Hiroshima

Europeans created the FICTION of morality in warfare. The last big pulse of this began well over a century ago – early 1800s? – when European armies began to cease to bayonet the enemy wounded on the field. The so-called CHRISTIAN leaders of Europe thought that Christian nations should treat soldiers of Christian nations with MERCY (at the time this did not extend to subjugated 3rd world native populations). This arose from an earlier pulse during the Catholic Pope’s reign over European religion. Christian nobility would somewhat spare the lives of other nobility (occasionally) because of their shared religion. Prior to all this, nobility was spared on the field of battle so that they could be sold back to their family for gold.

In any event international laws developed from such concepts, but in practice such laws were used by the old and more recent super powers as a mere propaganda tool. This was because the victors NEVER prosecuted themselves after a war, only the defeated were punished by these laws. But more than that, certain powers (especially Britain) became masters at using these laws as a propaganda tool DURING the war to attempt to dehumanize (demonize) their enemies from being mere peoples who disagreed with Britain, to being people who were morally evil, spiritually corrupt, and against the laws of heaven and nature. In this way Germany in WWI was transformed from a mere nation wanting a part of the colonial 3rd world pie (that Britain hogged so much of) to becoming a nation of deviate baby eaters.

The USA has used the moral war concept to thrash the 3rd world itself. Slowly the rest of the world caught on to this and began to emotionally IGNORE these vapid accusations and some came to realize all international law and the UN were mere puppet tools used by the super powers in an attempt to dominate them.

Truth is – real war (effective war) is by definition devoid of polite rules. It is a state of MURDER. Since effective war requires the use of asymmetrical trickery, effective armies have always spent a good deal of time doing the unexpected. Obviously following prewar rules and agreements is the antithesis of using surprise and trickery.

Throughout time armies have held to their own rules of war based on what their own people considered to be honorable. Of course their enemies, coming from other peoples with differing sets of customs and beliefs, tended to view them as having no honorable ideas or customs at all. Thus, even in ancient times opposing armies would tend to view one another as uncouth barbarians or sub-humans. More recently (WWII) the Western powers viewed the Japanese ancient system of warfare as being shocking and unchristian! But of course in reality the Japanese had a very complex system and code of honorable warfare going back into history. It just wasn’t Western. Demonizing the Vietnamese NVA for not coming out of the jungles into the open to line up for the American war-machine to mow down, was not only pointless, it actually allowed the US military to justify its inability to win in Vietnam, “We’d have beaten them had they fought fair!” Even the complaint that the Communist used dupes in the American media to subvert the American war effort was not more than a silly excuse used the its military leaders. Using political propaganda on your enemy is WHAT WAR IS ALL ABOUT. Thus for the US military to console itself for its failure by saying that their enemy won the war on the American home front, but not on the battlefield, was just plain stupid. That IS the central point of war – YOU SHOULDN’T FIGHT FAIR!

But internationally imposed MORAL rules for war have had another bad side effect. They have given rise to the delusion that Kant invented of the justifiable and good war. There is no such thing as a universally justifiable war. Wars are perhaps good for this or that nation or SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP (like arms suppliers), but they are not Heaven bequeathed, sent to improve mankind and raise it to a higher order. But the international rules for war serve to empower the false idea that war can be morally undertaken. Since I don’t know of any war where either side actually tried hard to follow all these rules, the upshot has generally been that these rules were used to 1. demonize the enemy, and 2. used to slow down the enemy from using all its advantages (as when Germany tried to legally stop merchants at sea in 1939, while the Brits told their skippers to secretly use their radios to call in air strikes on the U-boats), 3. to later use these moral laws to throttle and dismantle a nation that was defeated, and 4. these laws energize the victims of war to seek more intense and long lasting revenge, which in the end only lays the seeds for the NEXT WAR.

I think they also make wars more likely. If wars were always fought as dirty as possible I believe more citizens of super powers would try harder to make their nations AVOID wars.

Just my own opinions

[Letum]

So you are in full support of sinking to the lowest levels of depravity in warfare?
And you oppose any attempts to make it a more civil affair, even when it would give
you no hindrance to do so?

To abandon your sense of right and wrong because someone, somewhere signed a piece
of paper declaring war, is to have such lose principles as to have none at all.

To be able to abandon your compassion and humanity in such away appears to me
monstrous and foul. Such tendencies are the starters and perpetuaters of all war.

