Should warfare be more civilized?

[Schoeler 0]

An interesting discussion cropped up in the Iraq thread recently, and I thought I'd continue it here instead of going offtopic there.

The question is:

Should warfare be more civilized?

That is, should we adopt conventions banning certain types of weapons and tactics and how would those benefit or act to the detriment of mankind?

As for me, I think any attempt to cilize warfare does a grave disservice to mankind. Civilizing warfare at its very essence, to me, is abandoning the idea that mankind is capable of transcending warfare as an instrument of policy and accepting that warfare will always be a part of the human condition. In my mind, this sort of resignation uses the logic of, "Well, we will never get rid of war, so we might as well make it as nice as possible." I think that if war remained and increasingly became the most horrible concept concievable in the spectrum of human interaction, then it will become increasingly less likely to be used as a viable solution for solving our problems.

After all, the entire point of war is to make conditions so intolerable for your enemies as to render them incapable or unwilling to continue fighting. Using this logic, then by extension, increasing the killing efficiency in warfare, and making it even uglier will bring one's enemies to the table all that much more quickly and thus shorten or (hopefully) even prevent the war from occuring. By making war more tolerable, we only increase the likelihood that war and killing will be seen as a viable option or solution to our problems, and additionally, we only serve to prolong the actual warfare itself.

[Renagade 0]

I agree,roll in the napalm and atomic flamethrowers

I think having a stalemate is the best situation for preventing wars though.

[Frisbee 0]

Warfare should be such a horrible thing that noone would want it,for any reason at all.

Wars for petty things like land or revenge should just be unthinkable.

Gundam wing conveys this thought pretty good imho.

[Necromancer- 0]

Thing is... the soldier does not decide to go in war...

The ones on the top of the piramid decide whether war is going to happen or not..

They dont notice the slaughtering that happens on the battlefield, because they are most likely thousands of miles away from the front line.

Presidents... kings... mullah's... Prime Ministers... Dictators... they dont care if their soldiers get mutilated, tortured or not if they declare war on another entity.

[bn880 5]

I don't think it should be any more horrible than it has to be. If that makes sense. If war is an absolute brutality on the soldiers, with any number of horrific things, the politicians that start the wars still will.

To be truthfull, if you can fully respect human life etc. you can't fight any war. So the question is like a riddle to me, if war is what it is, it's wrong and shouldn't be taking place is the only answer. In the absolute end, however distant the concept may seem, wars always have been about this: the prosperity of you and your people(friends etc), your genepool competing with another.

Take a step back and realize who is "winning" these days.

The whole concept of war seems to be to make some terror/horror for the other side.

[The Frenchman 0]

No more Phasers that can blow up a third of the earth!

[Frisbee 0]

But that's just the point.

Say that almost no people return from a war,and those that do are mentally or physically horribly mutilated.

People have their fathers,sons,husbands,brothers,sisters,mothers...... ripped away from them and dying in a war with little meaning.

(envision a world war one style situation here)

Any leader who'd dare to declare war would just start a revolt,humanity itself has to change it's idea about warfare and violence to the point that it's intolerable.

For this to be achieved,people have to experience the true horror of war.

Post-WW2 very,very few of the German population was eager to restart an army,or try anything war-like.

That just being an example,personally i think that the world peace idea is inachievable,since people don't change,but this is one of the way's it could (theoretically) work.

[FSPilot 0]

There's no such thing as a civilised war. Setting up a few rules about it in a building in europe somewhere isn't going to stop anything from going on.

[Major Gripe 0]

Civilised warfare is an oxymoron, it cannot by definition exist.

BTW For those of you who don't know what an oxymoron is, it is defined as the conjoining of contradictory terms such as deafening silence or military intelligence (the latter was a joke!).

[Gadger 0]

Although war causes the death of many involved and even the innocent caught in the confilct it does have a positive effect on man kind. For instance the arms races that wars create speed technoligcal advancedments ten fold. Without World War 2 we would not have had the jet engine, atomic power, computers, binary code, radar, sonar etc etc etc.

So although war is bad it does have some postives.

[Major Gripe 0]

Without World War 2 we would not have had the jet engine, atomic power, computers, binary code, radar, sonar etc etc etc.

You cannot authoritatively say that this is the case, warfare is not the mother of invention. Although the invention of these items was facilitated by the conflict, they would probably have been invented later in the 20th century if there hadn't been a war. Also, playing devils advocate, think about the millions of people who died in the war, what might they have invented? Anyway both this is not relevant to the discussion, I apologise for mine and Gadger's digression!  Proceed!!!

