Clearing Up Confusion On "Rules Of War".

SlowwHand · March 25, 2003, 12:15

I've seen a few threads that ask questions regarding rules that militaries are supposed to follow.

As a public service announcement, they are as follows:

The Rules of War
If it seems to you that there are always rules to follow, no matter what you do, you won't be surprised to learn that international law sets out strict rules of behavior for countries during wartime. The first modern international rules of war, known as the Geneva Convention, or Treaty, were made in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1864. This treaty was accepted by all the European countries, by the U.S., and by some countries in Asia and South America. New rules are added as they are needed.

Rule 1: Warring nations cannot use chemical weapons against each other.

Rule 2: The use of expanding bullets or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering is prohibited.

Rule 3: The discharge of projectiles (such as bullets or rockets) from balloons is prohibited.

Rule 4: Prisoners of war must be humanely treated and protected from violence. Prisoners cannot be beaten or used for propaganda purposes (to try to change the way people think about something).

Rule 5: Prisoners of war must give their true name and rank or they will lose their prisoner of war protection. (MIA stands for Missing in Action. POW stands for Prisoner of War.)

Rule 6: Nations must follow procedures to identify the dead and wounded and to send information to their families.

Rule 7: Killing anyone who has surrendered is prohibited.

Rule 8: Zones must be set up in fighting areas to which the sick and injured can be taken for treatment.

Rule 9: Special protection from attack is granted to civilian hospitals marked with the Red Cross symbol.

Rule 10: The free passage of medical supplies is allowed.

Rule 11: Shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea should be taken ashore to safety.

Rule 12: Any army that takes control of another country must provide food to the people in that country.

Rule 13: Attacks on civilians and undefended towns are prohibited.

Rule 14: Enemy submarines cannot sink merchant or business ships before passengers and crews have been saved.

Rule 15: A prisoner can be visited by a representative from his or her country. Prisoners have the right to talk privately without observers.

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0769998.html

As you can see, not all country's play the game by the rules.

GePap · March 25, 2003, 12:20

Well, no one has always followed those rules completely, which is why, for example, they Doenitz wan't convicted of more at nuemberg for ordering his subs to sink merchants without warning. His lawyer brought in American Admirals to explain that they had done the same to Japanese shipping as the germans had to allied shipping.

The rules also change throught time: chemical weapons ban certainly comes only after WW1.

I doubt thought that if a new conventiona was called, all could agree on the complete set of revised rules.

Demerzel · March 25, 2003, 12:27

If Iraq did not sign up to the Geneva convention then it isn't exactly forced to follow the rules is it?

And as said above, some signatories haven't exactly followed the convention strictly in cases yet feel they can use it as a blunt club to define "war crimes".

Spiffor · March 25, 2003, 12:28

I suppose the balloon part comes from the early ages of air bombing. Surprisingly, it is allowed to drop nasty things from planes, despite not from balloons.

CerberusIV · March 25, 2003, 12:31

Didn't the chemical weapons one start out as a rule against poisoned bullets and evolve after WW1 into a wider interpretation?

Demerzel · March 25, 2003, 12:34

balloon warfare became redundant pretty quick which is why I suspect it's left in there but airplane based fighting was probably far too useful and thus never got included.

GePap · March 25, 2003, 12:40

I think all states are signatories to the convention.

Tolls · March 25, 2003, 13:03

I don't know about "all nations" but Iraq signed in 1981.

...at least I think so.

Jack_www · March 25, 2003, 13:10

The funny thing to me is that some people acuatly think that you can make rules for war, when you are at war and such, most countries will do what every it takes to win it or to defend themselves. To think that you can acuatlly make countries follow rules of war during a war is just too funny.

Starchild · March 25, 2003, 13:16

We need an Institute of Civilised Warfare to mutter about these rules when they get broken a la Uplift Saga.

DaShi · March 25, 2003, 13:28

How many wars have these rules started?

SlowwHand · March 25, 2003, 13:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack_www
The funny thing to me is that some people acuatly think that you can make rules for war, when you are at war and such, most countries will do what every it takes to win it or to defend themselves. To think that you can acuatlly make countries follow rules of war during a war is just too funny.

You sound like this guy I know of in Iraq.

GePap · March 25, 2003, 13:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack_www
The funny thing to me is that some people acuatly think that you can make rules for war, when you are at war and such, most countries will do what every it takes to win it or to defend themselves. To think that you can acuatlly make countries follow rules of war during a war is just too funny.

We follow the the UK follows them, so forth and so on. The fact is that that notion: "no one follows the rules of war" is generally wrong. if your annalysis is correct, why haven't the following things already happened?

Blowing up southern oil fields, damns on the rivers, mass bombing of civilian centers, use of Chemical weapons, hell, use of nuclear weapons?

It is in everyone's interests to folow as many of these rules as possible since you never know when you will be at the recieving end. Hell, even the Nazi's generally followed the rules of war with those individuals they classified as worthy of the title "human being".

GePap · March 25, 2003, 13:33

Quote:

Originally posted by DaShi
How many wars have these rules started?

None.

Quote:

We need an Institute of Civilised Warfare to mutter about these rules when they get broken a la Uplift Saga.

The Soro and Tandu would never approve of wolflings doing such a thing.

DaShi · March 25, 2003, 13:35

Why should the US follow the rules? If other nations break them no one bats an eye, but the US is looked upon negatively whether they follow them or not. Seems to put the US at an unfair disadvantage.

Jack_www · March 25, 2003, 13:39

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

We follow the the UK follows them, so forth and so on. The fact is that that notion: "no one follows the rules of war" is generally wrong. if your annalysis is correct, why haven't the following things already happened?

Blowing up southern oil fields, damns on the rivers, mass bombing of civilian centers, use of Chemical weapons, hell, use of nuclear weapons?

