War crimes: A quick hypothetical

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Yeah, otherwise we end up having a feud with them and having to war with them for years. Look at all the times people have committed war crimes on Earth, gotten away with it and had a horrific relationship with them for years.

These aliens don't care about how we act to them. They want our planet and will not stop until they have it.

Well that wasn't explicitly said. In which case we treat them like any country that has demanded the world without regard to war crimes: we beat them with the Geneva Convention's rules and then offer them the chance to become allies. If they refuse then we occupy their planet.

 

[Jordi]

I'm sorry, but there isn't a country in the world that wouldn't (doesn't) violate the Geneva Conventions if it's in their best interest. And that is against fellow humans! The "success" of Geneva is that it makes it somewhat less attractive to commit atrocious acts, because there might be more consequences from other countries, but that's about it.

For every single last country winning comes first, and morals come second. If we face annihilation or total oppression, everything needs to be done in order to win. If we can help it, we should adhere to our own morals, but that has a way lower priority. Ideally I would like to reason and negotiate with these aliens. If we cannot negotiate not going to war, perhaps we could establish our own "Geneva conventions" with them, as that would also be in their best interest.

Some extra info; these aliens aren't trying to exterminate us, they instead want to break our spirit. They are desperate; their home planet is extremely overpopulated and invading ours and replacing us (except for a few downtrodden dregs, kept as a warning to any species stupid enough to mess with them) is their only hope for survival. They are therefore unwilling to use the most destructive WMD's such as nukes, as they want the planet to be relatively pristine. Before you say anything, the transport vessels have good point defence, so we cannot just know them out of the sky. They are also willing to use much nerve gas.

Crap, so now we not only stand the chance of being wiped out, but we also face the humiliation of being defeated by a society too stupid to control their own population and properly manage their own resources? Humanity could be forced to hand over the earth to creatures who will likely use it up and perpetuate their own desperation? Kill them all.

As far as human vs human warfare goes, I really don't understand the belief that civilians should be spared from slaughter. Victory comes from the complete depopulation of the enemy country. Anything less just gives them the chance to regain their strength and try again later. Just look at Rome and Carthage. If I recall correctly, they went to war three times. At the end of the third war, Rome starved the people of Carthage within their own walls, then kicked down the doors and burned every last citizen of Carthage, living or dead, in a great pile in the middle of the city. Carthage never attacked Rome again, because nobody was left alive to call themselves Carthaginian.

I don't know the exact story of Carthage, but one story I have heard time and again is that the Romans were usually actually pretty good to the populations of conquered countries. Most citizens were probably just trading in one oppressor for another, and at least the Romans brought economic prosperity with them. When you think about how big the Roman empire was at one point, this actually makes a lot of sense. They didn't wipe out every single last population in that area just so that all of the Italians could have bigger gardens or something. That would also spread Roman forces way too thin.

 

[Madgamer13]

Greets!

Geneva convention wouldn't matter in the event of first contact alien warfare, since no human would have the slightest clue what to do. An additional convention would emerge in the wake of human-alien warfare, however. After some sort of ability to communicate would be established, assuming that all sides survive the conflict.

In the end, aliens would just suffer the same red tape as humans do to other humans, it would only take time and as much as is needed to progress.

I dont really see what the problem would be, regardless of how morality can be waived to secure survival, morality always comes into play in the aftermath.

 

[Madgamer13]

Greets!

Indeed, dropping two nuke bombs onto major population centers was quite patriotic of the Americans.

 

[Ryotknife]

Greets!

Indeed, dropping two nuke bombs onto major population centers was quite patriotic of the Americans.

good thing it saved many more lives in the end. Still a terrible thing though (second bomb is definetely debatable). not to mention we are defending their country for them now........

 

[Treblaine]

If an alien species that was at a similar technological level to us invaded, except this species has no concept of morality, and therefore believes that ANYTHING is permitted in a war, should we still hold to the Geneva convention and avoid enacting war crimes upon them?

You don't need to hypothesis of aliens, plenty of human organisations think anything is permitted in war if it progresses towards their victory.

