Poll: All's Fair In Love and War?
- Thread starter Stone Cold Monkey
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I was saying that if soldiers do rape inocents then that proves that if there was a rule against rapping civillians then it has been broken, if the "rules" are broken then those rules stop existing and are therefore non existant. Although looking back I think I forgot to write "there are no rules that can't be broken in war".Nugoo said:
My bad.
Rules in war can be made but in times of need they'll be broken. If two nations find themselves at a stalemate, the one who starts using terror tactics will win. If a stalemate grinds on long enough, leaders on both sides will become more and more desparate for an end. In times of peace, regulations are seen as civilised and progressive, however, when backed into a corner, the ends will justify the means.
On the use of atomics.
This is when the atrocity is the surest alternative. After a grueling conventional war, commanders are seldom ready to commit themselves to an extension of the conflict when a quick alternative exists. One side is going to win and the other will suffer horribly, it is best for the commanders with the bomb to be on the winning side. In times of stress, self-preservation will override peacetime morality.
On whether it's moral:
Since history is told from the winner's point of view (and in the case of a nuclear war, the winner would be whoever shot first and acted the quickest) morality doesn't matter. The descendants of the conquered will always loathe the ones who committed such atrocities and the descendants of the victors will always rationalize the acts as "a necessary evil". Whether it's moral or not will depend on who you ask.
On the use of atomics.
This is when the atrocity is the surest alternative. After a grueling conventional war, commanders are seldom ready to commit themselves to an extension of the conflict when a quick alternative exists. One side is going to win and the other will suffer horribly, it is best for the commanders with the bomb to be on the winning side. In times of stress, self-preservation will override peacetime morality.
On whether it's moral:
Since history is told from the winner's point of view (and in the case of a nuclear war, the winner would be whoever shot first and acted the quickest) morality doesn't matter. The descendants of the conquered will always loathe the ones who committed such atrocities and the descendants of the victors will always rationalize the acts as "a necessary evil". Whether it's moral or not will depend on who you ask.
Yes, but the element of surprise combined with atomic weapons could easily eliminate anyone capable of retaliation. If you had sufficient munitions to eliminate the enemy's chain of command and a substantial part of their population, then you'd win and prevent the slower enemy from fighting back.
The nations that are spared from a nuclear wars are the winners because they live while the others are dead. While this is hardly a win atleast your alive. And I suppose coming out of any war scenario with the most of your populace alive makes you a winner. In a way.Calobi said:
It's not an issue of rules in war for me, since I think there are valid rules already, it's a question of enforcement. Who is going to enforce the Geneva Conventions aside from the victors in a war. If America and the USSR had fought, whichever side won would charge the other with war crimes. But, even assuming that all organized parties (countries, militaries) follow the rules, how do you deal with non-soldier combatants? The people America is fighting in Iraq aren't an "army" in the Geneva convention sense of the word, and certainly don't follow the rules themselves. Should America be held to a set of rules their opponents don't follow?
There are no rules in war, or anywhere else. There are only actions and consequences.
There's no rule that says you can't slaughter civilians by the thousands, torture prisoners until they falsely confess to whatever you want them to say, destroy infrastructure leaving cities with no water, power, schools, hospitals, roads, agriculture or communication. There's no rule that says genocide is not allowed.
Yeah, yeah, there's the Geneva Convention. Whatever. That's not rules. That's ink on paper. It's only as real as we decide to make it.
But sometimes the consequences of extraordinary cruelty in war become more tangible. For example, you'll make more enemies. Mind you, if your goal is to profit from war, that makes it a win-win for you.
There's no rule that says you can't slaughter civilians by the thousands, torture prisoners until they falsely confess to whatever you want them to say, destroy infrastructure leaving cities with no water, power, schools, hospitals, roads, agriculture or communication. There's no rule that says genocide is not allowed.
Yeah, yeah, there's the Geneva Convention. Whatever. That's not rules. That's ink on paper. It's only as real as we decide to make it.
But sometimes the consequences of extraordinary cruelty in war become more tangible. For example, you'll make more enemies. Mind you, if your goal is to profit from war, that makes it a win-win for you.