It is in everyone's interests to folow as many of these rules as possible since you never know when you will be at the recieving end. Hell, even the Nazi's generally followed the rules of war with those individuals they classified as worthy of the title "human being".

I was not talking about the US or UK, but their are many countries like Iraq and such that will never follow these rules, and from all that i have heard on the news, it almost sounds like people thought Iraq would follow these rules.

I am just saying it is funny to think that the US could expect Iraq or any other nation they go to war with to follow these rules, and if the US were the under dog and faced a superior eneimy they would do every thing they could to stop the invading army and not follow these rules.

I know US will follow these rules, and so would most countries in Europe, but dictators and such and other nations would never follow these rules and do every thing they could to win, I gues you did not get that from what I was trying to say and I just had to be more clear for you.

GePap · March 25, 2003, 13:40

Because if we don't follow the rules:

1. anytime an american gets taken, he is dead
2. states will work to develop means to negate our conventonal advantages with unconvetional ones like chemical and biological agents

so forth and so on:

The US is so powerfull as to be able to fight by all the rules and win. It is in the interests of the strong to enforce rules that give them a huge advantage. Americans should unconditionally back these rules, for they are a huge bonus for us.

SlowwHand · March 25, 2003, 13:46

Just because there are murders, does that mean it's ok to murder?
No.

Just because Hussein has no morals or ethics, does that make it right?
No.

The Emperor Fabulous · March 25, 2003, 14:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack_www
The funny thing to me is that some people acuatly think that you can make rules for war, when you are at war and such, most countries will do what every it takes to win it or to defend themselves. To think that you can acuatlly make countries follow rules of war during a war is just too funny.

Which is where the war crimes tribunal comes into play. That, and if any country blatently violated such rules (such as if the Republican Guard used chemical weapons), there would be severe international repercussions.

Jack_www · March 25, 2003, 14:28

How can you set up rules for war, when by its nature is chaotic?? War crime tribunals have not stop the worse abuse of the Geneva Convention in almost every war that has been fought.

Master Zen · March 25, 2003, 14:56

GePap and Jack are right

the powerful nations are the ones who make the rules to serve their own advantage. No country which would really want to fight a superpower would follow them. If the US were the underdog, it wouldn't follow them either.

Ming · March 25, 2003, 15:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
If the US were the underdog, it wouldn't follow them either.

That is your "opinion" and not a proven fact.

It's easy to make stuff up to support your point of view when there is NOTHING to base that opinion on

Jack_www · March 25, 2003, 15:06

well I am trying to say it is absurred to make nations follow rules of war when you are at war with them, how in the world do you do it? Just too funny when I think about it.

Ming · March 25, 2003, 15:10

In the past... Nations followed the rules for good reasons...
They wanted their own prisoners to be treated fairly.
It seems to have worked in the past...

Now, that's not the case.

GePap · March 25, 2003, 15:18

A firefight is chaotic: war is not. Take any sporting event: you can say it is chaotic, but the madness has a method, and it has an aim.

Rules have always existed in anything people do: how far they follow them is one things, but war has always had rules, and the reason for that is to insure that not too much is wasted and destroyed while the aims of wars are achieved. One just needs to look at the cases were all rules were dumped to see what we have to lose if we do so. compare the war in the west in WW2 to that of the East or the Pacific Islands, and ask yourself: which of these scenerios do we want to emmulate?

It is still in the advantage of the US to demand for rules, as I said before, for simply selfish reasons (we can hit without hurting many civilians, they can't) but at the same time, the fact that we follow rules is the uderpinning of this self-imag of goodness we carry and promote. To act like Hussein, even if the aim is to get rid of him, is to perpetuate his type of behavior. You win a victory, but you lose the war.

SlowwHand · March 25, 2003, 15:18

Just out of curiousity, are any of you that are having a problem grasping the concept Veterans?
Or have a Veteran in your family?

Yes or no, I'm astonished that you find any of this humorous.

GePap · March 25, 2003, 15:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
In the past... Nations followed the rules for good reasons...
They wanted their own prisoners to be treated fairly.
It seems to have worked in the past...

Now, that's not the case.

Wait a minute: Saddam's goons tape the prisoners and interrogate them on camera, and we have evidence that they shot a few of them, and all of a sudden the Geneva convention is moot? The lost lives are a tragedy, and those who did this, if they live, will pay in court, but I find it insane to jump from a few killed to "its the ends of the rules!"?

The fact is that since these rules were set up, crimes against prisoners have occured. Look at what was done at Andersonville, during the battle of the bulge, to millions of Soviet prisoners, to Hundreads of thousands of prisoners taken by the Soviets, to anyone taken by the Japanese in WW2. The rules survived all these things and yet all of a sudden a minor incident, several orders of significance smaller occurs and its the end of rules a we know it'? We need a sense of scale here people, a reality check, no matter how unsentimental.

SlowwHand · March 25, 2003, 15:28

"Look at what was done at Andersonville"

Don't leave out places like Rock Island, Illinois.

Jack_www · March 25, 2003, 15:28

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Just out of curiousity, are any of you that are having a problem grasping the concept Veterans?
Or have a Veteran in your family?

Yes or no, I'm astonished that you find any of this humorous.

You miss understand, I am not saying war is funny. And I never did say that.

Master Zen · March 25, 2003, 15:30

During the war of 1812, the British complained that US frigates were "too large" and that it was not fair. Did that stop the US? Nope. No rational nation will follow any rules, whether signed to or not, if it will impede their ultimate victory. Is any nation willing to risk defeat just because it followed a rule or convention?

The ABM is a perfect example of this. Now that the US faces a threat of a nation like N.Korea launching a nuke against them, considers the treaty too restrictive for the national security of the country and hence, scraps it. It's totally logical.