Poll: All's Fair In Love and War?

[John Galt]

However, what if a signatory nation is attacked by a nation refusing to sign the treaty. Should the nation be able to disregard the laws if only to protect itself? Say the aggressor populace responded strongly to acts of terrorism. Isn't it necessary for the signatory nation to disobey the treaties if terrorizing the aggressor would bring the conflict to a quick end and with minimal loss of life?

Actually, at least with the International Criminal Court, an aggressor nation that attacks a signatory nation can be tried under the court, even if the aggressor isn't a signatory.

However, if the signatory nations are conquered due to the unconventional methods used by the aggressor, who won? Their peace time morality led to their demise.

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

"Political Science", by Randy Newman (1972)
---------------------
No one likes us, I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
And all around, sometimes even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money but are they grateful?
No they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us so let's surprise them
Let's drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded, Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot and Canada's too cold
South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one, there'll be no-one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an all-American amusement park there
They got surfin' too

So boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be!
We'll set everybody free!
Get a Japanese kimono for you babe, and Italian alligator shoes for me!

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now
---------------------

There's your rules of war.

 

[GoldDragon732]

There should be. America bombing Japan not once but twice during WW2 makes me feel pretty ill. But then again, the stuff that Japan did to POW's during WW2 makes me sick as well. It would be lovely if countries could agree that there are rules to abide by whilst fighting each other. But, as we know, politicians are a desperate bunch, and if nuking an enemy into submission is the easiest way to claim victory, they'll do it. That's human nature for you.

Yes 100,000 Japenese dead is awful but is it not nearly as awful
as it would be otherwise? When you have a convential combat invasion
and you combine that with their fanatical honor code alot more Japanese civilians
and allied soliders would have died.

But why, after the US had already flattened Hiroshima with one bomb, did Truman then decide to flatten Nagasaki as well. He'd already wiped one major city from the face of the earth. Anything more was, for lack of a better word, overkill. Imagine if some evil foreign army bombed New York, then when you Yanks were ready to surrender, they bombed Washington as well. It was a spiteful display of power, that in total caused the death of over 200,000 Japanese during the actual bombing, and thousands more due to the radiation fall-out that happened afterwards. And, of course, most of those casualties were civilians. To me, the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians counts as a war-crime of huge proportions.

But I digress. To expound on my earlier point- human nature means we'll always play dirty. Whether it's fabricating reasons for us to go to war, using weapons that cause frightening amounts of destruction, assassinations, infiltrations... to use a lewd phrase, we're all fucking each other from behind.

Well, to remind (or inform if you hadn't heard before) the 2nd bomb was dropped because the Japanese advisors to the Emperor still refused to surrender after the first bomb. Even after #2 they didn't want to, the Emperor himself had to make that call. Those decisions were made based on the responses received from the Japanese government, not just because it was fun to make cities glow in the dark.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was a "good" decision. I believe it's impossible for anyone who isn't in that situation to make the call. Also, as they saying goes, hindsight is 20/20; we've had a ton of time to analyze details that weren't available when the order to drop the bomb was given. The only hope I have is that no modern world leader is placed in the same situation now.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

The actual reason for utilising the atom bomb was to stop the red army from taking part of Japan. This is not bullshit- the russians had taken manchuria and had the resources and the plans to take the northern end of Japan. If it hadn't been so crucial to truman to thumb his nose at Stalin (as Stalin took berlin and all that, mainly due to Eisenhower) then the allies could have just sat back and waited for Japan to starve/coup etc.

But Harry truman wanted to make a point to his counterpart- so he showed Stalin just what the west was capable of, and got Japan in the baragin.



Another point- there must be certain rules of engagement, becasue if not war simply becomes a Hunnic holocaust- if you break the rules of war, so will your enemy (see-the eastern front). This means massive carnage, devestation, genocide and fighting to the death. This is good for neither man nor beast- a country is no good if half of its scorched earth.

So not playing by the rules dosen't get you anywhere.

