved for humanitarian reasons, whether that's the actual reason or not, and you've the potential to lose your position or influence or worse due to backlash from your own people.

It'd be nice, but really I'd doubt anyone would actually follow them.

Umm, there actually are Laws of Warfare.

@cave_duck: Nuuuuu!!! (tries to pluck out your eyes, her eyes, everyone's eyes or rather, memories of reading her post)

No, no, no, no, oh geez, I completely misrepresented what I meant and I'm an idiot because I can see how I did. People in uniform getting killed is just as heartbreaking to me as those who aren't and rules of engagement etc are needed, of course, and yes, no person with a sense of human dignity could ever participate in a war or mortal combat on behalf of their country if they didn't have certain protocols in place that necessitated the use of force. I'm doing a right horrible job here, I still am, but please believe me when I say I in no way meant to infer people who have lost their lives and those who have put their lives in danger for freedom and liberty are in any way considered murderers by me, I mean, yes, death is death and war is terrible and almost, actually impossible for me to properly conceive in my comfortable office and well...ugh, I am an idiot.

If there was one thing I wanted to get across, it was that rules of warfare seem to benefit those who don't follow them at all. But I am ignorant and I am sorry and I apologise, deeply and truly that I caused you (or anyone else who has fought for and does fight for the free world) any offense.

I'm an idiot.

@ms-lola: That's ok, I kind of get what you're saying now.

It's kind of like most laws in that way- that the people who break them get the immediate "benefit". Even down to speeding, sure I'd get to work faster if I did and I may be a part-time rally car driver so I'm doing it 'safely'. But the law is there to prevent the majority of people who can't handle fast driving from hurting themselves and others.

Sure we could double our armed forces overnight by conscripting kids like scumbags do, but the 'benefit' of having more troops cancels itself out pretty quickly.

...now I'm the one rambling.

It would be interesting if there was a war somewhere and no one was actually put on trial because they all behaved ethically

Yes.

Yes.

@cave_duck: But you're looking at it from the wrong point of view. You're getting FAR too defensive and not seeing the forest for the trees. Let me make this very clear.

I AM NOT SAYING ALL PEOPLE SHOULD OR WOULD BREAK THE SET LAWS OF WARFARE

I'm saying why should there be laws when circumstances can change? Human decency exists without laws. And so does human avarice and malice.

That would be nice, but I dont see how it would work, especially now. Who would enforce these laws?

Yes. You don't kill or torture innocent people or prisoners of war. Things like that need to be established.

Yes, war's never good but using civilians as human shields, viruses that cause uncontrollable deaths and what-not is not very, how should I put it, honourable?

The rule of law is one of the most fundamental aspects of civilization, laws themselves are created in such a way as to apply to virtually all circumstances. That's what keeps lawyers swimming in giant pools of money.

If you want a reason on why we should have laws- I'm not going to even bother. I started out in this thread with trying to explain the practical aspects behind the laws of armed conflict and their benefits. Now here we are with you saying that because situations change laws are essentially useless. If you wanted a debate on existential philosophy, count me out.

@lunacyde

Yes, and if you don't think so you are frankly an idiot.

Except you know, war isn't civilization. Laws are useless in warfare. That's my opinion. War puts humans in life or death situations, and what people would do to protect themselves and others in said situations can vary from mild to extreme. Should we blame the soldier who tortures the terrorist who killed a close comrade in a brutal way? Should we chastise the marine who killed a child to stop a bombing? Not only giant acts of malice in warfare, but also individual acts that can be said to be necessary in a specific moment. Laws in warfare are extremely different from laws in civil society, because the moment warfare begins, civility itself is nonexistent, no matter how much we try to pretend it is.

@saint_of_origin:

So you're cool with using mustard gas? Executing POWs? Concentration Camps? Violent genocide? Mutilating innocent civilians?

Laws exist as a framework to guide what actions (and inactions) are acceptable and what ones are not. Without laws there is no standard of what is considered acceptable. Your argument makes no more sense than saying that criminals are still going to kill and rape and steal so we should not regulate those behaviors either. Laws give authority to punish and provide retribution for actions considered outside the bounds of what warfare should be.

