4 ms·

> why would you pay attention to any "rules" that might limit your murderous psychopathy The theory is, that as war is just a continuation of peace "by other m

> why would you pay attention to any "rules" that might limit your murderous psychopathy The theory is, that as war is just a continuation of peace "by other means", one should not start wars without having an idea of the various ways in which one might end them, and (as the NSDP discovered in 1945) it's a whole lot easier to end them if you haven't been doing war crimes (or "war crimes"; if you intend to end a war short of genocide*, de jure or de facto doesn't really matter) during them. (yes, I think we both agree that it'd be better to have a period instead of "without" after "one should not start wars", but if one allows for the existence of hawks, is it not better that they have some limits?) Which part do you consider sheer ego? The distinction between combatants and non-combatants, or the inclusion of medical personnel among the non-combatants? * compare Goebbels' Freudian slip in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportpalast_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportpalast_speech

_carbyau_ 2y ago
The sheer ego is in the idea that all wars are started by gentlemen or aristocrats with options and we should have rules to incentivise them away from the risky inhumane options to the plain inhumane ones. Or that once a war is started the "idea of the various ways in which one might end them" actually holds up in reality after the enemy get their vote. I honestly tell you that if someone invaded my country in the manner of Russia with indiscriminate killing and bombardment of cities literally threatening the survival of those I care about then I will not give a toss what any convention says - what good does obeying a rule someone made up if I/my-loved-ones am/are dead? And at that point, bio/nuke/any-weapons become an option - the rules be damned. I very much know that I shouldn't be trusted with such calls.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  > I will not give a toss what any convention says - what good does obeying a rule someone made up if I/my-loved-ones am/are dead? Essentially the sunk cost fallacy. Making victims drag other down with them is like 101 Keeping The War Machine Going. Furthermore 'war mongerers without borders' cooperate for atrocities to get out of control. At some point however the victims will blame their elite instead of the elite their elite blame. Also, you usually don't lose everyone you care for in one blow. Losing half of your children might decrease the wish to lose the other half for some people.
  - _carbyau_ 2y ago
    > Essentially the sunk cost fallacy. Except where is the fallacy to the individual? As a society/nation you can argue these things but same as corporations, the decision makers are individuals. And if the individual sees surrender as death (or equivalent, life in miserable prison)- Hamas for example - why would they stop fighting? And if you are outmatched then survival demands using every resource you have - rules be damned. Hamas hiding in the civilian population is not surprising at all. Israel continuing to bombard them with civilians then harmed is also not surprising. This is war, not a game with rules. It is terribly sad for the civilians. It is horrifying. And yet predictable.
    - rightbyte 2y ago
      Ye individuals might value things differently. Some value revenge more than others. Hamas might be a bad example since Netanyahu supports them. They are manufactured miserables where the point is that they are used as an excuse for ethnic cleansing. Hamas could be compared to the right wing militias in Ukraine. Like, when they are in the position to pull you down with them, they will, becouse 'traitors'. And I guess both Israel and Russia are easy to "tease" which makes their job easy. And with their absolutist world view there is hard stopping them by talking. The hardline "total victory" types.
      - _carbyau_ 2y ago
        In this discussion with you and other threads I have come to realise that my idea of "war" is different to others. Maybe it is an "escalation" thing. I see war as absolute/total/complete/existential in a sense. Anything less is an exercise in power, military/political/propaganda or otherwise. Not to demean those exercises as being terrible frightful happenings in their own right. Nor to demean their use in deterring what I see as war in the existential sense. But I think that means I communicate with a crossed purpose. For example, I see the US in Iraq as a military exercise. Nothing existential about it for the US. Again, to be clear, I'm not trying to demean the efforts or lives involved. There are great heroics and terrible outcomes in any such event. And such an exercise had significant political/social outcomes due to the military statement. For all I know it may have altered outcomes in a manner to avoid a war in the existential sense for the US. What if, per se. But somewhere I feel that there is a different level, a different meaning, for fighting in the existential sense. World War 2 conveys that level of existentialism to me - many nations and peoples were fighting for continued existence. And it resulted in the age of the atom. And I think it is this sense of "total war" that I mean when I am deriding the "rules of war". Because to me, the word War is loaded with the idea of there being no rules to begin with because sheer existence is on the line. And so at this point I cede any debate. And thank you for helping me come to realise a significant point regarding my own views.

