War and the rules of war

Ever think about the rules in warfare? I have been recently, because for some reason they intrigue the hell out of me. It's almost surreal to imagine that guidelines exist for what essentially is a game of life and death.

I was in Fort Jackson in Columbia, SC a few months ago talking to one of the soldiers there. He serves as an infantryman, and he was explaining to me some of the rules that there are for ground troops in warfare. Some of them were interesting: things I would never have thought to do in a war but they are there to keep things humane, obviously. Seems paradoxical really. Anyway, here are some of the rules I can recall off the top of my head.

You can't shoot paratroopers out of the sky. You must first wait until they reach the ground to fire upon them.

You can't kill anyone with a ridiculously powerful gun (like, a chain gun meant for tanks. Something that would otherwise rip a person apart).

Unarmed medics are not targets. They are not to be fired upon.

Wounded soldiers are not targets, and are to be treated by medics as soon as possible, regardless of which country they hold their allegiance to.

I know that the rules have been followed in wars in history (WW1, WW2 for example) and thrown to the wind in others (Vietnam?) I'm not quite sure anyhow. Not the biggest history buff.

Anyhow, what do you guys think? I've always equated war with the idea that it's every man for himself as far as you and your enemy go. Defeat them at all costs, right? The implimentation of rules make it seem a lot more like a game with a huge cost. It's weird that I've lived this long and really have overlooked the idea that our leaders send us to essentially play a big (albeit much more costly) chess game in order to gain power over something. If I ever go to war, on one hand I can see myself seeking vengeance upon the person that killed the friend and comrade that went in with me, but on the other hand I can also see myself rationalizing that the person that fired the gun isn't responsible for the death of my comrade, but just another piece in his leader's game. It's the leader thats responsible, right?

Agree/disagree? Additional comments?

Also, sorry for my poor writing. I'm sleep deprived at the moment, so hopefully it reads okay to you guys.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by chaser

I know that the rules have been followed in wars in history ...WW2 for example

Nanking, Warsaw, Bataan, Malmedy and the Russian Front call bullshit.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Oh despite war being horrible and all that, I'm surprised it holds some humane rules, even though they're not written or anything. Maybe only a few countries really bother to do such things.
I'm interested in whether sides in a war actually have a parley before fighting or not.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

As with anything else, the "rules of war" are respected only if it suits people. If you feel the need to take the moral high ground for whatever reason, then you'll respect them; if you don't and don't fear you enemies using the same tactics in retaliation, then you'll forget about them faster than you can say Geneva Convention. There's no higher authority for countries at war, so it's all a matter of what countries decide they want to respect, and that in turn is a matter of what is best for them. Simple as that.

Beside, the "rules of war" change with time. Go back to, say, the 17th or 18th century, and you'll find rules of war still exist, but not in the same form, and that the rules say different things than they do now. If they can change with time, they can change if a country decides it is so.

EDIT: Typos. Ok, I admit it, this time it wasn't so much typos as the gin I just had. Bah.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Summonmaster

Oh despite war being horrible and all that, I'm surprised it holds some humane rules, even though they're not written or anything. Maybe only a few countries really bother to do such things.
I'm interested in whether sides in a war actually have a parley before fighting or not.

They are written. Set by the Geneva Convention in the latter 19th century.

There were a number of Geneva Conventions that took place later on, then Protocol Additions to those. Each convention went along a certain point/guideline. The first one was taken up around the 1860s was for treatment of sick & wounded.

Also, rules weren't thrown to the wind in Vietnam (at least on our part, in my opinion). It was far too restricted if anything. It's hard to fight a war when you have too many rules.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Codes of honor have existed ever since man started beating up each other in groups.

And yeah, not only War but politics in general is a big game. Even knowing when to break the rules is part of the game. As I'm sure the vietcong, overrun and underarmed, did everything to push Americans back no matter what.

How ya doing, buddy?

The rules of war don't only go by the times, but by nation. It's more of a moral dispute than anything. Look at the Japanese's aggression against China and Korea. It was all out there; raping, manslaughter, it didn't make a difference. The same went with the Nazis with the Jews in WWII. It's more of the British influence of being a gentleman in war on most of the Western world. Except back then in the 15th century, the red coats would line up in formation and... die.

