Should be restrictions on types of weapons to be used in war?

Answer 1

It sounds like a great idea, but I doubt if you can hold anyone accountable for it. War happens when people break the rules, so I don't know why we'd expect people to follow a rule like this.

I've always been amazed that the Geneva Convention lasted as long as it did.

Answer 2

This is an excellent question and approaches the broader question of how should a modern nation wage war? First let me state, in genuine sincerity, that "I HATE WAR". I share this view and actually plagerize the words of FDR. ( Is it plagerism when you have said those exact words for years and then see that a famous person also said them decades earlier? I read them on one of the panels of his quaotations at his memorial in DC three years back but have said that for decades. oh, well, back to the question.) The answer which I feel is correct may at first appear inconsistent with my statement, but it isn't, if you understand the logic and thoroughly appreciate the modern situation. I have been to war, killed for my country and my personal beliefs, had friends maimed and killed, and suffer from the aftermath of my involvement.
The very polite Genva Convention is an attempt to put a limit on the barbarous nature of the act of war. It succeeds as long as everyone abides by the rules. It has never been totally successful or accepted. It has many provisions against targeting civilian populations, torturing people, using slave labor from conquered territories, using certain weapons considered inhumane and how to begin wars 'lawfully'. All of this seems very humane and genteel.
But also it says, in essence, that it is lawful for two countries to come to war, send one another declarations that because some country's transportation routes are interrupted, or a border conflict dating back cenutires must be resolved, or one country wants another's natural resources, or some few grains of sand, or someone called someone else a name or disrespects some philosophy or religion, they may have their armies attack each other. Sounds so 'clean' and 'ethical'.
Now, see heah. you take a few of your best young people and a lot of your poor, teach them to shoot those guns and direct artillery and air power and you do the same, Then start on either side of this line, have those people begin shooting at one another and when your populations get sick of it all and determine that enough of either have died, sit down and figure out who 'won' what. The shame is that most, if not all, the young folks from either side killed and maimed by this war were decent people within their cultures. They had the rights, dreams and opportunities for a fine and normal life within the limits of their societies, but are now forever altered by the war in which their governments had them participate. They have sunk bone weary, thirsty, starving, almost out of ammo, not knowing exactly where they are into some mudhole, perhaps filled with dead and dieing (of their own or the enemy) excretia from the "casualties" (isn't that a wonderful clean word?), dead animals, twisted plants, bombs or artillery not exploded and, in sheer terror, have wondered if they too would be dead in the next second, minute, day or week. They have uttered prayers to dieties in which they no longer had any faith and epitaths at the same dieties, their leaders, the enemy and their very mothers for bringing them into the world in the first place. Perhaps their flesh is stinging because a litttle white phospherous (willey peter, dragon's breath, devil's fire) is burning its way into their body (hell, it's only a small wound and there isn't time to treat it now anyhow and the medic just lost his head, heh-heh, might as well die laughing) while they furtively search the horizon for the next enemy they may be able to kill in the hopes it will help them or their immediate comrades to survive another glorious moment. Isn't it lovely, Isn't it glorious? But I won't get killed by mustard gas, my family won't become slaves, old Jake didn't die from nerve gas, slobbering and crapping all over himself, why he took 2-3 steps with his guts hanging around his knees. NO, folks, the rules are all BS! And limited wars?
These are even worse. We have this idea that populations should remain 'safe'. That collateral casualties should be avoided. That use of WMDs are horrible. ALL war is horrible!
If a populace actually believes that they have been harmed significantly or that they may be, then it should pull its morality laden drawers up from its knees to its waste and say to the trangressor, "STOP! or I shall annihilate you and all yours." And then if they do not stop, do what you said. Give nor expect any quarter. War is war and the harder and meaner you make it the quicker it will end. AND, most importantly, the less likely it will be that war will ever be necessary. The more everyone fears the consequences of war, the less all are to do the things that might bring war.
I'd supply scenarios with casualty estimates, etc, but either you understand or not, so I shall jsut stop here. Terrorism can be stopped this way, also, but one must not be afraid to use maximum power against the leaders and infrastructures of the terrorists as well as the terrorists themselves.

Answer 3

No, not really, though I believe the line is drawn against using chemical, biological, nerve agents or nuclear weapons unless they are used on us 1st and if that happens, all bets are off, then I think our response would be a nuclear one using a small tactical weapon but if the initial attack was catastrophic then a full blown nuclear strike....very scary stuff, isn't it?

BTW, a most interesting question.

Answer 4

I believe that there should be restrictions on what youcan and can;t use in war. But in that same fact you are allways going to have "terrorists" that will use what ever they can get their hands on.

Answer 5

There is supposed to be right now in the Geneva Convention Accords.