As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Why isn't war illegal?
Tastyfish
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
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.
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.
Tastyfish on
0
Posts
I imagine that and the fact that no matter how "illegal" it was made, some crazy jackass is always going to want to start something makes it a nice idea, but completely impossible.
Germans in World War II invaded its neighbors to reunite the german people and to right the wrongs of World War I. At least thats what they claimed.
The US invaded Mexico to stop the raids of vicious Mexican criminals onto US soil.
So when everyone can blame someone else for starting a war, it becomes very hard to trace or assign 100% blame.
Who cares if the crazy jackass decides that declaring himself a 5 star general isn't enough and feels he should earn some extra medals - its not as if serial killers are a decent argument against the laws against murder. Preventing crazy people from doing what they want to do is one of the purposes of the law.
I covered this - its the same as hitting the guy who was raping someone else with a pipe, we have existing laws that cover the defence of others.
You have to start a war.
If it turns out he actually just bumped into me then I'm clearly at fault and guilty of murder.
We have courts rather than just summary punishments from a judge for this very reason. I don't expect it to create world peace but it is going to start promoting a very different type of dictator.
We do this already - how often does one country invade another and nobody does anything nowadays. If anything this allows more to do be done to help.
Seriously do you really think I ment that declaring war on someone who has invaded you should be illegal? Being the agressor is the illegal thing, complicated situations this could be sorted out in a trial at the end of the conflict and blame/damages assigned. Countries coming to the aid of others will make things complicated, but not more than people coming to the aid of others is - it can still be 'acting in defence' if the criminal is threatening my kid rather than me, or even if I help a friend who has become a victim.
Well you see "getting along" and war are not exactly the too choices there are
"I like ketchup on my hotdog"
"I prefer mustard"
"FUCK YOU *BLAM BLAM*"
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
I understand what you are implying. I just don't see whats different between what you are suggesting and what happens today. After every major war of the last 100 years, their has been a trial where blame was assigned.
Historically, the one holding the trial is the winner and the one getting hanged is the loser.
I understand and have never questioned the ideals of selfdefense. I question the ideas of the defense of others when that defense is nonvital to your own security.
I also question the idea that war is bad. Every nation in existance today has drawn its borders in the blood of war. Wars are fought over land because in the end it's the most valuable thing there is. It provides the food we eat, the water we drink, and the wealth to grow and thrive.
If you can't protect the most precious item you possess, then you don't deserve to have it.
League nations was designed to prevent WW2, we're talking preventing small wars
Going a'murderin' would be quite useful when it comes to securing food and stuff...but for some reason we're not to keen on this. Exactly what is the difference, if this would make a more sensible tangent to take the thread off in feel free to do so - what makes a nation exempt from the rules that it holds its citizens too (other than the obvious ones that deal with government).
Most countries who have drawn their borders in blood have done so because they had kings, who wanted power, and more money, and whatever. It was hardly the farmers on one side that though "gee, we really need our king to command over those farmers over there"
There are virtually no civilizaed country that will do "land grab" Israel and China do it, but i wouldn't call either truly civilized.
As for land being that important in today's day and age, i pretty much disagree. True without no land no people, but a country twice as big in areal is not twice as rich as a country with half that areal.
Anyway, there are extreme situations where war would be justifiable, but often it is not, and when it is you only end up there because you got yourself in that position, be that Europe in 39, or america 01.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
...
That was quite stupid.
I hope you know that, right?
1. The flyspeck countries, nobody cares enough about them to make them stop
2. The huge countries can veto any resolution, so they can do anything they want and nobody can do jack to stop them.
So basically it can only prevent medium-sized countries from making war.
Ares is not pleased.
From God of War to advertising a directory enquiries service, that has to be number 1 for 'where are they now?'
And what if the decision to go to war isn't made by a single person, or is made by a democracy?
That's not what I'd call an example of a democratically made decision
Didn't we just have a whole drawn out thing about how the genocide laws are completely useless (it was in the thread about the Germans making noice about trying Rumsfeld for war crimes).
Basically, the only people who will ever be tried for a war crime. crime against humanity. or the like is the leader of a country that's just lost a war. Even if a country was in general against what their leader was doing militarily, I can't think of a single case where a leader was tried for crimes without losing a major war (and control of their country) or if there was a coup. The only way to even try and enforce an anti-war agenda would be to be willing to wage war on anyone who waged war.
Who exactly doesn't benefit here, the powerful countries get a more stable world as various dictators are less willing to attack their neighbours and the less powerful ones get protection from those stronger than them.
The idea isn't that outlawing war will somehow hold back the armies, its that the leaders can then be held accountable at the end of the conflict and future leaders are less likely to do so. A law against murder doesn't actually stop a person getting murdered, it reduces the general populance's incentive to do so and lets you deal with murderers after the act.
Rather than having to prove that the order for genocide or outlawed weapons came from the head of state themselves (or that it even was a genocide rather than a unbiased mass killing), you can convict them for starting the war in the first place. If someone is powerful enough to flaut the law then they have flauted the law and there isn't much you can do - however 99% of the time this isn't the case.
I never said it would make the world a nice and happy place, but unless there is some reason for unprovoked war to be considered some kind of right why isn't it used in the same way that assault with a deadly weapon is (especially in countries with gun control) - even if we can't prove you ever intended to kill the staff at the bank, and you actually didn't get any of the money you can still be tried for the crime.
The alternative seems to be long, complicated trials for 'crimes against humanity' that are hard to define in the first place. Seems like arguing whether or not shooting someone in the leg during a bank robbery could be considered attempted murder or not. There seems no debate as to whether the act was wrong in the first place and we're just debating how wrong it might be. If avoiding prison isn't an option for someone who's lost a war they started a lot of the issues might be avoided.
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
War never changes...
Seriously, how do you determine who even started a war? Is it the country that imposed sanctions and drove the other's economy into the mudpit? Or is it the one who had a lost division accidently attack a platoon? Or is it the one that is rounding up certain nationalities and executing them within their own borders? War doesn't just up and occur.
And besides, we've already got a system in place, it's called "The winners get to record history." The winners are always in the right, at least for the immediately time (assuming we're not going to wait 50 years for historians to collect data before passing judgement) and then we execute Saddam. Hooray for the War Police.
Thing is, though, that it was ridiculously easy for countries to spin whatever war they started as a defensive war, thus making it "legal".
Edit: So maybe we already mentioned the League of Nations on the front page and I glossed over it >_>
Actually, that sounds like a fairly good justification for not making war illegal.