For United States, Vietnam wasn't the only exception. There have been cases of inhumane actions in even the most recent Iraq war. But that isn't the action of the whole army but a group alone. The rules help though, because it makes your country and army the 'good guys' while the other army using guerrilla warfare and inhumane tactics the 'bad guys'.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by chaser

Anyhow, what do you guys think? I've always equated war with the idea that it's every man for himself as far as you and your enemy go. Defeat them at all costs, right? The implimentation of rules make it seem a lot more like a game with a huge cost. It's weird that I've lived this long and really have overlooked the idea that our leaders send us to essentially play a big (albeit much more costly) chess game in order to gain power over something. If I ever go to war, on one hand I can see myself seeking vengeance upon the person that killed the friend and comrade that went in with me, but on the other hand I can also see myself rationalizing that the person that fired the gun isn't responsible for the death of my comrade, but just another piece in his leader's game. It's the leader thats responsible, right?

Agree/disagree? Additional comments?

I agree that it's the leader that's responsible. Granted, many people that decide to fight in a war volunteer, but unless they have a personal grudge against you then they are mainly pawns in the commander's game of chess. Also, the factor that the leader is responsible could come from force recruitment (ex. the draft) or from outside influences such as culture and religion.

I was a little surprise to have read some of the codes you listed for them to follow, but I knew that they had a code of combat that they needed to follow. One that sticks out in my mind is that they will not allow women in the front line of defense. It's a little anti-feminist, but supposedly they see it as a form of protecting the female troops while allowing them to join the Army.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by chaser

You can't shoot paratroopers out of the sky. You must first wait until they reach the ground to fire upon them.

You can't kill anyone with a ridiculously powerful gun (like, a chain gun meant for tanks. Something that would otherwise rip a person apart).

Unarmed medics are not targets. They are not to be fired upon.

Wounded soldiers are not targets, and are to be treated by medics as soon as possible, regardless of which country they hold their allegiance to.

Did this fellow that you talked to really believe that in a war where the primary enemy is a group that flies planes into civilian buildings, they are not going to shoot at them if they're just hanging there in the sky? Or they won't use a minigun on a single soldier if given the chance? I would certainly hope not. Hell, I highly doubt that they would do the same.

These rules seem to be more like guidelines at absolute best. They're hardly "rules". In a life and death situtation like this, it's ludicrous to think that the other side is going to play fair and give you a sporting chance at killing them.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

All war is just one big failure to communicate. The act of war itself though is a form of communication; albeit a very low-level one (force).

People who can't function without war arn't fit to function in a civilization (IMO).

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I'm curious if our enemies would follow the same rules. It would seem to me that if they didn't, our military automatically has a disadvantage every time we go to war. The only one of those rules I don't get is why you aren't allowed to kill someone with a really big gun. Say they are firing their gun from a tank. Do you have to blow up the tank? Is that the only thing you can do to stop the guy from firing at you?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

The rules of war are only followed by those who make them.

If I was a CO of a unit, I would stress not to fire upon surrendered/wounded soldiers or medical staff. POWs are usually exchanged for allied POWs, and medical staff are expected to treat all wounded, regardless of side.

I do think that paratroopers are considered unarmed soldiers, but I'd still gun them down if I expected them to be a potential threat. Especially when the enemy is desperate enough to resort to suicide bombings, chemical warfare, and extreme forms of propaganda. As for big guns against weak units, you do what you have to.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Call me crazy, but if a military is advanced enough to use Paratroopers, I doubt they'd be doing suicide bombings.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Stealth

Call me crazy, but if a military is advanced enough to use Paratroopers, I doubt they'd be doing suicide bombings.

Good call, but I still never underestimate the enemy. It sounds so ass backwards (instead of dropping bombs), that it might take anybody off guard.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I was talking to my husband about this very topic the other day and he told me another interesting thing: Chaplains are never armed, even those who are entering into active combat zones. But the do have "assistants" who follow them everywhere who are basically armed bodyguards.

How ya doing, buddy?