"So you......" - I take this to be a loaded question, rather than as it appears to be, an accusation. But I hope it is not meant in the spirit of web-pugilism. Obviously anyone reading what i wrote should have noticed my drift toward AVOIDING WAR. So returning your own style on style, I might say: So you think war is a good idea if fought by some rules that fat little men in suits agreed to while in Geneva, all the while never intending to follow them. I live in the USA, and grew up under the threat of constant all out thermonuclear destruction. Supposedly both sides were members of one body - the UN - and supposedly played by the same international rules for war. But the truth was, especially before the mid 70s, most of their vast fire power was aimed at cities full of women, children and old people - not troops. So I grew up in a M.A.D. (mutual assured destruction) situation. Our civilizations were basically MAD (insane). What prevented that nuclear war was the absolute terror of what those weapons had done in Japan (had Japan not been attacked by nukes it is more likely a nuclear war would have taken place between the Soviets and West sometime around the late 50s. In the same way it was the Chernobyl disaster that helped empower those who saw nuclear war as unwinable against those forces in both the US and Soviet militaries who saw nuclear victory as possible).

The terrible effects of war bring about a desire in civilian populations of AVOIDING war all together. Attempts at mitigating the dire effects of war usually don’t work and often only lead to extending the life of the conflict. Wars end rapidly only when one side or the other tires of the dying and privations. It is not pretty – I certainly suggested quite the opposite. How many mothers of civilized nations have questioned their sons about to go off to war with concerns about them killing? And what was the salve that these sons offered their mothers? “I’ll be in a civilized army mother. We’ll be following international rules. International ones mom! You hear that? INTERNATIONAL. That makes it all better.”

Of course armies did not follow those rules, they only screamed when the other side did not follow them either. The only way such rules can mitigate war would be to totally BAN war by a power arising from a huge mega-one-world-bureaucracy – One World Government – strong enough to enforce this rule. Of course the likelihood that such a government would be truly fair and not just the plaything of powerful nations and special interest groups, is nil and the idea that it can happen without a complete rewrite of the human genetic code is really Utopian.

You ignore that for the last century and certainly at the present, these laws have been mainly misused as I outlined before. And laws enforced unjustly are nothing more than provocations to the future.

I should point out also that mercy is actually in the best interests of the military units. Making your enemy believe that you will treat him well in captivity is the best way to get him to lay down his weapons.

(note: I've been a bad boy since I know this forum is the wrong place for all this and I justified my first post along these lines by noting that others had started it... )



You should understand that you are descended from countless ancient men - your ancient forefathers - who did not share your "sense of right and wrong" as regards actions in warfare. Slaughtering the enemy, torturing them, was not uncommon in the past. Believe it or not, you did not appear in this world from a hermetically sealed jar. Nor did your mother. Those ancient warriors of ages past were not just characters in some story called HISTORY, they were your own flesh and blood – your DNA. Obviously then your "sense of right and wrong" in war fighting is a NEW thing, a creation of your culture. But not all cultures share these ideals. My statements had nothing to do with personal ideas of fairness, in fact I noted that all armies fight according to their own pet rules of warfare. It had everything to do with the universal tendencies of real populations and real governments. The East tends to see war not as something to dress up nice with JUSTIFICATION (not seriously). War was just a natural part of the universe and governments. Armies there fought with their own national codes of honor, but not because some God on high was supposed to have delivered it. Any way, if you personally don’t believe your moral outlook comes from some religion, then it really ends up being just your own local and personal opinion.

But in the West, especially in the more democratic nations, governments increasingly tried to dress up war with so-called humanitarian morals – usually from a wish to better empower their own forces against a foe. Thus, Britain’s wish to ban all submarine warfare from very early. It had a lead in surface ships and wanted to ensure that its prize weapons held hegemony over Europe. One reason the Western governments sought to make war more humane was to prevent their democratic citizens from objecting to their sons being led off to fight wars. You can see this today in the Iraq war – Britain tried to really play up how its troops were so much more gentlemanly and humane than the Americans (i.e. Brit poop doesn’t stink). But really was Britain justified to enter Iraq at all? While 70% of Americans were duped into believing that Iraq was behind 9-11, were the Brits at any level duped by that? Did they believe Iraq to be a danger to England? Of course not. So then, whose poop really stunk the worse, Brits or Americans?

That is my point: nations, especially Britain, love to hide behind these international rules (even though they almost never follow them except when it is a benefit to them – as in new spin) and they use them to bamboozle their own citizens that their boys are all heroes on a hero mission – they are gentlemen and good guys. But if such fake rules were never made in the first place, how could Britain trick its boys into all the wars Britain has been in the middle of? When advances in warfare made selling war difficult (the end of ‘elan, glory, colorful banners and uniforms) the Western nations had to come up with a new means to lure its citizens into conflicts: man-made morals, black and white, international police heroics. Thus they had to go to war not because it was fun (glorious) but because it was morally necessary (divine heroes).