_carbyau_ 2y ago

The sheer ego is in the idea that all wars are started by gentlemen or aristocrats with options and we should have rules to incentivise them away from the risky inhumane options to the plain inhumane ones. Or that once a war is started the "idea of the various ways in which one might end them" actually holds up in reality after the enemy get their vote. I honestly tell you that if someone invaded my country in the manner of Russia with indiscriminate killing and bombardment of cities literally threatening the survival of those I care about then I will not give a toss what any convention says - what good does obeying a rule someone made up if I/my-loved-ones am/are dead? And at that point, bio/nuke/any-weapons become an option - the rules be damned. I very much know that I shouldn't be trusted with such calls.

rightbyte 2y ago
> I will not give a toss what any convention says - what good does obeying a rule someone made up if I/my-loved-ones am/are dead? Essentially the sunk cost fallacy. Making victims drag other down with them is like 101 Keeping The War Machine Going. Furthermore 'war mongerers without borders' cooperate for atrocities to get out of control. At some point however the victims will blame their elite instead of the elite their elite blame. Also, you usually don't lose everyone you care for in one blow. Losing half of your children might decrease the wish to lose the other half for some people.
- _carbyau_ 2y ago
  > Essentially the sunk cost fallacy. Except where is the fallacy to the individual? As a society/nation you can argue these things but same as corporations, the decision makers are individuals. And if the individual sees surrender as death (or equivalent, life in miserable prison)- Hamas for example - why would they stop fighting? And if you are outmatched then survival demands using every resource you have - rules be damned. Hamas hiding in the civilian population is not surprising at all. Israel continuing to bombard them with civilians then harmed is also not surprising. This is war, not a game with rules. It is terribly sad for the civilians. It is horrifying. And yet predictable.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    Ye individuals might value things differently. Some value revenge more than others. Hamas might be a bad example since Netanyahu supports them. They are manufactured miserables where the point is that they are used as an excuse for ethnic cleansing. Hamas could be compared to the right wing militias in Ukraine. Like, when they are in the position to pull you down with them, they will, becouse 'traitors'. And I guess both Israel and Russia are easy to "tease" which makes their job easy. And with their absolutist world view there is hard stopping them by talking. The hardline "total victory" types.
    - _carbyau_ 2y ago
      In this discussion with you and other threads I have come to realise that my idea of "war" is different to others. Maybe it is an "escalation" thing. I see war as absolute/total/complete/existential in a sense. Anything less is an exercise in power, military/political/propaganda or otherwise. Not to demean those exercises as being terrible frightful happenings in their own right. Nor to demean their use in deterring what I see as war in the existential sense. But I think that means I communicate with a crossed purpose. For example, I see the US in Iraq as a military exercise. Nothing existential about it for the US. Again, to be clear, I'm not trying to demean the efforts or lives involved. There are great heroics and terrible outcomes in any such event. And such an exercise had significant political/social outcomes due to the military statement. For all I know it may have altered outcomes in a manner to avoid a war in the existential sense for the US. What if, per se. But somewhere I feel that there is a different level, a different meaning, for fighting in the existential sense. World War 2 conveys that level of existentialism to me - many nations and peoples were fighting for continued existence. And it resulted in the age of the atom. And I think it is this sense of "total war" that I mean when I am deriding the "rules of war". Because to me, the word War is loaded with the idea of there being no rules to begin with because sheer existence is on the line. And so at this point I cede any debate. And thank you for helping me come to realise a significant point regarding my own views.