Should there be strict rules of warfare?

[NaptownKnight]

You know, like they use to have in the 18th century, where there were strict rules governing what a commander could do and how he could fight his enemy. I think there should be, as some of them did prevent alot of bloodshed.

[enoch]

can there be? = is the first question we need to ask and if the answer is no, well, thats the game folks

and these rules from the 18th century only ever existed on paper.....

[Thanatos]

Of course not.

War is war. You're going to make war "civilized?" War, the ultimate act of killing others?

You set down rules, you kill creativity. You kill creativity, you get set systems. You get set systems, you get men dying the same way over and over and over again, until one side loses all their men, because they couldn't change their tactics.

That being said, there still should be guidelines. I do not condone terrorist-activities, and most certainly do not condone guerrilla warfare. The resistance should conduct a war of attrition, not a guerrilla war.

You must understand that even if there are rules, who would bother following them if their lives were on the line? I certainly wouldn't.

[LSJ]

How can there be rules in warfare?
Even if there are rules of war, who can enforce them? A country must give itself guidelines, and only the country itself can enforce them.

[enoch]

guidelines are as useful as toilet paper on a battlefield

deeper than you think

[Tom Paine]

Let's see. The Geneva Conventions, various international treaties, most Western armies have their own codes of conduct.... not only should there be, there are. The problem arises from the ill enforcement of them when it suits the body politic.

[enoch]

so they only really exist on paper........

[William the Bastard]

Let's see. The Geneva Conventions, various international treaties, most Western armies have their own codes of conduct.

so they only really exist on paper........

There is the problem of who our armed forces are fighting these days. We are not fighting an enemy that has uniforms or drill. These are men that will do anything to gain the upper hand for their cause. Be it sacrificing themselves in bombings or hacking a Westerners head off on the internet.

There is no possibility of enforcing Geneva conventions on insurgents as they are as likely to accept them as they are likely to accept any other Western concepts. If the Germans wanted another pop then yes I would expect the "rules of war" to be played out as much as they were during the last Great War. Which is not saying much considering Geneva had to do with the protection of non-combatants and dropping millions of tonnes of bombs on cities IMO isn't keeping with the concept.

Our armed forces atm have these laws in place to keep order and to not get bogged down in propaganda against them for breaking them. However the enemy does not have these restrictions. I remember reading about a British soldier who was being fired upon until he turned to face the gunman. The insurgent dropped his weapon and ran away without any shots fired at him. To me this sounds ludicrous but our soldiers have been told to only shoot people who are firing and not the unarmed.

To sum up "War is Hell and Hell has no rules". Unfortunately (in some ways) our troops do have rules so they are given a disadvantage from the off. Being the soft and civilised civies back home that we are would we really want a squaddie in Iraq to be as barbarous as the insurgents in our name? I know my feelings on the matter.

[enoch]

Sherman knew his tactics

[William the Bastard]

Sherman knew his tactics

The American Civil War General? Being a Brit I know very little about it. Probably more than the average American knows about the English Civil War at least. What did he do Enoch? Or are you talking about the tank? Of which our version of it was better than the original.

[NaptownKnight]

The American Civil War General? Being a Brit I know very little about it. Probably more than the average American knows about the English Civil War at least. What did he do Enoch? Or are you talking about the tank? Of which our version of it was better than the original.

Well the civil war general Sherman was a central figure in the North's victory. He and his army marched right through the heartland of the South, from west to east. He told his men to destroy everything, including crops, livestock, plantations, and homes. Basically he ruined the South's ability to support itself.

This method of warfare I think is ethical, but only if you repair the damage done after the war. On the general subject of rules in warfare I just think it is right to have respect for your enemy, and treat him with dignity and mercy. Certain guidelines must be in place to assure that your soldiers do not cause harm to anyone or thing but the enemy. Vietnam was a perfect example of why we need rules of war, with GIs just killing random villagers.

[Blau&Gruen]

Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II);
REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND
SECTION I.--ON BELLIGERENTS
CHAPTER I.--On the Qualifications of Belligerents

Article 1
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:
To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
To carry arms openly; and
To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
Article 2
The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on the enemy's approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded a belligerent, if they respect the laws and customs of war.
Article 3
The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In case of capture by the enemy both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.
....

