NationStates Jolt Archive

Borrowed from the existing rules of war established in 1864, Cheronton proposes these set of rules.
_____________________________________________________________
To establish equality for any nation taking part in war, we propose a set of rules for these nations to abide by.

Rule 1: Warring nations cannot use chemical weapons.

Rule 2: The use of expanding bullets, that is, bullets that mushroom after having entered the body, or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering is prohibited.

Rule 3: Prisoners of war must give their true name and rank or they will lose their prisoner of war protection.

Rule 4: Nations must follow procedures to identify the dead and wounded.

Rule 5: Killing anyone who has surrendered is prohibited.

Rule 6: Armed forces may not use the enemy's flag, uniform or insignia, nor the symbol of the Red Cross, for their own purposes.

Rule 7: Special protection from attack is granted to civilian hospitals marked with the Red Cross symbol.

Rule 8: Shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea should be taken ashore to safety.

Rule 9: Any army that takes control of another country must provide food to the people in that country.

Rule 10: Attacks on civilians and undefended towns are prohibited.

Rule 11: A prisoner can be visited by a representative from his or her country.

Article 1:
Wounded Troops- Should a soldier sustain injury and no longer be able to fight, they are no longer to be considered a target. Despite what side they may be fighting for, medical attention must be given. Sick or wounded troops must be treated humanely, without any different treatment due to race, religion, sex, or color. It is illegal to kill, torture, or perform "biological experiments" on a wounded soldier. It is illegal to hold this person hostage.

Article 2:
The Dead-The dead are to be collected, identified, and properly buried. If necessary, fighting must be suspended in order for the dead to be recovered. The bodies must be treated with respect, and, if possible, buried according to their respective religions. Communicating through a Graves Registration Service established at the onset of war, the location of the graves must be provided to the opposing force so that the bodies may be later sent home. All of the property found on the body must be returned to the next of kin.

Article 3:
Civilians-Any form of physical violence or degradation is prohibited to civilians, that is, those who are a non military citizen. An armed force may not attack civilians, nor use them as a "human shield" to keep a location protected from attack. Neutral Zones where fighting is prohibited are to be provided, as well as hospitals, to provide protection for civilians. These areas are to be marked with a giant red cross. Hospital workers are to carry special identity cards so that they are never prevented from performing their duties. Enemy forces are not allowed to seize personal property unless it is being used against them, and in that case, they must return the property or provide compensation at the end of the war. Every building or object connected to religion, charity, education, the arts and sciences and history are regarded as private property. Civilians must not be interned or removed to another country unless it is for their own safety, and only if there is no other alternative. In the case of either internment or transfer, it must be temporary, and the occupying force must keep track of them, keep families together, and return them to their homes at the end of the war. Occupying forces may not import their own citizens into the occupied territory.

Standard-issue lead bullets mushroom when they hit the body. You're proposing a change to all-plated bullets, I take it? While we are behind this on humanitarian grounds, we would warn that the cost to the militaries of developing nations, who would have to replace virtually their entire ammunition stocks, would be prohibitive.

Rule 6: Armed forces may not use the enemy's flag, uniform or insignia, nor the symbol of the Red Cross, for their own purposes.

Special forces operations could be drastically damaged by this, as could the escapes of prisoners of war. We support the Red Cross part, though.

You're going to need clauses to prohibit the sheltering of troops within these protected zones.

I believe the Wolfish Convention On POW covers most of your wounded-troop stuff.

Every building or object connected to religion, charity, education, the arts and sciences and history are regarded as private property.

Well-meaning but horribly impractical. What if a city is defended by historic walls, or a historic castle is being used as an enemy HQ?

The stuff about armies not being able to seize personal property is also a bit much. What if the invading army's there to set up a Communist state? To them, the idea of personal property is nonsensical. And 'is being used against them' is also ridiculously strong - does that mean, if every private citizen in the city I'm trying to pacify is armed, that I'm not allowed to take the weapons from them unless they actually fire them at me? Please.

the rules of war are attually simple



1 destroy your enimy till he gives in to your demands

The Rules of War are simple. There are no rules thats why its called war not Risk.

