Would ditching the rules of war result in LESS wars?

[tvstrip]

Here's a though experiment: What if we ditched the Geneva convention and all the restrictions on war, including bans on chem/bio/nuke/mines etc?

Would that not result in less (major) wars?

Here's the argument: It would just be to costly to go to war. If the people you are attacking could retaliate without restriction, you're going to weigh your options a little more carefully. If Ukraine had access to, and was allowed to use nukes & chem/bio weapons, do you think they would have been invaded?

MAD (Mutual Assured destruction) has worked for Nukes - no one wants to take that risk. So wouldn't it work for all restrictions on war?

 

[Mr. Daystar]

No. It would result in a lot of unnecessary collateral damage, and a lot more atrocities.

Although I don't think a great deal of our combatants follow them, we have the responsibility to set an example.

 

[gmase]

I agree with @Mr. Daystar. The rules at least make combatants provide the illusion of following some rules. Without the rules, it would be a free-for-all race to the bottom. MAD works for the worst-case scenario, but it would seem impractical to believe it would work for the lesser items.

Think about how much fraud would occur if there were no consumer financial protections.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Lets face it, half the reason we're allies with Israel, is because the moosad will torture to get info we need, but we won't. I'm not passing judgment mind you, when you are surrounded by people that want you dead, you kinda have to play ruff. Doesn't make it right, I'm not saying that.

The other reason is liability. There is a world court, we have financial resources they could take. In WWII the collateral damage that we alone left was astronomical. The hard thing to swallow is, we have to play by rules, and the enemy doesn't. It's got to be a tremendous strain, to know You Might have to gun down a child or a woman, because they're civilian combatants, but you can't tell until the last nano second. I wouldn't want that pressure. I remember a Gen. on TV, during the first war in the Middle East, say he had a lawyer from JAG, when he picked his targets, and had to adjust according to his recommendations.

The one thing I can't figure out is, how do you stay within the rules of engagement, when you're launching nukes. God knows what we have, and what other countries have, but it seems that just having that arsenal, clearly states you are willing to disregard those rules of war, you agreed to play by.