But the greatest danger to international moral rules for warfare is that these concepts slowly take over the thinking of the nations that created them. They delude not only the populations, but even the leadership. In this way whole nations move away from sound war doctrine, such as those of Sun Tsu, to one of a watered down approach to dealing with enemies. This was ok as long as the super powers were super. But increasingly all nations are moving toward a uniformity of war fighting strength. The nations most taken in by the moral-war dogma, will be the nations first to march under the yoke of a future tyrant who follows more closely the concepts of total war.

[Skybird]

I applaude you, Wave Skipper. you put it much better and consistent then I was able to do.

I just throw in two more snapshots without much further commenting on them.

The first is the the fact that tyrannies commit murder and killing and launch wars themselves, whereas democracies tend not to fight wars agiainst other democracies, but let others fight wars if these are in their economical interest. That way, historians calculated, democracies have caused more bloodshed and killing than all dictators and tyrannies in the past 110 years, including both world wars. In other words: we don't kill, we just let selectively die and think our hands remain clean that way.

Second is the Hague Landwarfare Convention, whic implemented the principle of wishing to differ between civilians and military, combatants and non-combatants. That is relatively new an idea, as Skipper already said, raised in europe in the 15th or 16th century when the mercenary armies that were common back then and functioned as private enterprises like Blackwater etc today were more and more replaced by official standing armies belonging to a king or kingdom and that were not mercenaries anymore, but were permanent, non-side-changing forces where the soldiers "took the queen's shilling" and wore the queen'S uniform - before, mercenaries were dressed according to unregulated fashions, and uniforms for the most were unknown. This principle of the HLWC brings every Western army into trouble, as being illustrated in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, that fights an "asymmetrical" war against an enemy that is not willing to subscribe to this principle, and does not obey it. In the end, Letum is insisting that the Hague Landwarfare convention in this point must be followed, no matter what, even if it is not reciprocical in effect, but Letum does not care that enemies maybe see it different. that way a massive, potentilally lethal handicap is accepted that effectively remains uncompensated, and causes damage to "us" (massive damage), strengthens the enemy massively, and puts every war against such a faction at huge risk to loose it. That problem already has been illustrated in times when the convention even did not yet exist: during the Spanish uprise against Napoleon.

That IS the central point of war – YOU SHOULDN’T FIGHT FAIR!

That exactly is the point.

[Letum]

I agree that the use of "rules" in war is of very limited value, but the use of moral
judgement in war is not. Nor is it something unique to the west in this day and age.

Since the dawn of man people have shown compassion to their enemys, even in
warfare. There has never been a culture so devoid of empathy that any one given
member of it could batter to death more than a few hundred unarmed children and
women in cold blood, let alone a few hundred thowsand, for no more reason than they
where called "enemy".
That manner of thing only ever happens in the fury of riots, the opression of authority
or, more recently, in the mushroom-clouds of technology.

My pervious question is genuine as I have read nothing but defense of moral depravity,
in regards to how people should act when at war, in your posts.
What am I to take as an answer?

[NEON DEON]

When was the last time 2 democratic nations started a war with each other?

[Letum]

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

When was the last time 2 democratic nations started a war with each other?

Err....WW2, England, the USA, etc declared war on Finland. Or was it the other way round.
Why?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

Since the dawn of man people have shown compassion to their enemys, even in
warfare. There has never been a culture so devoid of empathy that any one given
member of it could batter to death more than a few hundred unarmed children and
women in cold blood, let alone a few hundred thowsand, for no more reason than they
where called "enemy".

Referring to some of the old classice, I would say you are totally wrong there. More than one city had been wiped out completely, with cat and dog, man and woman and kids. It has been threatened even more often. I start with Troy and Karthago, over Peking, to Baghdad, to mentiion jst what springs right to my mind.

My pervious question is genuine as I have read nothing but defense of moral depravity,
in regards to how people should act when at war, in your posts.
What am I to take as an answer?

that has been answered mutlitple times by now, if you still do not see the aswer, another ten postings still will not make you see it. usually I would live at peace in leaving a differing opinion behind, but your opinion is widespread and almost a guarantee that many more wars of choise will be started by out wetsern nations, and will bring misery upon inocent - all in the name of seriously flawed moral conception to hide the grim truth about what war is. that way, your opinion is doing very massive damage, and is highly dangerous.

Make war as miserable and cruel a spossible. Everything that makes war more "humane" - makes it more likely. If you want no future wars, shoot the nurses and bakers first and then poison the water.