Article 23
Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:--
To employ poison or poisoned arms;
To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
To declare that no quarter will be given;
To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;
To make improper use of a flag of truce, the national flag, or military ensigns and the enemy's uniform, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.
Article 24
Ruses of war and the employment of methods necessary to obtain information about the enemy and the country, are considered allowable.
Article 25
The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
Article 26
The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.
Article 27
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.
The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.
Article 28
The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.

SECTION III. -- ON MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER HOSTILE TERRITORY
Article 42
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation applies only to the territory where such authority is established, and in a position to assert itself.
Article 43
The authority of the legitimate power having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all steps in his power to re-establish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
Article 44
Any compulsion of the population of occupied territory to take part in military operations against its own country is prohibited.
Article 45
Any pressure on the population of occupied territory to take the oath to the hostile Power is prohibited.
Article 46
Family honors and rights, individual lives and private property, as well as religious convictions and liberty, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.
......
Source: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague02.htm
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_C...99_and_1907%29

[Luftwaffels]

Being the soft and civilised civies back home that we are would we really want a squaddie in Iraq to be as barbarous as the insurgents in our name?

I'd like to see them more barbarous. Perhaps that's what's needed to end this war. As Enoch put it, Sherman knew his tactics, and it sure as hell wasn't to win the hearts and minds of the southern people.

The American Civil War General? Being a Brit I know very little about it. Probably more than the average American knows about the English Civil War at least. What did he do Enoch? Or are you talking about the tank? Of which our version of it was better than the origina

Sherman marched south and burned everything, destroyed everything, and even laid waste to the city of Atlanta Georgia. He crippled the south by being barbarous, and he ended the war pretty much.

[William the Bastard]

Sherman marched south and burned everything, destroyed everything, and even laid waste to the city of Atlanta Georgia. He crippled the south by being barbarous, and he ended the war pretty much.

I was just having a glance at his "blog" on Wiki. It seems he was very good at the "Scorched Earth" method of waging war. However the only problem with that is that it can only really work against conventional armies. I don't see how it can be made to fit the modern battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan?

As I said this is from a quick glance at wiki but it appears he did not kill civilians in high numbers and it was mainly infrastructure and crops that were his targets. In Iraq this policy would be useless as you are trying to build a country not destroy an army.

I see what you are getting at with his ferocity but by using insurgents methods of fear and destruction against them then all it will do is be a poster getting the enemy new recruits.

[Snoopy]

War has no rules. The point is to kill the enemy. This is how it would look if war had rules:

Soldier 1: *Pulls out RPG*
Soldier 2: Hey, thats against the rules!
Soldier 1: Oh sorry!
Soldier 2: Get your rifle!
Soldier 1: I forgot it at home.
Soldier 2: While we wait for you to get supplies, lets eat some muffins.
Soldiers: *Eat muffins*
Soldier 1: That was nice.
Soldier 2: Look! Its your supply truck!
Soldier 1: Oh joy, a gun thats regulated!
Soldier 2: You first.
Soldier 1: *Shoots soldier 2*
Soldier 2: Oh sorry, I forgot kevlar vests are against the rules.
Soldier 2: *pulls off kevlar vest*
Soldier 1: *shoots again*
Soldier 2: Ah, that hit the spot! Nice shot!
Soldier 1: Thank you!

More like,

Soldier 1: I will ******* kill you!
Soldier 2: Die!
Soldier 1: *Blows soldier 2 to pieces with a rocket*
Soldier 2: *Stabs soldier 1 to death with a katana*

War was not made for rules. It was made for utterly destroying the enemy.

[enoch]

pretty much

[the_mango55]

If you set down a set of rules for war and follow them, but your enemy doesn't bother with them, you have put yourself in a huge disadvantage.

Who would enforce these rules? The UN?

[Luftwaffels]

Exactly mango, it's like bringing a spitball to a gunfight.

[Thanatos]

I believe in the USA's Rules of Engagement, not the stupid Geneva Convention.

War is for killing, not debating.

[Francisco Montana]

"Should there be rules of war?" - Only if you want to lose.