Also- if you are going to break the rules then you better be sure your going to win. Because if you shell that hospital, and it dosen't win the war then not only are your enemies going to fight much harder (propagnda war) but also they will start reciprocating in savagery.

So there are rules.

As for love- the main rules are:

'No' means 'no'.
'Not there' means 'not there'.
Romance is better than cheap sex.
There may be more fish in the sea, but these fish talk to one another....
Parents and friends are important. get them on your side.

 

[Damn Dirty Ape]

There are no rules in war, if there would be you'd help the other guy up after you shot/stabbed him and say gg. War brings out the worst in people, the means often don't justify the end. I often hear people bring up the geneva convention, do you honestly think laws will do you much good if some tormented officer holds a gun to your head in the middle of nowhere? The media is biased which is only human, no human writing can be purely objective especially when the topic is something like war.
There are good people in war, most likely the ones that don't execute you on the spot. That's more a matter of a persons heart instead of that from a "rules" perspective. In the end human instinct is to survive, in order to survive you need to be more powerfull. In the end no law can hold a person back and he/she will kill in order to survive. If there should be rules I'd rather have one forbidding war in general, isn't that alot more logical?

There are actually myriad rules or laws of warfare, ranging from customary rules of war which are vague and require interpretation, to formal treaties such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions. These come about primarily because the various nations' militaries realize that the politicians or rulers of their respective countries may start a war. Of course not all these laws are followed all the time; even at the best of times (i.e. when no one is actively trying to kill you) not all laws are followed all the time. But there is a bond between fighting men and women that goes beyond national boundaries and interests. Further, there is an enlightened self interest among soldiers that says certain rules will protect us if captured and make it easier to return to peacetime civilian life afterwards.

These laws and principles are drilled into soldiers precisely because they often run contrary to natural self-interest. If I am manning a checkpoint in Fallujah and a car is speeding towards me, my natural inclination is to kill it at the maximum possible distance. Rules of engagement are there specifically to override this natural human inclination for personal safety, to make some allowance for the possibility that the car might be driven by a man rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital, or an old man who has panicked - or a suicide bomber. Rules of engagement are drafted according to the situation, taking into account the formalized laws of warfare. Soldiers take enormous personal risk to minimmize civilian casualties.

Other laws of warfare are simply ratified agreements between signatory nations. An example of this is the prohibition against exploding or expanding bullets. Each side (well before any conflict) agrees that whomever I am fighting, I will not use bullets designed to cause unnecessary pain or damage. I may shoot you, but it's nothing personal, dude. Captured soldiers in uniform are not to be executed, but are to be provided with safe quarters and reasonable food (to the same standard as is available to their captors) and removed from the battleground as quickly as is practical. These laws emphasize that the struggle is for a nation's interests rather than just a bunch of hate breaking out. There should always be things you are not willing to do, even for your nation's interests. Laws of warfare attempt to define those at a common level for all signatory nations. And that's a good thing.

Of course, but in theory rules don't mean much. When you can do the most damage with bombing from above, you don't ignore that missile because there is a rule that makes it unfair. You use it because you have it, as long as there are weapons and the thought of killing to accomplish a goal there will be war.
I sometimes wonder how it would be like if we still fought by the ancient Bushido, there is no honor to be gained by shooting at a civilian car loaded with possible explosives. War has never been something to be proud off but it's in our blood, with the invention of gunpower rules quickly went out the backdoor. I'm not a soldier, but I can understand the respect a soldier has for another soldier. And yes, I agree it's a good thing that there are official rules to prohibit chemical weapons for instance. But in the end these do nothing, laws only work if you abide by them. A terrorist, freedomfighter, or whatever you call it may use that weapon anyway if it accomplishes his goal. The side that doesn't will be at a disadvantage, which is most likely the case now with the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end both sides will have to get their hands dirty, eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is the only way to win.
In the end the people you saved by not following that instinct might be bombed in much large numbers by the same car that did contain explosives. There are no rules in war, just casualties and political ideals.
I don't mean to offend any troops here btw, I have great respect for armed forces and what they're doing. But I think we can all agree here that trying to bring peace with ideals and rules of conduct in countries that have been torn by war for centuries isn't going to work. Iraq is falling apart, cruel his methods might be Saddam did manage to keep his country together. For me it just seems the western philosophy has turned into: we're trying to help, don't you want democracy? Only to be puzzled why the enemy didn't follow the rules and are trying to play dirty with bombs, chemical weapons and possible nuclear means.