Brutal? Yes. That's why I don't call it a picnic on the meadow, and am so strict in my criterions on when to define a war as a war of need indeed that cannot and/or should not be avoided. wit my attoitude, there will be less wars. With your attitude, there will be more wars. That simple it is.

[Letum]

"It is well that war is so terrible; lest we should grow too fond of it"

It doesn't work like that.
The horror of war will never deter someone who thinks they can gain from it and
generally, those who start wars are not the ones who suffer most from them.

It is madness to launch a doomsday weapon with the words:
"well, this will make sure we don't do something this terrible again!"


There have been many ancient cities wiped out and many millions of innocent people
killed, I don't doubt that in the slightest. You missed the line below in your quote.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

Err....WW2, England, the USA, etc declared war on Finland. Or was it the other way round.
Why?

Stalin attacked Finland, and they fought three different wars during WWII, 39-40, and 41-44 and 44-45. Finland after the first war and after the German attack on Russia found itself supporting the war of the Nazis against Russia, and even invaded russia itself, for nationalist dreams of a Greater Finland they nevertheless had. This has been the reason why Britain declared war on Fiunland in I think 1941. Before the first war with russia, hopes and request for help from England and america had been turned down by these countries. It made a separate peace with Russia, than fought off the German troops that had been sent to their areas to show them that the third Reich would assist them against ongoing russian attacks. Although loosing much ground to Russia, it was able to finally fight off both russia and germany, and remained relatively intact as stable, survivable state.

The british war declaration was an answer to some nationalistic megalomaniac dream of a Greater finland which would have consisted of parts of it's neighbouring nations as well. not by force but by the thinking in that it showed a bit off like to be the bully of the block. For that itdid not have the muscle, though.

You see, it has been a bit more complicated than like you try it to make appear.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Stalin attacked Finland, and they fought three different wars during WWII, 39-40, and 41-44 and 44-45. Finland after the first war and after the German attack on Russia found itself supporting the war of the Nazis against Russia, and even invaded russia itself, for nationalist dreams of a Greater Finland they nevertheless had. This has been the reason why Britain declared war on Fiunland in I think 1941. Before the first war with russia, hopes and request for help from England and america had been turned down by these countries. It made a separate peace with Russia, than fought off the German troops that had been sent to their areas to show them that the third Reich would assist them against ongoing russian attacks. Although loosing much ground to Russia, it was able to finally fight off both russia and germany, and remained relatively intact as stable, survivable state.

The british war declaration was an answer to some nationalistic megalomaniac dream of a Greater finland which would have consisted of parts of it's neighbouring nations as well. not by force but by the thinking in that it showed a bit off like to be the bully of the block. For that itdid not have the muscle, though.

You see, it has been a bit more complicated than like you try it to make appear.

Oh, I wasn't trying to make it appear anything, just keeping it brief.
Althow finland was not quite the victim of Russia and unwilling ally of Germany she is
sometimes made out to be.

All the same, I love finland and have some good friends there.
Perkele!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

"It is well that war is so terrible; lest we should grow too fond of it"

It doesn't work like that.
The horror of war will never deter someone who thinks they can gain from it and
generally, those who start wars are not the ones who suffer most from them.

That only means that war is not costly enough. Make the horror greater than the gains.

It is madness to launch a doomsday weapon with the words:
"well, this will make sure we don't do something this terrible again!"

Who said that? Letum did, and he alone.

killed, I don't doubt that in the slightest. You missed the line below in your quote.

No, I intentionally left it out, since these events were no civil unrests or riots or opression by authority, as you mentioned them and by that declared them to be outside a context of raging battle and war, but having been the deciding battles to wipe out an enemy once and for all, and thus were war.

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That only means that war is not costly enough. Make the horror greater than the gains.

Who said that? Letum did, and he alone.

No, I intentionally left it out, since these events were no civil unrests or riots or opression by authority, as you mentioned them and by that declared them to be outside a context of raging battle and war, but having been the deciding battles to wipe out an enemy once and for all, and thus were war.

Oh come on tell the truth. You are really the leader of North Korea.

I see it is all so clear now. I should just threaten to nuke anyone who dissagrees with me.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

No, I intentionally left it out, since these events were no civil unrests or riots or opression by authority, as you mentioned them and by that declared them to be outside a context of raging battle and war, but having been the deciding battles to wipe out an enemy once and for all, and thus were war.

All the examples you cited are the result of riot and/or duress of authority.

Pick any man from history and present him with 500 people unable to defend them
selves in a enviroment that is not riotous and tell him they are the enemy, but do not
put the duress of authority upon him when guideing his actions.

Unless you have picked a psycopath he will not get bast the first hundred if he
decides to kill any at all.
I don't think you would either SB, dispite your words.

You can not make peace by war.