[bn880 5]

Maybe the question is not "should", but "would".

The answer is not very likely, since it's a test of.... ok I'd better think this through before expanding on it in the future.

[Major Gripe 0]

Maybe the question is not "should", but "would".

'Would' warfare be more civilized if what??

[Longinius 1]

Conventions and rules are a good thing. They let those that declare war know that if they go to far, they will be held accountable.

Without these conventions and laws, no civilian in any warzone would have even the slightest right or safety. As it is now, there is atleast hope. And hope is quite important.

Further more, these rules and conventions remind a soldier of what is moraly right and wrong. While its not always followed, I think that if it saves atleast some lives its worth it.

No, it will never work 100%. But I can settle for 10%, or 20% or 22%...or whatever. As long as we dont see "modern" warfare carried out like the wars between tribes in Africa, with machetes cutting limbs of civilians and so on I think there is a point.

[Schoeler 0]

Conventions and rules are a good thing. They let those that declare war know that if they go to far, they will be held accountable.

Without these conventions and laws, no civilian in any warzone would have even the slightest right or safety. As it is now, there is atleast hope. And hope is quite important.

Further more, these rules and conventions remind a soldier of what is moraly right and wrong. While its not always followed, I think that if it saves atleast some lives its worth it.

No, it will never work 100%. But I can settle for 10%, or 20% or 22%...or whatever. As long as we dont see "modern" warfare carried out like the wars between tribes in Africa, with machetes cutting limbs of civilians and so on I think there is a point.

But, haven't they already gone too far in that men are killing one another for foolish reasons?

And what good does safety do the civilian if the war continues for months or years longer than it has to?

I think the rules and conventions prevent the soldier from seeing what is morally right or wrong. The rules and conventions make killing acceptable, so long as it is done according to the rules and conventions, when in truth, all killing is morally wrong.

If modern warfare were as horrible as those wars, then perhaps the words "modern" and "warfare" would become incompatible and an anachronism.

[denoir 0]

Civilised warfare is an oxymoron, it cannot by definition exist.

War is a reality that we unfortunately must live with today. Until we evolve beyond hitting each others on the head with clubs as a means of resolving differences, we're going to have wars.

And yes, killing fellow human beings is never civilized. However it can be more or less barbaric. The point of a war is to enforce your demands on an opposite party that does not wish to comply. This can be refined to be as little barbaric as possible (i.e no unnecessary killings, no torture etc).

So, can we evolve "beyond war"? I think so yes. And I think we have to a large degree. Unfortunately significant parts of the world have not. Also when I say "evolve", I'm not talking about it in some biological way, but cultural.

I'll give you an example: Sweden. It's in Swedish, but it's simple to understand - the black markers are wars.

From 1521 to 1814 Sweden has been directly involved in 31 wars. From 1814 to 2003 Sweden has been directly involved in 0 wars. That's a change.

Sweden's history is no exception in Europe. On the contrary, we've had a more peaceful history than most. From medieval times to the 19th century you will have a hard time finding a European country that hasn't been involved in several wars each decade. Then came  ww1 and ww2 which changed things drastically. Apart from the civil war in Yugoslavia, we have not had a war in Europe for over 50 years, which is a record, at least for the last millenia.

So I think that there's still hope for human kind to evolve beyond using physical violence as means to get your point across.

[denoir 0]

I think the rules and conventions prevent the soldier from seeing what is morally right or wrong.  The rules and conventions make killing acceptable, so long as it is done according to the rules and conventions, when  in truth, all killing is morally wrong.

I disagree with that. War moral is different from our regular moral. But it still exists. While our code of moral and ethical conduct says "killing is bad" the principles in war are different.

Just because they are different does not mean that they do not exists. One such rule of conduct is that you don't kill civilians on purpose.

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

I think we should fight wars with "Very Special" forces. They are deployed with different colored cards....and can hold them up when..for example....their feelings get hurt....their pride is damaged...their ego is deflated. And they could yell out things like.."Stop!...or I'll....I'll....yell Stop again!"

And they all get a medal for participating...and remember...everyone is a winner today.

Seargent...break out the party punch and cucumber sandwiches....it's time to celebrate our victory over the enemy...that's right...the enemy in ourselves that keeps us from realising our true potential.

GROUP HUG!!!!

