4 ms·

...no? Modern warfare very much has rules and laws governing what is permitted in international conflict violence, and what constitues a war crime, and how seve

...no? Modern warfare very much has rules and laws governing what is permitted in international conflict violence, and what constitues a war crime, and how severe that war crime is. War is absolutely not "one or more parties throwing out the rulebook". As easy as it is to just murder a city in civ 6, in real life any power that wishes to still be sat at any relevant table during future treaties and negotiations will over those rules and laws unless they are truly desperate. I.e. they have already lost the war, and now it's a reign of terror on their way out.

iodinelfjjr 7y ago
'enemy combatant' 'disposition matrix' 'gitmo' 'enhanced interrogation' These are all gross violations of both the spirit and letter of international 'law', and was done by the most powerful country in the world. Who can possibly believe war has rules that aren't completely ignored? Do people just ignore the horrific crimes committed by their own governments?
nostrademons 7y ago
That works when one side has an overwhelming power advantage, or when two sides are fighting a proxy war with little skin in the game. The dominant side(s) can afford to enforce rules that minimize its losses and the chance for escalation, and enforce those rules on the other party because, well, it's dominant. Basically all wars since WW2 have been fought on this template. It goes out the window when there is actual uncertainty about who might win. Unrestricted submarine warfare was considered a war crime for most of peacetime, but as soon as it became a crucial strategic advantage that might turn the tide of the war, both sides started using it. The atom bomb would probably have been a war crime if it had been the losing side using it; as it is, it remains controversial. Once one side wins the war, they become the dominant power again, and can enforce a definition of war crimes favorable to themselves. Such an event actually occurred with unrestricted submarine warfare: Admiral Nimitz testified for Karl Donitz at the latter's war crimes trial, because had unrestricted submarine warfare remained a war crime, the U.S. would have been guilty of it too.
HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Tell that to the allies after WW2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces
maximente 7y ago
what do these clear rules and laws say about the following? - US blows up various hospitals because "may contain insurgents" - US blew up US citizen + his child without due process because "terrorism" - US sanctions countries it doesn't like, causing civilians to starve/suffer/lack medicine seems evident to me that one party doesn't really follow "the rules". how come they have a permanent seat at the UN security council? what punishment is prescribed for rule breakers? because it clearly isn't any loss of influence/prestige/sanctions/etc.
bostik 7y ago
> Modern warfare very much has rules and laws I have said this before, and this looks like a prime spot to say it again: The only people who play fair are those who don't know how to cheat well enough.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Or those who care more about the game than about winning. Which, in war, is only the case for the side that's so sure of its victory it doesn't matter whether they cheat or not, so they can play the virtuous party for good internal and external PR.
  - bostik 7y ago
    Funny thing, that. If you are in a war and are in the lucky a situation that you can prolong the conflict without much negative effects, "keeping the game going" is in fact waging a war of attrition.
malka 7y ago
there has been no real warfare since WW2.

iodinelfjjr 7y ago

'enemy combatant' 'disposition matrix' 'gitmo' 'enhanced interrogation' These are all gross violations of both the spirit and letter of international 'law', and was done by the most powerful country in the world. Who can possibly believe war has rules that aren't completely ignored? Do people just ignore the horrific crimes committed by their own governments?

nostrademons 7y ago

That works when one side has an overwhelming power advantage, or when two sides are fighting a proxy war with little skin in the game. The dominant side(s) can afford to enforce rules that minimize its losses and the chance for escalation, and enforce those rules on the other party because, well, it's dominant. Basically all wars since WW2 have been fought on this template. It goes out the window when there is actual uncertainty about who might win. Unrestricted submarine warfare was considered a war crime for most of peacetime, but as soon as it became a crucial strategic advantage that might turn the tide of the war, both sides started using it. The atom bomb would probably have been a war crime if it had been the losing side using it; as it is, it remains controversial. Once one side wins the war, they become the dominant power again, and can enforce a definition of war crimes favorable to themselves. Such an event actually occurred with unrestricted submarine warfare: Admiral Nimitz testified for Karl Donitz at the latter's war crimes trial, because had unrestricted submarine warfare remained a war crime, the U.S. would have been guilty of it too.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago

Tell that to the allies after WW2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces

maximente 7y ago

what do these clear rules and laws say about the following? - US blows up various hospitals because "may contain insurgents" - US blew up US citizen + his child without due process because "terrorism" - US sanctions countries it doesn't like, causing civilians to starve/suffer/lack medicine seems evident to me that one party doesn't really follow "the rules". how come they have a permanent seat at the UN security council? what punishment is prescribed for rule breakers? because it clearly isn't any loss of influence/prestige/sanctions/etc.

bostik 7y ago

> Modern warfare very much has rules and laws I have said this before, and this looks like a prime spot to say it again: The only people who play fair are those who don't know how to cheat well enough.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Or those who care more about the game than about winning. Which, in war, is only the case for the side that's so sure of its victory it doesn't matter whether they cheat or not, so they can play the virtuous party for good internal and external PR.
- bostik 7y ago
  Funny thing, that. If you are in a war and are in the lucky a situation that you can prolong the conflict without much negative effects, "keeping the game going" is in fact waging a war of attrition.

malka 7y ago

there has been no real warfare since WW2.