@lunacyde: It is not only the futility of the laws but the redundancy and hypocrisy of them. I never said I support or condone cruelty, but war itself is ALREADY cruel. And again as I've mentioned many times, if two nations are at war, what incentive do they have for following said rules if the other side is already killing their people?

@saint_of_origin

What you are saying only makes sense on an emotional level. Laws governing conduct in war are neither futile, redundant, nor hypocritical. Any scrap of logic will tell you that there are different levels of cruelty, and just because war is cruel does not mean that we should just say "hell with it, anything goes".

War Crimes and Laws of War are generally enforced after the conflict has ended. Without war crimes punishments dozens of Nazi officials directly responsible for ordering the massacre of millions of humans would have gone home from the war and went on to live their lives without any kind of retribution. Another example would be the Nanjing War Crime Tribunal where several Japanese Officers were punished for their massacre of the Chinese people.

Your argument against Laws in War is willfully ignorant of the various gradations of cruelty, the purpose of Laws of War, and the retributive effect of War Crimes on those who perpetrate these atrocities. The idea that war is cruel so we may as well not set expectations disregards that there is a distinct difference between fighting an armed enemy combatant and other things such as executing unarmed prisoners, massacring civilians, and using banned weapons like mustard gas.

Yes i dislike my house being nuked cos vladmir putin called obama gay or something.

@saint_of_origin: Human nature cannot be contained by laws. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be made. There have been laws against murder for thousands of years, and still we have people who murder others. Does that mean there shouldn't be laws against murder? By your logic we may as well give up and declare murder legal because murder cannot be contained by law.

Sorry for the late replay, but I'm a bit of history nerd and especially historical warfare so I am compelled to respond.

I wouldn't just disagree that "the goal of war is to kill your enemy" but that is actually completely false. Moreso, wars that rely on that strategy almost always fail. Two of the biggest examples are Hannibal's War with Rome and the US war against Vietman. The primary strategy used by both Hannibal and the US was to "kill so much of the enemy that they would submit" or some such. But in fact, killing your enemy in hoards only tends to strength their resolve.

Wars are simply a means to achieve an end, mostly politically based. You should use war to accomplish some change in the status quo. Maybe you're trying to add territory to your nation, maybe you just want wealth the other guy has, maybe you need increase your influence in an area so you create a puppet, maybe you just want to show the rest of the world your strength and you're not to be messed with. But the key to winning a war is to have a strategical goal in mind. Killing people in hoards is pointless and often detrimental to your goal in fact.

I'm not arguing war is a good thing btw. Just saying...it can be effective. But creating war for the sole purpose of killing has historically, been ineffective. There has to be some kind of greater strategy than that in order to accomplish anything.

@fallschirmjager:

Very good post.

Did you mean to quote the other user? I wasn't the user that was saying that asserting that the goal of war is to kill your enemy? Oh or did you quote me to carry on my point or just continue on conversation? I agree with what you are saying here.

@sc: Yeah the latter.

@fallschirmjager: Ah okay, cool. I don't think there is much else I could add on, without opposition to the points you or I made. War like many things is predicated on a lot of factors/variables, nuance topic.

Yes we should blame the soldier who tortures a terrorist for payback, your second example is too vague to answer.

Your opinion is that the laws of war are useless, and you're entitled to that opinion. But it is a misguided and naïve opinion at that.

Take it from someone who used to teach this stuff to fellow military personnel as well as exercise it himself. The laws of armed conflict are there for a reason and even though people do break them occasionally, doing away with them would cause far more damage to the world than any war using them ever could. War isn't "civil" but it still follows rules and has appropriate behaviors, and the enforcement of its laws are virtually identical as the of peacetime in that it is every service members duty to ensure they are being followed at all times.

@cave_duck:

Preach

nup

Maybe someone already stated this, but I wonder how many of these "laws of warefare" eventually get broken in the process of war. For example, not targeting medical personnel. If we were talking about a video game, those would be the first people you take out to increase the odds of success. I feel like sometimes the goal of victory ends up overriding any ethics or morality, especially if you are getting shot at.

Nope. Pull out the flechette rifles, Daisy Cutters, and dirty bombs.

Lets go.

@peateargriffin: They don't get broken all that often because they're there for everyone's protection basically.

Videogames and their logic have a lot to answer for, reality is vastly different.