You seem to have the importance of laws in Day to day life mixed up with the importance of laws in War.Nugoo said:
War is not played like a game of chess, it is not governed by a strict set rules that determine your actions. The rules that are set up to govern war are quickly thrown away away for victory or for the life of people on your side of the front. When these laws (in war not normal life) are removed they cease to exist. If a force attacks a field hospital because it a strategic point the rule that says "you may not attack a field hospital" is disregarded. No one cares about that law, they would much rather capture the point then follow the rules, they would much rather win and live then follow the rules.
Seeing as how winning is the part of the point of war, people will try and win at any cost. The laws of War are in fact a contradiction to war itself. If people are trying to win at any cost then they will ignore the rules (to win) hence making "All is fair in war".
War is Horrible however and only an idiot will think that by having laws in place would make it any better. But only an idiot will think that uncontroled armies is a good thing.
But you should not think that because I say that because the laws in war are removed this should not be the same in day to day life. You do not need to torture people in normal life to find the location of a weapon cache for example. While torturing people in war to find the location of a weapon cache is considred ok.
Just because its horrible does not mean it is seen as a bad thing to do. In war at any case.
Please note however that I am refering to full scale war that will determine the future of many nations, not these modern wishy washy wars.
Which is, of course, why we all speak Japanese now and bow to the chrysanthimum throne. Or German. Or Persian, all honour to the great Xerxes and his immortal line.John Galt said:
Sorry, but assuming that first to terrorise in a conflict wins is a very bad and repeatedly-disproven assumption.
-- Steve
So what is the difference between ordinary life and war? In both cases people have aims that might be achieved more easily if they broke the rules/laws. I dont see why breaking a rule of war invalidates the rule while comminting a criminal offence doesn't invalidate the civilian law, unless there is some fundamental difference between the two that I've missed?Fire Daemon said:
Not strictly true. Ever heard of the Nuremberg trials after WW2? or do you know of recent trials in the Hague - Netherlands? or what about the horrendous prison scandal by the US army in Iraq?Fire Daemon said:
As for rules being quickly thrown away - I don't buy it. The AfrikaKorps under Rommel were involved in some of the heaviest fighting this world has ever seen in North Africa but they played by rules even though their lives were ultimately at risk. Civilians were not attacked, POW's were treated well etc. They remembered that they had the honour and duty of a professional soldier.
Yes but what about all the over armies over history that have attacked civillians and tortured prisoners.nightfish said:
As for the Nuremberg trials, well they where carried out after the war, not during a war. Therefore even though laws where broken during the war after the war they where seen as wrong. I never said that just because the rules are broken during war they don't become acceptable in peace times.
As far as the Prison Scandals go, well they didn't acheive anything apart from making some rather fucked up marines happy with themselves and they sure as hell didn't contribute to the war effort. Therefore they where seen as criminals. If they had somehow helped the war effort then they might be given a trial for publicities sake but they would not have been considred the monsters they are today. Well no, they still would be monsters but it is fairly hard to survive a war and not be a monster is some way.
This argument is sounding a lot like Defcon. In that game unless one guy is totally inept both sides will be near wiped out. Not saying it's the same in real life, just making an observation about a game I love.Calobi said:
Returning to the topic, well it'd be nice if people followed rules in war but until we have an impartial organisation with jurisiction to bring combatants from either faction to court and the power to knock heads in any rules will be broken. In that case, why did this organisation even allow the war in the first place?
A thing that must be obeyed.Nugoo said:
And if those laws are broken repeatedly, with no legal consequences for the perpetrators and no redress for the victims, are they really worth referring to as laws?Nugoo said:
The "rule" in this case is NOT "don't kill civilians". The real rule is "don't get punished for killing civilians". Or more concisely, "don't get punished".
Rules of War is an oxymoron, war is the violation of one society's laws by another society. I don't know if this has already been said but the winner is the one is is willing to do the most brutal things(atom bomb, etc). And on the issue of said atom bomb I have one policy, MAD.