And all current international conventions of warfare limit what you can do to human opponents, it wouldn't be a war crime to kill a non-human. Every year billions of rats are exterminated en-mass with no option to surrender, no imprisonment, no trial. This is not a war crime. If the army shoots a load of chimpanzees, this is not a war crime. Intelligence isn't a factor, being a Homo Sapien is. And don't give me BS like "well what is really human" there is no ambiguity there.

The only non-humans that get any kind of protection are species that are both endangered and NATIVE. An invading alien force qualifies as neither. Every last one of them could be exterminated and it wouldn't apply to any international conventions.

 

[bauke67]

You're thinking of it too much as a human vs human-like scenario.

An alien race who has absolutely no compunction about wiping us off the face of the earth clearly does not adhere to the morals that make us human. Just as they would surely wonder 'why aren't these idiots busting their hump to kill us? a strange war they wage, unlike us civilised denizens' or words to that effect. Without an in depth sociological and psychological study/profile of the enemy at hand, understanding their morals is reduced to the simple fact that: they are willing to destroy us and spare no expense in doing so.

Therefore... no holds barred, everything's fair. The aliens view us as animals to be culled and don't look as though they're going to change their opinion any time soon... *shrug*

True, and I don't say we shoudln't fight them in every way possible, all I'm trying to say is that morals are not about what the other thinks, it's about YOU. What YOU think is the right thing to do. What another would do in the same situation should not affect your values, or there would be no point in having them.
(to clarify, I'm talking about horrendously torturing POW's or causing more pain then is absolutely necessary. You know, war crimes, what the thread's about, that's not to say we shouldn't be waging war.)

 

[jklinders]

Since the Geneva convention was pretty much ignored by all major powers the last time we had what I would consider a total war (WWII) I would tend to think this question purely academic. When it's total war, meaning victory or annihilation I pretty much think all bets are off and do what ever the hell it takes to live. The idea that we can follow a "gentlemanly code of conduct" in total war is laughably naive.

 

[bauke67]

Mor

YES WE DO!. We hear about it all the time in the news when a person finds their boyfriends/girlfriend/spouse cheating and murder them. We see it in war when a soldier suffers enough stress they commit atrocities. Whether you help an old lady across the street or shoot up an elementary school on their first day you are still human and no amount of good deeds or sick crimes will make you better or worse.

Morals are about as important as titles and only have as much worth as the individual believes in them: You may call yourself a king and feel like a king but if you have no land or people to follow you you are no king.

Eeeeerrrmmm..

Sooo, what you are trying tell me is that you think we SHOULD murder our cheating spouses?

The second bit of your post, though, only goes to emphasize my point: they are only worth as much as the individual who believes in them, so when others don't have the same views(like certain invading aliens for instance)nothing about those views has to change because they are still your personal views. Not theirs.

 

[WanderingFool]

I think it all depends on just how much firepower is needed to fight the aliens. FI we can get by without using those weapons seen as "immoral", than fine. But if this ends up like Halo, than fuck the Geneva convention, this is a matter of survival.

*Edit*

Since the Geneva convention was pretty much ignored by all major powers the last time we had what I would consider a total war (WWII) I would tend to think this question purely academic. When it's total war, meaning victory or annihilation I pretty much think all bets are off and do what ever the hell it takes to live. The idea that we can follow a "gentlemanly code of conduct" in total war is laughably naive.

The Geneva Convention came into existance after WWII. In fact, it was because of WWII that the Geneva Convention actually exists. Still doesnt change the spirit of your post. Which I do agree with still.

 

[Squilookle]

the whole thing is a moot point- either they have nukes like us, in which case they can drop them from orbit at their leisure, or they don't, in which case we can use ours in a show of force to convince them to leave/surrender.

In the meantime, do we treat any prisoners with respect? Absolutely. Ill trreatment of another group, no matter what the method- only breeds more hatred and conflict. The moral measurement of all civilisation is not how it treats its friends, but how it treats its enemies. Be barbaric to a hostile force and you're no better than the worst xenophobic stereotype you think them to be.

You don't know from the outset that they have no concept of morality, and even if they don't- you're best bet to avoiding future conflict is an attempt to introduce one, or at the very least foster some sort of understanding between the two sides.