 

[John Galt]

Another point- there must be certain rules of engagement, becasue if not war simply becomes a Hunnic holocaust- if you break the rules of war, so will your enemy (see-the eastern front). This means massive carnage, devestation, genocide and fighting to the death. This is good for neither man nor beast- a country is no good if half of its scorched earth.

So not playing by the rules dosen't get you anywhere.

However, a situation might arise in which in order to prevent major loss of life, it would be better to use an atrocity to end the conflict. You might be able to provoke a surrender if you're able to effectively wipe out their capital city via using a WMD or terror campaign. This would result in significant psychological damage to the country while only killing a fraction of the population. You could achieve a better effect by killing a small amount of people in a publicized and brutal manner instead of conventionally killing a large amount of people. However, care must be taken not to galvanize resistance by giving them an Alamo, you've got to be able to get it done in one move or else you've opened yourself up to grueling war with no restrictions.

 

[TomNook]

The actual reason for utilising the atom bomb was to stop the red army from taking part of Japan. This is not bullshit- the russians had taken manchuria and had the resources and the plans to take the northern end of Japan. If it hadn't been so crucial to truman to thumb his nose at Stalin (as Stalin took berlin and all that, mainly due to Eisenhower) then the allies could have just sat back and waited for Japan to starve/coup etc.

But Harry truman wanted to make a point to his counterpart- so he showed Stalin just what the west was capable of, and got Japan in the baragin.



Another point- there must be certain rules of engagement, becasue if not war simply becomes a Hunnic holocaust- if you break the rules of war, so will your enemy (see-the eastern front). This means massive carnage, devestation, genocide and fighting to the death. This is good for neither man nor beast- a country is no good if half of its scorched earth.

So not playing by the rules dosen't get you anywhere.

Also- if you are going to break the rules then you better be sure your going to win. Because if you shell that hospital, and it dosen't win the war then not only are your enemies going to fight much harder (propagnda war) but also they will start reciprocating in savagery.

So there are rules.

As for love- the main rules are:

'No' means 'no'.
'Not there' means 'not there'.
Romance is better than cheap sex.
There may be more fish in the sea, but these fish talk to one another....
Parents and friends are important. get them on your side.

Except Stalin probably already knew the US had the bomb.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Knew about it- but knewof it's destructive power? Doubtful. Not even the Yanks knew that much about it.

 

[John Galt]

Who needs test sites when you've got other countries?

 

[Whiskyjakk]

War has never been something to be proud off but it's in our blood, with the invention of gunpower rules quickly went out the backdoor.

What's so special about gunpowder that makes war become ruleless? You just have to read Machiavelli to see that there were plenty of ways to fight 'dishonourably' in early modern and medieval times e.g. killing the enemy high command during the peace negotiations or besieging a town full of civilians. The debate about whether there should be rules in warfare has probably gone on for centuries, changing the weapons shouldn't really change anything.

 

[Whiskyjakk]

Ok, so we can kill large amounts of people quicker and with less effort. However, this just means that the actual rules of war have to change from the oldschool 'don't attack other countries without declaring a state of war first' to more modern rules such as 'don't use weapons of mass destruction'. The question of whether we should have rules of war at all is completely independent from how easy it is to commit an atrocity.

 

[John Galt]

I think that having no restrictions on weapon use can, in some cases, actually make a country safer. Who in their right mind would attack a nation who's got a gas that will make you eat your own face? However, once more people get the "Face Eating Gas" then you've got a problem and will then require rules to ease the minds of the civilians.

