> logically taking someone you shoot out of the war altogether, by killing or maiming them, is vastly superior to their coming back after convalescence. Strong

> logically taking someone you shoot out of the war altogether, by killing or maiming them, is vastly superior to their coming back after convalescence. Strongly disagree, as do at least a few military strategists throughout history. I suppose it depends on who you're fighting (if you're fighting a ruthless Ghengis Khan all bets are probably off), but for Hague convention signees in general they will put a high priority on taking care of their wounded. In fact anti-personnel landmines are generally designed to maim, not kill, for this reason. It costs far more to take care of that soldier who got his leg blown off from the knee below, than it does to bury him. Both in time, material, logistics, and possibly morale. So yes - if I'm in an all-out war, I'm going to want to significantly maim (as in make them incapable of fighting for an extended period of time and require extensive logistics to keep alive) a large portion of the enemy. This soaks up even more resources on their side to take care of them and only a certain percentage of those will return to the fight.