I'm actually a bit shattered by how quickly most of you are to jump down to the level you think the enemy is at. Extremely disappointing.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Just because they go so low doesn't mean we should trow away our human side, or what is left of it during war. Same could be said for any murderer. We don't just kill them or torture them like they did with their victims. Just because they have no morality doesn't mean we should have any also.

Morality isn't there just for the others but also to make your self feel better. When you win the war, would you be happier that you did all you could to keep your humanity or that you trow out your humanity right from the start?

 

[bauke67]

what is the point of morals/honor/civility if it causes billions of people to be slaughtered needlessly?

there is a time and a place for those kinds of things, at least where countries are involved. That doesnt mean we should be immoral jerks all the time, throwing out morals should be as a last resort. If the decision is between acting morally or saving many lives, im sorry lives should win out. You can always re-evalute your morals or try to change yourself afterwards, but you cant bring back the dead.

It is the same thing as a person defending themselves and killing an attacker (even though killing is immoral), or a starving family stealing food.

Yeah, but, dude, usually people's morals honor and civility have a very clear opinion on the slaughtering billions for no apparant reason. And saving many lives is usually considered morally good, isn't it?
If you are sure aliens are going to kill everyone, then you should do whatever you can to stop it, as long as it does not involve killing even more billions.

Like in your example, defending yourself and killing an attacker may involve killing, but only to stop another killing(and possibly more, if you meet someone who would do that more than once), and when an entire family dies, that's worse than a bit of food being stolen, isn't it? It is. And according to what? Our moral views.

 

[Fayathon]

Follow the Geneva convention until you are certain that it will lead to the demise/enslavement/whathaveyou of our species, then fuck the convention, use every bastard weapon we have.

EDIT: If they pull some shit like the beginning of Independence Day, or we have been in contact and they express the desire to wipe us out/enslave us/etc then fuck 'em applies much sooner.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

the whole thing is a moot point- either they have nukes like us, in which case they can drop them from orbit at their leisure, or they don't, in which case we can use ours in a show of force to convince them to leave/surrender.

They don't want to use nukes; they want to replace us as the main civilised species on Earth and would prefer a world that isn't radioactive. They also have good point defence systems on their ships.

 

[WanderingFool]

the whole thing is a moot point- either they have nukes like us, in which case they can drop them from orbit at their leisure, or they don't, in which case we can use ours in a show of force to convince them to leave/surrender.

They don't want to use nukes; they want to replace us as the main civilised species on Earth and would prefer a world that isn't radioactive. They also have good point defence systems on their ships.

Are they EMP shielded? Cause if they are, Im calling Villian Sue'ing on them...

 

[Froggy Slayer]

the whole thing is a moot point- either they have nukes like us, in which case they can drop them from orbit at their leisure, or they don't, in which case we can use ours in a show of force to convince them to leave/surrender.

They don't want to use nukes; they want to replace us as the main civilised species on Earth and would prefer a world that isn't radioactive. They also have good point defence systems on their ships.

Are they EMP shielded? Cause if they are, Im calling Villian Sue'ing on them...

They don't need to be. EMP doesn't work in the same manner in space.

 

[GiglameshSoulEater]

First off, how the hell did they get here if they are at our level?

As for rights, since they aren't recognizing civilians I say fuck em. Capet bomb their asses with napalm and chemical weapons.

Technological advance is not necessarily linear in the sense everything improves at the same rate. Can you imagine the difference it would make if instead of studying new weaponry we devoted the effort and funds into space travel?

OT: Kill most of them, but preserve some for science.
The things we would learn! Actually we should test out the chemical weapons to see the effects upon their biology.

 

[Squilookle]

the whole thing is a moot point- either they have nukes like us, in which case they can drop them from orbit at their leisure, or they don't, in which case we can use ours in a show of force to convince them to leave/surrender.

They don't want to use nukes; they want to replace us as the main civilised species on Earth and would prefer a world that isn't radioactive. They also have good point defence systems on their ships.

So what? do they have radio? Communication? An alphabet? I consider these factors to be far more important than their point defense network, which could probably fail anyway if every nuke in the US was launched up at them at the same time, only needing a single hit in all likeliness.