 

[Fire Daemon]

I think that having no restrictions on weapon use can, in some cases, actually make a country safer. Who in their right mind would attack a nation who's got a gas that will make you eat your own face? However, once more people get the "Face Eating Gas" then you've got a problem and will then require rules to ease the minds of the civilians.

That works untill one country produces a better face eating gas. The country with the better gas will see the other countries as weaker and hence attack, with their face eating gasses.

Where as if no countries had face eating gas then there will be no gasses to attack with. So then no war and less faces being eaten.

 

[John Galt]

Note that I said it makes a country safer. The Land of Face Eating Gases is pretty safe from invasion, the rest of the world is screwed however. Still, if TLoFEG is able to conquer the other countries, they'll all join TLoFEG and it'll be a sort of Pax Faceeata.

 

[smallharmlesskitten]

if they carry weapons they go boom in my opinion, if the red cross medics have a pistol i wouldnt be above sniping them

 

[hughball]

Thank you kitten for forgetting that the red cross is an aid organization i can only assume you mean the arm band worn by second world war soldiers.

 

[John Galt]

Well, if the medic had the gun pointed at me, I'd shoot too. Those philanthropists can be pretty assertive. Also, wouldn't a nuclear weapon kill at least one medic? I mean come on, the odds that any body of soldiers would gather without medical personnel are pretty slim.

 

[werepossum]

Of course, but in theory rules don't mean much. When you can do the most damage with bombing from above, you don't ignore that missile because there is a rule that makes it unfair. You use it because you have it, as long as there are weapons and the thought of killing to accomplish a goal there will be war.
I sometimes wonder how it would be like if we still fought by the ancient Bushido, there is no honor to be gained by shooting at a civilian car loaded with possible explosives. War has never been something to be proud off but it's in our blood, with the invention of gunpower rules quickly went out the backdoor. I'm not a soldier, but I can understand the respect a soldier has for another soldier. And yes, I agree it's a good thing that there are official rules to prohibit chemical weapons for instance. But in the end these do nothing, laws only work if you abide by them. A terrorist, freedomfighter, or whatever you call it may use that weapon anyway if it accomplishes his goal. The side that doesn't will be at a disadvantage, which is most likely the case now with the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end both sides will have to get their hands dirty, eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is the only way to win.
In the end the people you saved by not following that instinct might be bombed in much large numbers by the same car that did contain explosives. There are no rules in war, just casualties and political ideals.
I don't mean to offend any troops here btw, I have great respect for armed forces and what they're doing. But I think we can all agree here that trying to bring peace with ideals and rules of conduct in countries that have been torn by war for centuries isn't going to work. Iraq is falling apart, cruel his methods might be Saddam did manage to keep his country together. For me it just seems the western philosophy has turned into: we're trying to help, don't you want democracy? Only to be puzzled why the enemy didn't follow the rules and are trying to play dirty with bombs, chemical weapons and possible nuclear means.

Iraq isn't falling apart; it's largely peaceful and being rebuilt from war damage plus decades of neglect. Certainly you can argue that in any Arab Moslem nation a certan number of people WILL be murdered each year, whether by the state or by terrorists. And certainly you can argue that the ultra-controlled, informant-rich state of Hussein's Iraq is less conducive an environment for al-Qaeda than democracy, especially today's weak fledgeling democracy with American and British occupiers enforcing the peace. I choose to believe that on average all men, no matter racial background or religion, prefer peace, freedom, and democracy. Even though a large number of Moslems hate democracy and freedom, preferring an unfree theocracy for religious reasons, I think the majority would prefer freedom of religion (at least within Islam) and freedom to choose their own leaders and to make their own laws. Of course, time may prove me wrong.

Factional fighting in Iraq has largely ended, other than al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Today's enemy in Iraq are mostly terrorists, funded and supplied by Iran, who are as likely to drop a few mortar bombs in a market as to take out a Stryker with a roadside bomb. That's a clear a difference between terrorist and freemdom fighter as you're ever likely to find.