If you're a conscientious objector, if they are in dire need of manpower, you're essentially given a few choices. One of which is to be a medic, as medics typically just hade a sidearm. Or, as a few folks did in WWII, you could become a Chaplain. In the situation at least in Europe, most Germans wouldn't dare open fire on a man of the cloth on the battlefield. So, why arm him, essentially? Never heard of them having bodyguards, but it doesn't surprise me to be honest. A Chaplain in particular won a medal of honor in WWII, to boot =O

Quote:

"For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as Chaplain on board the U.S.S. Franklin when that vessel was fiercely attacked by enemy Japanese aircraft during offensive operations near Kobe, Japan, on 19 March 1945. A valiant and forceful leader, calmly braving the perilous barriers of flame and twisted metal to aid his men and his ship, Lieutenant Commander O'Callahan groped his way through smoke-filled corridors to the open flight deck and into the midst of violently exploding bombs, shells, rockets and other armament. With the ship rocked by incessant explosions, with debris and fragments raining down and fires raging in ever increasing fury, he ministered to the wounded and dying, comforting and encouraging men of all faiths; he organized and led fire-fighting crews into the blazing inferno on the flight deck; he directed the jettisoning of live ammunition and the flooding of the magazine; he manned a hose to cool hot, armed bombs rolling dangerously on the listing deck, continuing his efforts despite searing, suffocating smoke which forced men to fall back gasping and imperiled others who replaced them. Serving with courage, fortitude and deep spiritual strength, Lieutenant Commander O'Callahan inspired the gallant officers and men of the Franklin to fight heroically and with profound faith in the face of almost certain death and to return their stricken ship to port."

How ya doing, buddy?

Well, In my opinion there are so few people that actually obey the rules of war that they should just be done away with. Maybe when the world has had its share of atrocities people will learn to respect one another and fight like men, not dogs.

Most amazing jew boots

These are supposed to be "rules", but hardly anyone ever follows them consistently. The Germans in general treated US/British POW's okay (other than SS units that captured them), but they treated the Russian POW's like crap, often shooting them on the spot, or essentially letting them starve/work themselves to death (mostly because of ideology that was being fed to them via the Third Reich, who said they were sub-human and therefore not worthy of living).

Of course, once the tables began turning, the Russians themselves committed some awful atrocities themselves (raping at least 2 million German women as they entered Germany. Yes, this is a sensitive issue and isn't too well known, but it happened. Everyone talks about Nanking cause the Japanese were "the bad guys" in WW2, but the Russians were technically our allies, which is probably why this gets "covered up" a lot, aside from the communists hiding a lot of stuff from us anyway). You could argue that the Germans had it coming to them, after all the killing they did, and the large amount of casualties the Russians suffered, and it's "all part of war" (Russian commanders allowed it to happen, partly because the soldiers were often drunk when the rapes occurred, partly as a psychological effect, to show the Germans they can't even protect their people, partly to let them vent frustration. Again, this is a sensitive topic, so don't be surprised if not many want to talk about it).

Btw, I heard bayonets weren't supposed to be used anymore either, cause they cause a deep wound which is really hard to heal, yet armies all over the world still use/train with them, if that tells you anything.

Regarding Chaplains, yes, they don't get armed (I dunno about ones in an infantry unit though, I heard they get sidearms there), but chaplain assistants are armed, and are expected to protect the chaplain in combat.

Medics are only armed with pistols, but I'm sure in the heat of battle they may very well pick up a bigger gun to protect people they're trying to save. They're technically not supposed to be fired at, but again, those "rules" aren't always followed (I heard medics were often the first ones to be shot in Vietnam, followed by guys carrying radios, and then the officers if they could be easily identified, which led to the US Army developing more subdued rank so that the NVA and Vietcong couldn't tell who was an officer right off the bat).

For the most part, the US military does try to follow these sort of rules, but sometimes they are "broken", depending on the situation. For instance, religious buildings and other buildings like schools and hospitals are not to be fired on, and if any enemy runs in to seek refuge, you're not supposed to kill them. HOWEVER, if the enemy runs in, and instead of giving up the fight, then fires at soldiers from inside the building, then that building loses its "protected" status, and soldiers are allowed to return fire, even if they damage the building in the process (doesn't mean they should blow it up, but if it has to come to that...)

