Why do wars have rules?

Question

We might abide by the "rules" but what makes you think that others will? If they don't, are we going to say, "hey, that's not fair" or "we are now declaring a super dooper war".

War is not civilized so what makes anyone believe that "rules" will make a difference? Maybe there would be less wars if there were no rules.

Answer 1

This is what the rules of war are for:

When you're taking cover behind a vehicle and are taking fire from a bunch of insurgents, you have to take your radio transmitter and communicate with an officer 200 miles away, who then contacts the Pentagon, while you wait for permission to engage the enemy. Once you get it, if you're still alive, you get to fight for your country.

Answer 2

War is a necessary evil that no one wants to participate in, regardless of what the cynics think. Being necessary and being evil, a group of heads got together and made sure that if we have to go out and slaughter each other, at least we can be civilized about it (like, killing only combatants and military targets instead of wantonly murdering cities of women and children). It seems to make sense, given the ironic and twisted nature of humanity.

On the other hand, declaring all these rules was actually a major catalyst of terrorism. Small countries could never fight according to the rules that superpowers established and easily follow, with their booming economies and populations. How could a small middle eastern country with beef with the US battle the States? It can't raise an army, establish a naval fleet, go about it the "proper" way-- so it instead of rolling over and/or getting shut out, they fight the only way they can, through terrorism.

On the other hand, establishing rules was also a shiesty little manuever for superpowers-- cuz after a country doesn't follow the "rules" (quite possibly, even, cuz the rules are unfair), that gives justification for superpowers to also break rules, except they do so "because someone else broke them first, and we've got to fix this." It's like a fool-proof PR campaign for superpowers to save face.

I know it doesn't seem to make any sense, but realizing that there's no winning at anything in life is something the insightful realize very early on, then they decide to try and win anyways. What other virtue could be attained by a human? All the hating whiners out there would like to remain in their naive little fantasy worlds, but the rest of know $h!t is f--ked up and we don't like it either, but we feel compelled to do something about it despite our inevitable defeat-- it's some desperate $h!t, but that's what's so extraordinary about it.

It's the human soul.

Answer 3

The rules were supposed to deal with the conduct not of the battle but its aftermath like prisoners-of-war and etc. It was a way to make it more civilized. Of course the nature of states and governments is eventually they will think that they are above the law and eventually break them. This is true of all nations, but even more so with dictatorial or inhumane governments. And if there were no rules my friend then consider all prisoners-of-war, spies and etc. dead. The rules do not really constrain people from making war...only in its conduct.

Answer 4

I understand where you're coming from, but the "rules" you refer to are necessary to keep one or more sides in a conflict from committing atrocities such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc. And, you're right, many times these rules are broken. But generally speaking, after the conflict is resolved, the victor will hold the vanquished accountable for breaking these "rules".

"War is a continuation of politics by other means...", a quote by Carl von Clauswitz (1780-1831), Prussian Soldier, intellectual and philosopher. To most countries, war is waged when the politicians can no longer stand to be in the same room with one another (put very simply). When one country wages war upon another, it's usually to get one side to adopt the political views of the other, or, in some cases, for land or natural resources. Usually, the countries that wage war against one another fully intend to restore diplomatic relations with each other one day. Without the "Rules of War" as they are called, this would be virtually impossible. Wars are NEVER fought between the peoples of two nations, ...but by the governments of those nations UTILIZING their people and resources in a strategic manner.

Answer 5

Wars have rules to prevent cruel treatment of the soldiers fighting the war. Of couse certain countries and combatants do not follow the rules, but they can then be tried for war crimes if captured. It is a system to keep things in check, which does not work so well.

I hate to say that we (as in the US) don't always follow the rules.

I do not think that the rules of war have any effect on the amount of wars fought in the world.

Answer 6

The rules are mainly to protect civilians and captured troops.We abide by the rules in hopes that the enemy will.War crimes tribunals have been the usual way to deal with war crimes after the fighting is over.
Rules of war are a crippling factor in any battle.