============================

In all seriousness.......as Major Gripes said...civilised warfare is an oxymoron. As much as I would like to believe....at the end of the day...wars are about winning....and to win...you are gonna do whatever it takes.

Trying to be "civilised" in war has cost a lot of lives as there is always one side who will use tactics that contravene the other sides moral and civilised values.

Suicide bombers anyone? Pilots in Sep.11? Women in Somalia carrying babies in one arm and AKs in the other? Somalian gunmen using crowds of women and children as human shields? Saddams human shield strategy in the Gulf?

You cannot combat these with..."But...Saddam...this isn't in the rule book. 50 lashes with a wet noodle for you moustached one!"

[killagee 0]

I will refer you all to:

" Why Wars Happen " by Feremy Black. available from globalities history series.

A must read. a good unbias and multi-disciplinary collection of essays on Warfare (State , assymetrical and Cultural) from ancient mesopatamia to current.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]Suicide bombers anyone? Pilots in Sep.11? Women in Somalia carrying babies in one arm and AKs in the other? Somalian gunmen using crowds of women and children as human shields? Saddams human shield strategy in the Gulf?

You cannot combat these with..."But...Saddam...this isn't in the rule book. 50 lashes with a wet noodle for you moustached one!"

Of course you can. It was done. The US and the coalition won both GW1, GW2 and in Somalia. Dispite these tactics. And while there might have been some breaches of the "rules", over all, it was by the book. (During the actual fighting mind you, I wont get into the legality of GW2.)

You didnt see western soldiers execute civilians by the dozen, they didnt take to using human shields, they didnt pick up babies as shields. They followed the rules and won regardless. How can you say it doesnt work after actually having seen the results?

[Major Fubar 0]

I think the most civilised form of war would be to have the leaders of the aggrieved countries face off in a gladiatorial ring, complete with chainsaws, swords, sledghammers etc.

Make the bastards think twice before declaring war, eh?

[ozanzac 0]

After much thought, i have come to the conclusion that in any war, it can only be, at its greatest "civility" be civilised for only one side. And that's at it's greatest "civility" when the push of buttons by one side create BIG EXPLOSIONS in the other side's territory.

The war would then likely become uncivilized in the country that pushed the button, due to the retalitory response form the international community.

Put short. The only civilised war would end up in the complete, instantaneous destruction of the enemy, for which no retaliation from any outside forces is possible.

People, this was the Cold War. The hope that the instantanous destruction of the opposition would ensure that no response was possible.

As Barbara Bush said, "War is not nice", and to that I add. "And it never will be"

[Tigershark_BAS 0]

Quote[/b] ]Suicide bombers anyone? Pilots in Sep.11? Women in Somalia carrying babies in one arm and AKs in the other? Somalian gunmen using crowds of women and children as human shields? Saddams human shield strategy in the Gulf?

You cannot combat these with..."But...Saddam...this isn't in the rule book. 50 lashes with a wet noodle for you moustached one!"

Of course you can. It was done. The US and the coalition won both GW1, GW2 and in Somalia. Dispite these tactics. And while there might have been some breaches of the "rules", over all, it was by the book. (During the actual fighting mind you, I wont get into the legality of GW2.)

You didnt see western soldiers execute civilians by the dozen, they didnt take to using human shields, they didnt pick up babies as shields. They followed the rules and won regardless. How can you say it doesnt work after actually having seen the results?

Ahem.....whether in fact GW1 and GW2 have been "won" by the US is debateable. And in fact...GW1 could be argued as the most significant factor in the global terror problem we face now.

You kind of illustrated my point.....the fact that the US is playing by the rules does not mean the other side will....they are fighting to win still.

Vietnam was lost because the US played by a "more decent" code of morals and ethics than the VC/NVA. When they tried to level the playing field the outcry in the US prevented any further action down that path.

Also...the US has the luxury of playing by these rules as they can overwhelm the enemy with firepower. Lets assume this doesn:t involve the US...and lets pretend this was Israel vs Iraq....Pakistan vs India.

Regardless....let's not turn this thread into a "is the US justified" kind of thing. The point was more that these unorthodox tactics employed by people who are motivated to win the war (not necessarily win it but motivated to) will always mean one side will not play by them.

[ran 0]

it's rare to see an opponent fighting by the rules when the odds are against him

[Longinius 1]

Maybe we will eventually see warfare done like in one of the old Star Trek episodes. Simulated warfare, done on computers. X number of citizens was then promptly executed after each strike, corresponding with the simulated casualties.