Poll: All's Fair In Love and War?

[Aries_Split]

Wars are won by pushing the other side past they're own mental and physical breaking limit. That's it. Even if everyone person in the country in question was completely dedicated and willing to die for the cause, there is still a breaking point. Japan reached theirs with a couple of bombs. And Vietnam might have met theirs if we dropped a couple more. Case in point, a shorter war is a better war. And if it takes atrocities most people consider unbearable, so be it. Your not the soldier that had to perform them.

And restrictions don't win wars. For example, in the cold war, if neither side could have matched the others in terms of nuclear firepower, then one side would eventually fire.

 

[John Galt]

Bravo John Galt. You just shot a medic. Next, a Koinigstiger appears around the corner, and blows through the wall of the building your in with its 88mm gun. You are half-buried under the falling rubble, but the tank withdraws as your reinforcements come in (we'll assume for arguments sake theres a M36 in their somewhere). A medic hurries over to help you, but the BLAM! A sniper bullet blows through his head, and he collapses to the ground, stone dead, and you bleed to death. If you hadn't shot that german medic, the german sniper wouldn't have shot yours (most likely) and you would now be if not alive then at least inundated with morphine.

However, a sniper in that position would be unable to act with full certainty (or any at all) that they would be shot and require a medic's assistance or whether or not the opposing sniper is in position or willing to kill the medic. The fact of the matter is that in a situation like that, the best possible payout would be to use unconventional means to survive. If you do shoot, then either they retreat or shoot back. If you don't shoot, then they will most definitely shoot you whether through a medic killing or conventional means.

Atrocities have the ability to win wars. They also have the ability to escalate them. You cannot disregard the fact that you might be able to quickly end a war with excessive force and shock the enemy into submission. However, this is a call that must be made using as much knowledge of the people you're attacking (or in the medic killer's case, whether or not there's a sniper or tank around the corner) as possible.

 

[Ultrajoe]

war crimes are only war crimes if you fail, if not, they are glorious victories.

summed up; hit hard enough and no-one complains.

 

[Saskwach]

I've formulated rules that I would hopefully use for general medic dilemmas. Besides circumstances in which killing the medic=killing the general, my two rules are:
Do medics on the opposing side, when given a no-risk opportunity to do so, deny aid to our wounded as well?
Are those medics frequently used as front-line soldiers as well?
Does the medic have an ubercharge?
If the answer to any of these is "yes" I say shoot 'em. They're clearly being used more for their battlefield than humanitarian purpose.

 

[TheFreeGus]

It would be better not to shoot medics because in your officer example, the officer isn't gonna be doing much ordering. he would be taken back to a field hospital and under go months of treatment and rehabilitation, medics can't just patch people up and sent them back into battle.
Also the amount of manpower and resources required to care for the wounded is quite large I would think.
Were as if the officer died they would just bury him would take like 15 minutes and then be back to kick your ass.

 

[John Galt]

Good point there, I can't believe I didn't see that when coming up with the example.

 

[rayxofxsunshine]

war crimes are only war crimes if you fail, if not, they are glorious victories.

summed up; hit hard enough and no-one complains.

I think I agree with what you're saying, but I think that only supports the idea that there should be laws to govern what is considered a war crime and what isn't. It's the same with any crime; it's only a crime if you get caught. Well, I might not speak for everyone, but for me, the chance that I might get caught and have to live with the consequences makes me reconsider whether or not I want to do it. In war, I think the chance of getting punished gives extra incentive to think about your choices and whether or not it's worth risking. That, and you know, the amount of bloodshed.

 

[Papaya Melancholy]

What starts war? If it's a disagreement, then regulations are good. There are many ways to solve disagreements, and a completely regulated war would be decisive without being as atrocious as an unregulated one. Example - Decide an entire war with a duel. Sounds dumb? If both sides agree to it and there is a foundation of respect for the institution of regulated war, then it is entirely feasible. I have read of wars in precolonial Africa that were more like highly regulated ceremonies, with few causualties or injuries. Why can't this work?
There is another instigator of war, however, which is desire for power. When one group desires another's resources/land/riches, they decide to take it from them. The group that lusts for power would not settle for a regulated war, because they want to get their way no matter what. I have no answer for how to stop this war.
Some of you may say that it is human nature to desire more power and more land, but I think this is more a mark of Modern Western society than of human nature. There are many examples of societies that did not embrace the "more is better" assumption - for example the precolonial west african countries I spoke of. Apparently, the tradition was that each person was expected to only grow as much food and be as succesful as their parents and ancestors, deep into the past. Without surplus, there is no expectation of continual growth, and without this expectation and resulting reality, you wouldn't find ideas like "lebensraum."