The problem with these "Rules of War" is that lately, we haven't been fighting enemy armies, where soldiers are easily identified on the battlefield. We're fighting guys who dress up pretty much like the local populace, and who then exploit that by firing at uniformed soldiers, who are unable to fight back effectively. And if we kill civilians by accident, then it just looks terrible to the rest of the world. New rules have to be devised to engage these types of people, who are blurring the lines of "enemy combatant" They also resort to terrorist tactics, instead of fighting conventionally, like setting up roadside IED's (improvised explosive devices), and for the most part, are pretty indiscriminate as to who they kill, whether it's a enemy soldier, or an innocent civilian, or even children (you have to wonder what kind of mind thinks it's okay to kill kids).

That's why the US won't give those guys in Guantanamo Bay any POW rights, because they're not part of any army, in a standard uniform using standard equipment issued to them by a standing government. They're just guys who showed up and started fighting against the US or its allies. Some people are having a hissy fit about this, but again, why should we offer them that protection/status if they refuse to follow the rules set by a global community?

Most amazing jew boots

Obviously they don't deserve the same protection as uniformed soldiers, but as human beings they deserve some kind of protection.

Hey, you can't expect the enemy to follow the rules if doing so wouldn't give them even a snowflake's chance in Hell of victory or even a fair compromise.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Gecko3

The problem with these "Rules of War" is that lately, we haven't been fighting enemy armies, where soldiers are easily identified on the battlefield. We're fighting guys who dress up pretty much like the local populace, and who then exploit that by firing at uniformed soldiers, who are unable to fight back effectively. And if we kill civilians by accident, then it just looks terrible to the rest of the world. New rules have to be devised to engage these types of people, who are blurring the lines of "enemy combatant" They also resort to terrorist tactics, instead of fighting conventionally, like setting up roadside IED's (improvised explosive devices), and for the most part, are pretty indiscriminate as to who they kill, whether it's a enemy soldier, or an innocent civilian, or even children (you have to wonder what kind of mind thinks it's okay to kill kids).

That's why the US won't give those guys in Guantanamo Bay any POW rights, because they're not part of any army, in a standard uniform using standard equipment issued to them by a standing government. They're just guys who showed up and started fighting against the US or its allies. Some people are having a hissy fit about this, but again, why should we offer them that protection/status if they refuse to follow the rules set by a global community?

You are so right about these points.

If these people are not willing to officially organize in a way to communicate (through words) with other organizations/governments, then all bets are off. The reason people organize/fight/communicate/bargain is to get what the group wants. These people don't organize officially, don't communicate with dialog, and don't bargain but deliver ultimatums. So really, all these groups do is fight. There is no civility or consideration on there part, just blind hate-death to their foes.

These people aren't interested primarily in getting their way, but in destroying there opposers. That is a big difference. For instance, we entered WWII not to destroy all Germans, or Germany itself, but to stop Germany from oppressing others, conquering the world. BIG DIFFERENCE.

So I totally agree that these "psuedo-civilian-soldiers" are not under normal protections, because they don't stand for anything but killing.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Dayvon

So I totally agree that these "psuedo-civilian-soldiers" are not under normal protections, because they don't stand for anything but killing.

Nonetheless, they're still people. You can't just lock 'em up for an indeterminate amount of time somewhere where they can't be checked up on. Especially without saying WHY you're locking them up, let alone giving them some kind of trial.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

Nonetheless, they're still people. You can't just lock 'em up for an indeterminate amount of time somewhere where they can't be checked up on. Especially without saying WHY you're locking them up, let alone giving them some kind of trial.

Yeah, even I'm against that, even if the US apparently isn't. However, I would also like to hope that if we release these guys, they won't pose a threat to themselves or other people (wasn't it in the news a few years ago where they let someone go from Guantanamo, only to recapture him doing terrorist stuff a few months later?)

I'm all for treating people humanely, but sometimes, when other people refuse to act likewise, it makes it harder to "let them off the hook". But this is a complicated situation, and one we probably won't be able to solve for a long time (unless World War 3 breaks out, but with technology today, I doubt it'll be a repeat similiar to WW2. It'll probably be more like WW1 where people will die left and right, and for no really good reason either).

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?