Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

There are rules to war like most people know. There has always been "rules". But when it comes to your life, instinct takes over. You shoot the civilian, you bomb the hostage, you kill the prisoner, you rape the enemy, you humiliate and hang. But it is war is it not?

So do you believe war should have these "rules" and do you believe modern army's of modern countries abide to them? Terrorist and other groups already dont. And before then countries such as the USA have done such things as issue snipers to kill officers, which at the time was greatly unhonorable. Or before them samurai found guns to be unhonorable weapons and so on and so on.

There is also the issue of past crimes and punishments. Victors of wars are almost never punished, where as the losers carry heavier punishment.
So do you think we should disregard rules of conflict more often? Right now NATO doesn't even allow the usage of nalpalm anymore, even though such weapons would help greatly in tunnel warfare.

Or are you like me, who is much more on the end of the subject. Where i believe there should very little rules. Only the goal of victory as the only firm rule With everything else falling in line with that one goal.



"The moral is to the physical as three to one"
- Napoleon Bonaparte

Forgive the crappy grammar!
"The more man meditates upon good thoughts, the better will be his world and the world at large. " - Confucius
"The guy in the back always has something to say"

I agree with you to a degree. I think that in war, the end does justify the means to some point. I mean especially if one is fighting for a cause that they truly believe in or for something that they really want. But on the other side of things, I don't think armies should just go in, rape and pillage entire villages just because it might help the cause. I don't think they should just start bombing villages full of civilians to root out one or two enemies. There's a distinct difference between soldiers and civilians and there should be rules in regards to that. Yes, there will be some civilian causalities of course. But blatant disregard for civilian life by an army or nation should be punished after the war (even if they are victorious). I don't think it matters if it is instinct. Shooting children and bombing hundreds of innocents just isn't right. And raping the women of the enemy really doesn't achieve an end. These types of things should not be allowed in warfare. Especially since most of them are innocent and may have wanted nothing to do with the war. It will happen because it's instinct like you say. But I think there should definitely be rules against it. Same thing with certain forms of torture. There are limits to what should be allowed when armies engage in combat. But they are too strict as of right now. Some of the rules that they have are just ridiculous.

How about we just stop wars entirely; that may be a better solution.

On-topic though; yes, there should be rules countries at war should abide by - and for the most part I'd like to believe all "civilised" countries do, especially for things like the Geneva Convention. Like you said though, terrorist groups and the like are not so...willing...to follow rules.

Humans have been at war for a long time, we won't ever escape war. It's a part of human nature.
If we had to then we'd fight wars with sticks and rocks. The only thing we can do is prevent as many casualties as possible. The bast way to do that is to end it swiftly.

I say if one side breaks the rules then it should become a free for all.

Though I don't much believe in those rules to begin with. War is about killing more of the enemy and breaking more of their shit. The goal is to protect your side. Protect your citizens.
War is about winning. War is horrible, yes, but war is human nature. It always has been. War is in our lives daily, even if we don't realize it. War is about two/multiple sides, fighting for their own reasons, trying to win.
War can be anything from sports or debating. It's in our nature and we wont ever escape it until we're all eradicated.... but that would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it?

However, civilians are different. If you're able to, then avoid killing them. Unless there's something greater at stake. If it was the best option, I would readily destroy and entire village to kill a major threat. I don't care about woman and children, if they become collateral damage. Well, that's war. You can't avoid killing civilians altogether. And if an illegal combatant (read: civilian trying to fucking kill you) comes after you with the intent to kill. Doesn't matter if it's a woman or child they should be killed, it's one less threat to deal with.

People used to start wars over women for crying out loud, do you think we're really any better? Humans are a petty species. We always have been. Point is, war exists, the goal is to win. That should be the only issue. Forget rape, pillaging, and whatever. It's irrelevant to the goal, it's a distraction at best.

There isn't really a right and wrong when it comes to war. Sometimes you have people who start shit for the hell of it. Think of it like a bully on a playground. They start shit to feel powerful. But eventually, someone fights back. Then it becomes a war. One doesn't want to be stepped on and dominated and ruled by an oppressive force so they fight back in self-defense.
Then war becomes an act of self-defense.
But other than that, there's really no right or wrong. To the victor goes the spoils. The victors write the history books.
Punishment? Why should the victors be punished? They were the clearly stronger force. Why should they be punished for doing what it takes to win? The losers on the other hand, it depends on what they did exactly. Either way, they still lost. Right or wrong, they still lost. The loser is the one who gets punished. That's how it's always been. If you don't want to be punished, then win.

War is simply a realistic fact of humanity. We can't escape it. The goal is to win. The goal is to avoid casualties. So end it as fast as possible. Be a Combat Pragmatist and instead of just cutting off a few branches, uproot and incinerate the whole tree. It's like, if you take out the head of a terrorist group, what's to stop someone from taking their place? At best, you've just pissed them off.
Win right, and win fast. That's war.

Winning trumps honor in my book. "There is no such thing as a fair fight." That's what my dad said to me when he told me if I was ever attacked that you fight to win, nothing less than that. If you're at a disadvantage then you aim for the quickest and most damaging way to end the fight. There's no real honor in battle anyway. Win by any means necessary.

Again, raping and pillaging are not necessary and should therefore be avoided.

The rules should exist to an extent but the nations who set the rules should lead by example. Otherwise what use are the rules if everyone disregards them. The USA in Vietnam for example...

The usa basicly did war crimes in Vietnam, and the end of world war two. Where innocent civilians where killed for pointless reasons. Such as the nuclear bombings and seek and destroy missions in Vietnam.

Even the secretary of defence says what is the difference between him and hitlers officers, they both did horrible things during the time of war. Yet he hasnt been charged with anything.


There ARE instances where killing civilians does help the war effort. The bombings on japan did end the war much faster and at a smaller cost of life than if there was a full scale invasion.


So lets say in the iraq war, a general issued multiple air strikes onto civilian targets that house only a few insurgents? When i mean punished i mean internally punished. They get punished or reprimanded by their own side.

Because really, if you have no honor in war what makes you better than your enemy you are trying to defeat? Especially in the case of the USA, where they are grounded in freedom and other ideals, they sometimes beat down those who go JUST for what the US stands for. Such as the north Vietnamese in the Vietnam war. Their leader wrote their declaration of independence after the US's declaration.

Forgive the crappy grammar!
"The more man meditates upon good thoughts, the better will be his world and the world at large. " - Confucius
"The guy in the back always has something to say"

All this tells me is that the rules of war should be better enforced than what they are right now. They didn't basically do war crimes in Vietnam. They did war crimes and they should have been held accountable for them. They weren't. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have been though. I stick to my viewpoint that there has to be some rules in warfare. Blatant disregard for civilian life shouldn't be allowed.