Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Given that there are a whole raft of restrictions on military commanders and even politicians with regards to acceptable behaviour during a war, is there any obvious reason why actually declaring a war on someone isn't illegal?
If we were to look at the laws governing individuals, murder is always illegal but there is almost always exceptions made in the case of self defence and generally for self defense of another (i.e allies). If anything it would make the war crime trials for military leaders a lot easier (proving that they were the agressors in a war has got to be easier than proving a lot of warcrimes) - I can see the tricky aspects where one country is trying to economically sabotage another by some means, but then that is what trials are for.
Is there any real reason for the UN to actually allow it? I don't see how torturing prisoners for information about the war effort is any less moral than attacking someone because you want their stuff, or even to just wipe them out.
Would even clear up the wierd instances where people are claiming a 'war on drugs/terror/christmas' as they would have to be talking metaphorically if they didn't want to face charges at the end of it.