Limits to War.

Limit to war? How about no war.

I get what you're saying, though, Holiday. War is one of those nasty realities we cannot avoid - or at least have never been able to avoid. Part of this nasty reality is that war does not have boundaries. Total war is the only sort of war.

Well, that's about all the boundaries that exist today. Requiring combatants to wear uniforms protects civilians. Banning chemical weapons protects civilians and minimizes pain to the combatants.

Apparently there's a lot more to it. Laws of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These Laws of War are all well and fine, but are they actually obeyed? And when we find nations obeying some particular Law of War, what is the motivation? It seems to me that the motivation is entirely self-interested, and have little, if anything, to do with an attempt to wage a virtuous war.

I know eh. Whats the point when war contradicts rules. We want to do whatever we can to survive in a war and to take control of the opponent. The only rule seems to be don't use nukes.

Even that isn't much of a rule. Nukes have been seriously considered many times since the end of World War II.

Law and war are inherently contradictory. Though international laws might be observed, for pragmatic reasons, such as ensuring the humane treatment of your own captured solidiers, there cannot be any binding law. For a law to be effective, it has either to be enforced outright or agreed upon; war is caused by disagreement.

Also, holiday said:

I believe that war should have no boundaries except for the common goal to attack and defend with as few casualties as possible, and as little pain on enemy combatants as possible. And I suppose war should not subject the public directly. Only the army.

I understand the desire to reduce suffering, but if, in doing so, some advantage is lost (refusing to target militia in cities for fear of killing civilians, etc) and the war is lost, all the war's suffering is in vain. Consider as an example the american civil war and the brutalitie neccessary to end it: likewise with the second world war and the atmoic bombs. Oddly enough, war crimes (as you put it) are at times in the best interest of not only the victors but the vanquished.

I think I can agree with you on this but since when are laws binding? I mean, for 'pragmatic' reasons we follow these sort of international laws to war. But if they are broken there is the risk that the consequences will be tried if the war is lost. If a country decides to use chemical warfare but loses the war then there could be more severe consequences because of the act against the law. So thats just as binding as a normal law. We have consequences that make laws here binding.

War should only be fought to stop genocide. If there was a war where somebody was fighting for a resource, then the only way that the war would end is when the resource is depleted. Ofcourse there would be so much anger that the war would probably not even be over. If you were fighting over land the only way to end that would be to completly assimilate the population that had been taken over. Is assimilation a good thing? Who deserves to have those resourses? This is why war should only be an acted upon when the is genocide.

Until there is not an anarchic system in the world (international relations)

there will be war

the best progress is the eu and the continental unions because neighbors in certain areas are not in war

How is a world full of government anarchic?

My positions is backed by Alexander went, and is the fundamental principle of any school of political philosophy(in terms of the nation state

in international relations, what is law? there is none

if a country decides to go to war with anther, it has the ability to because no law says it cannot, and no real authority will stop that country

think of nations as kids on a playground without any supervision. One boy picks up a toy of anthor, and the other screams,"give it back". He doesnt not so the boy beats the kid to death. No one was there to stop him.

this is the current situation, but these rules will change as nations become more interdependent (neo-liberal)

Yea, I believe that by and large generally involves a 'whatever it takes to win' mindset. The few exercised self-imposed limits (on just how horrific it becomes) are needed, necessary and productive. From what I've observed, those conflicts that dont' escalate as far as they could, only do so because of perceived repercussions of such escalation (e.g., Russia didn't soften up the resistence in Georgia, prior to ground invasion, because it felt a moral obligation to not commit mass-murder, but more likely because the repercussions could be counter-productive). Just my opinion, but you get the idea...

Non-compliance to a law or treaty isn't reason to not have them. It's a reason to improve and/or enforce 'em.

Should they be limited? - Yes, when and where it can be done. Any amount of lives saved, pain minimized, is a good thing.



Interesting opinion, except that saying "no boundries except"... "<all the boundries listed>" is a bit ambiguous. But I think I get your jist. What's very significant about limiting civilian casualties is the strategic aspect of warfare (see this excerpt on Strategic Bombing - an integral part of waging war). When one force attempts to destroy the infrastructure and war-making capability of its enemy, it is part-and-parcel targeting those civilians located at those facilities.

It's messy, it's unethical and a constant-and-sad epitath to the human race. Any limits that one can put on themselves (for whatever reason) or can be imposed, are good limits. Any number of lives saved, suffering decreased, is preferable.


-----

What about the American civil war and it's ending of slavery?

Good point. So the implied question is: Would war-making be justified in ending slavery? Are the lives of > half a million people and the collateral pain and misery caused by war-making worth the pain, death and dehumanization of an entire race?

Questions like this are important; they force one into thinking through no-win scenarios (i.e., You want Death or Death? Which will it be?). In retrospect, things happened as they did based on a trillion variables (99.999% of which I've no knowledge of since I wasn't there). Can lives be tallied up numerically to choose the lessor of two evils? Wow, what a no-win...

... so yea, I'm avoiding the question. I think, for my view personally, that avoidance comes from a mind that says, "There should have been another way! Confront me with that same question, in today's world framework, and that's how I'd reply, "there's got to be another option!". Both alternatives - slaughter from war and slavery's pain - are unacceptable. If you put a gun to my head and asked, I suppose I'd have to say "Yes, that's worth fighting against".

Very thought-provoking question, thank you.