Answer 7

likely won't be able to be a lot help to you the following yet what the whats up, in for a penny, in for a pound. certain the regulations of Land conflict and the regulations of Engagement are accompanied. yet, and there is continually a yet. There are the exigencies of conflict and the clicking of conflict. no one, and highly an American scuffling with guy needs to kill civilians yet in the nice and cozy temperature of conflict that ought to honestly take position. Sitting on your air conditioned or heated residing rooms discussing or arguing over it can not in the least arise with an answer. Your adrenilin is pumping, you're scared out of your ideas and someone (absolutely everyone) pops up the position no one is meant to be and variety of looks opt to you he has an AK in his his fingers and what do you do? properly regrettably some may squeeze the set off and enable loose a three round burst. Who may your buddy really have bypass homestead after this one, inner most John Doe or Ishmale Achjmed? from time to time issues get faraway from you and the 'regulations' do not conceal it. What to do? courtroom martial Pvt John Doe or chalk it as a lot because the exigencies of conflict. you make certain, i'm by using. OH, only one extra element. in case you've not been there and lengthy previous by using it you at the instant are not fairly able to guage the moves of others who were there and experienced that worry. it really is why our structure guarantees us a jury of our friends, even in the military. What precisely does the word 'our friends' advise? Does it advise human beings from a similar socio monetary team or does it advise those who've lengthy previous by using similar ideas numbing worry? You and your buddy figure that one out. ought to bring about countless hours of delicate repartee in the front room over some acceptable classic wine or brandy. reliable success to you pardner.

Answer 8

In the context of any armed conflict, the topic of war crimes inevitably arises, especially in reports of civilian and military casualties and the taking of prisoners of war. The idea of a "war crime" seems to be pretty redundant: Most of us are familiar with the phrase "All is fair in love and war," and in an armed conflict, in which the killing of enemy troops is considered an acceptable means to an end, it may seem that the concept of a "crime" is out of place. But there are countless treaties that declare otherwise, signed by almost every nation in the world.

The Hague Conventions address not only armed conflict; the very first Hague law stresses peaceful settlement of disputes, going to great lengths to prevent war through very specific procedures intended to reach a diplomatic solution to any national and/or international disagreement. Arbitration, Committees of Inquiry, neutral mediators and what can be described as a 30-day "time out" are all called upon in order to avoid war. It is only once all of these steps have been exhausted that it is acceptable to declare war. And then, a formal declaration -- or an ultimatum indicating a formal declaration -- is necessary. An initial surprise attack is illegal.

Many of the laws governing battle are fairly obvious: It is illegal to misuse a white flag, a symbol of surrender or truce (Hague IV); it is illegal to kill or injure a person who has surrendered; it is illegal to attack a defenseless person or place; it is illegal to attack a building that is being used as a hospital. Some of the rules, however, are less patent.

National and cultural symbols are protected. Armed forces may not use the enemy's flag, uniform or insignia, nor the symbol of the Red Cross, for their own purposes. The enemy's property is not to be taken or destroyed unless it's critical to military operations. Structures dedicated to art, science and charitable missions, as well as any historic or cultural objects, are off limits, unless, of course, they are being used for military operations. In that case, they're pretty much fair game.

In general, there is a ban on weapons whose purpose is to maximize pain and suffering: no poisoned weapons; no bullets that do additional damage once inside the body; no chemical or biological weapons.

Chemical and biological warfare is addressed by both the Hague and Geneva laws. Declaration II of The Hague Peace Conference made deadly gas attacks illegal back in 1899. The 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibited lethal gas and bacterial methods of warfare. The Geneva Convention of 1972 reiterated this prohibition by outlawing the "development, production and stockpiling" of these weapons and insisting on the elimination of any already in existence.

On the most basic level, civilians are protected by the same general humanitarian principles that govern the treatment of POWs, the wounded, and others not taking an active role in the conflict. Any form of physical violence or degradation is prohibited. An armed force may not attack civilians, nor use them as a "human shield" to render a location protected from attack.

The general purpose of the fourth Geneva Convention is to shield civilians, and children in particular, from the effects of war. It provides for "neutralized zones" where fighting is prohibited, and hospital and safety zones for the protection of the sick, the elderly, pregnant women, children under 15 and mothers of children under seven. These zones are supposed to be labeled with a huge Red Cross sign to ensure their protection. Children are supposed to wear identity badges in case they are lost or orphaned. Hospital workers are also supposed to carry special identity cards so that they are never prevented from performing their duties.

Answer 9

yeah when bullets are flying and the mortars are thumping and the artillery shells are screaming in, would any soldier pick up his rule book and say

," hEY! the rules say only 20 shells a day! And they've gone one over!"

rules in war are ridiculous. only objectives exist in war. although i believe responsibility is needed too in exercising options

Answer 10

Those rules are only for political purposes, everyone breaks them.