[kopite493]

the only rule in war should be not killing civilians

[ufo2012]

(Original post by kopite493)
the only rule in war should be not killing civilians

Although that in itself should just be common sense

[fortransexual]

(Original post by ufo2012)
The only reason a country against another with nuclear capability has rules is because they are afraid who will strike first and how much it would wipe out.

Either that or one of the parties fear they don't have the capability or can't matcht the strike back.

If it is truly survival of the fittest and really war then yes, still no rules whatsoever.

The western nations always get punished for being more moral, but the others tend to get the slip.

I don't think survival of the fittest applies to war - we can't just go and nuke africa because they are not 'fit' enough to nuke us first.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by fortransexual)
I don't think survival of the fittest applies to war - we can't just go and nuke africa because they are not 'fit' enough to nuke us first.

But for what reason and since when were we in a war with Africa?

[fortransexual]

(Original post by ufo2012)
But for what reason and since when were we in a war with Africa?

Whatever reason, get some gold - maybe they shot down one of our planes or something.

The thing that frightens me is you would want to nuke any country we were at war with on principle, whether they were a threat or not - not the actual reason for the war

[Barden]

Well I believe that flamethrowers were banned by international law during WW2... but both sides used them...

[Luxray]

Is kicking a guy in the crotch banned?

[Octohedral]

(Original post by Dragonfly07)
Having rules in war is no different to having rules in a street fight to the death. They're both barbaric.

It is different, because it's organised barbarism. There are plenty of rules, moral or not - take, for example, when the Germans agreed not to bomb Oxford and Cambridge if we agreed not to bomb two of their cultural cities. Such rules benefit both sides, and can't be ignored if the side ignoring them values its own people.

[SillyEddy]

Certain rules exist for certain reasons. Some are to provide a 'right to escalate' and others are to stop it from escalating too far. For instance, many countries have the 'fire if fired upon' idea... It stops them from just being barbaric and shooting anyone who they suspect of being an enemy. It gives the enemy a chance to stand down, rather than the allies just taking everyone out.

Other rules are just good natured. I suppose it tries to give some dignity for their deaths. For instance, the rules on chemical and biological agents. It's just not cool to have your lungs disintegrate.

Other rules are frustrating. For instance, I heard that the taliban would often seek refuge inside mosques. Our armed forces could then not attack them. It was cowardly for the taliban to do this, but the armed forces don't want the opposition to gain any leverage over them. They 'respected' the religious building, just to try to keep civilians happy.

[cl_steele]

geneva convention, people being indited for war crimes ring any bells?

[ufo2012]

(Original post by fortransexual)
Whatever reason, get some gold - maybe they shot down one of our planes or something.

The thing that frightens me is you would want to nuke any country we were at war with on principle, whether they were a threat or not - not the actual reason for the war

Well in any war there is always an offensive and defensive position. The problem is trying to determine which is which and who is taking on what position.

For example, in Iraq, the US and British Army went on the offensive, but gradually became those who were on the defensive.

So at what point and how do you determine who is who?

[Dragonfly07]

(Original post by Octohedral)
It is different, because it's organised barbarism. There are plenty of rules, moral or not - take, for example, when the Germans agreed not to bomb Oxford and Cambridge if we agreed not to bomb two of their cultural cities. Such rules benefit both sides, and can't be ignored if the side ignoring them values its own people.

You think organized crime gangs don't have rules of their own? War IS barbarism. There are two or more sides fighting each other and it's the only time when killing is not only moral, but also encouraged. Slapping some rules in doesn't make it any less barbaric.

[chickenonsteroids]

There are. You aren't meant to kill civilians purposefully and I think certain weaponry and explosives are banned too.

[wildrover]

Rules should only apply to other countries and not terrorists, some of them are also ridculous such as when a British soilder was cahrged for cutting of a talibans fingers in order to allow his squad to leave the battelfield sooner.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
There are. You aren't meant to kill civilians purposefully and I think certain weaponry and explosives are banned too.

..and yet the scum are allowed to plant IED's at random as and where they feel like it?

Here's a thought, after an IED is found, have them replant it in a known taliban area. Now that would be interesting.

[@Sam]

Rules, no. A few common decencies in a proper war being distinguished sides who somewhat respect each other, i.e. burial of the dead, rescuing from a stricken ship etc., I should think so if it is an objective achievable without any significant impairment to the side.

[Steevee]

War is a horrific thing. Rules of War help in some small way to make it less horrific.

The problem being of course, that in 99% of cases, one side doesn't follow the rules so closely as the other, giving them the advantage, and then you have the quandry whereby you have to weigh up your 'morals' against overall victory.

[Snagprophet]

If we can do anything to minimise the lives lost of both soldiers and civilians then there should be rules. The problem is that we end up in a stage where we get slated for harming anyone whilest the enemy can do whatever it wants to us with no fear of consequences. The concept of PoWs shows that during WWII, although with Germans more than Japanese, they where incredibly liberal although it wouldn't surprise me if certain liberties where taken with black POWs. But it's a great example of two sides respecting the rules of war, to take prisoners where possible. Sadly it didn't account for the majority of the world during the war.