 

[John Galt]

What starts war? If it's a disagreement, then regulations are good. There are many ways to solve disagreements, and a completely regulated war would be decisive without being as atrocious as an unregulated one. Example - Decide an entire war with a duel. Sounds dumb? If both sides agree to it and there is a foundation of respect for the institution of regulated war, then it is entirely feasible. I have read of wars in precolonial Africa that were more like highly regulated ceremonies, with few causualties or injuries. Why can't this work?
There is another instigator of war, however, which is desire for power. When one group desires another's resources/land/riches, they decide to take it from them. The group that lusts for power would not settle for a regulated war, because they want to get their way no matter what. I have no answer for how to stop this war.
Some of you may say that it is human nature to desire more power and more land, but I think this is more a mark of Modern Western society than of human nature. There are many examples of societies that did not embrace the "more is better" assumption - for example the precolonial west african countries I spoke of. Apparently, the tradition was that each person was expected to only grow as much food and be as succesful as their parents and ancestors, deep into the past. Without surplus, there is no expectation of continual growth, and without this expectation and resulting reality, you wouldn't find ideas like "lebensraum."

If the will to power is restricted to Modern Westerners, then how can you explain the Mongol hordes or the conquests of the Egyptians. Meso-Americans were constantly warring amongst themselves for power and land. The tribesmen you describe are the exception rather than the rule.

Also, the idea that we are to limit ourselves simply because of what our ancestors did is laughable. We couldn't develop and support the complex societies we currently enjoy if it wasn't for various "Green Revolutions" and wars of conquest throughout our history. Simply limiting yourself due to morality and tradition is a poor move for survival and advancement. After all, the tribesmen you mentioned were precolonial. When faced with a society focused on growth and expansion, they were conquered and integrated into the expansionist societies.

 

[John Galt]

World opinion doesn't seem to stop politicians when they've got their mind set on something. I think if a country, especially a pariah state like NK or Iran were to invade or in any other way harm another country, then at least one nuclear power (probably the US) would step in and either use conventional or nuclear methods to deal with the threat. If the US was the nation attacked and was somehow rendered unable to retaliate, I think that the rest of the Western world would be shocked into retaliation. Say what you want about how others view the US, I'm confident that there will be small voices of doubt saying "If it can happen there..." in the minds of world leaders.

 

[Ultrajoe]

war crimes are only war crimes if you fail, if not, they are glorious victories.

summed up; hit hard enough and no-one complains.

I think I agree with what you're saying, but I think that only supports the idea that there should be laws to govern what is considered a war crime and what isn't. It's the same with any crime; it's only a crime if you get caught. Well, I might not speak for everyone, but for me, the chance that I might get caught and have to live with the consequences makes me reconsider whether or not I want to do it. In war, I think the chance of getting punished gives extra incentive to think about your choices and whether or not it's worth risking. That, and you know, the amount of bloodshed.

but thats the thing, you can get away with anything if you hit hard enough, punishments are inconsequential when there are no consequences.

 

[John Galt]

Well, then you've got to nuke them too. Pre-empt the people who don't like pre-emps.

I don't see any threat from Iran or North Korea. The Iranians are under too much scrutiny and pressure to do anything and the North Koreans have yet to make a bomb stronger than a truck filled with conventional explosives. When combined with the fact that they're both looked at with suspicion by the rest of the world and they're pretty much paralyzed.

 

[Irridium]

I know that there are rules of engagement for certain militaries, and a few unwritten, unspoken rules like don't kill innocents, civilians (Hitler broke those to the max), or people surrendering.

but other than that, its all fair game

 

[Ultrajoe]

True enough my friend. Do you think that if I hit Iran and North Korea with enough Nukes people won't think I am an asshole for my pre-emptive strike?

no, because thats not hard enough, if you want to get away with it, nuke everyone with the ability to persecute you

when i say hit hard enough, i mean hard

Rules of engagement are a way of keeping score

"i see your genocide and raise you a torture violation"

Would the use of overwhelming force be acceptable in every case then? Could I nuke Mexico just because they are a threat to my country? What about France? Hell, Nobody I know would miss France...

once again, your thinking too small, overwhelming force always works, because it is 'overwhelming force'