These rules all sound pretty good, but I must agree they go to far. After all it is war.

And just what happens when some army breaks these rules? Does the opposing army just wander over and arrest them all?

When they break the rules, this is called a "war crime".

i for one am not in favor of the second one no mushroom forming bullets i love those ones.
i vote no to the rules
Also in war i will use all types including the attack of civilians- what hurts more a report saying we lose 13,000 slodiers or one saying we lost 13,000 soldiers and 10,000 civilians including women and children. think about that. i dont like that but it works.

how can you all be so numb to this subject. is it because war is always what happens to sumone else? or that you just dont care? i mean honestly, what?
these rules are sound. they give order to chaos. grantedt, they will probibly never be implimented by any national government because aparently humane warfare is seen as a weakness.
wut a wonderful world for kids to grow up in. god save us all. no offense ment to any religions.
and yes, i realize that humane warfare is a bit of an oximoron, but its the best way i could think of putting it.

These rules are purposeless. A defenseless squad of men in funny blue hats is not going to defeat 10000 men in doomapocalypse-5000 death suits. This proposal is utterly purposeless; while rendering me defenseless, it provides an innate exception to anyone not in the UN.

Statedom, when you can demonstrate that such precise rules as these have a history of working and being beneficial to the parties who follow them, you'll have a much better argument to stand on.

War is what happens when diplomacy has passed. You really don't understand what I mean when I ask what happens to the rulebreakers, do you? What I mean is: How the hell do you plan to enforce this? You can't really impose economic sanctions -- chances are you already did that, and their military will be shooting at you the whole time, anyway.. You can't really arrest anyone -- they have guns and orders to use them. It won't do you any good to condemn anyone -- it's already pretty obvious that you don't like them. So what, really, are you going to do to enforce something like this? Your diplomatic options are much thinner when you're shooting at each other, and it's not like you can threaten them with the use of force, so what've you got?

of course the rules dont work satin. nobody has ever tried. and i never once said that they would work if implimented. all i am saying is that idealy, this is what should be used. they prevent the massive casualities to civilians that have been seen in past wars.
u are rite in saying that the rules are uninforcible. the sad fact is that war cannot be controled. once it is started, the only way to end it is to beat your oponent into submission. rules are entirly free to be broken in war time.
so, i guess in that fact that the rules can never be used they are sumwhat pointless, but none the less they are a good idea.

the rulses are what a man can do and what a man cannot do.

This would be fine and dandy if every nation was in the United Nations, but they're not. Again, we would be defenceless against non-UN member nations. Therefore, it does not have our support.

We'd like to note that we'd support a more well-thought-out conduct in war proposal. To the amoralist idiots saying 'there are no rules in war' we'd like to add: there are no rules in life, but we still manage to make laws about it.
As for enforcement: suspension of UN membership and universal UN sanctions on offending nations would make a good start, unless and until offending nations hand over the individuals responsible for trial. (There's nothing in the rules to say we can't apply sanctions as punishment to non-UN nations as well. Make war on a UN nation, play by the UN's rules).

We support the drawing up of 'Rules of War', but we would like to see parts of the real-life Geneva Convention used. This includes (but is not limited to) the forbidding of: the creation of a radioactive battlefied; the use of serrated/rusting blades.

The point of having rules is that they protect you. Try to think not so much of how you would like to annihilate you enemy as unpleasantly as possible, and imagine if it were the other way around.

You cannot win a game of chess by only planning your offense.

this is pointless! war is war an dno one can change that. :x

All a nation has to do is try to follow these rules, and you've accomplished something.

To the amoralist idiots saying 'there are no rules in war' we'd like to add: there are no rules in life, but we still manage to make laws about it.

Refer to my previous posts. Isn't it folly to enact unenforcible laws? Do you really think economic blockades mean anything when the opposing side has already demonstrated a willingless to take the conflict to the military level? Do you think such a sanction will bring an opponent to their knees when more than half the world -- namely, the non-UN nations -- will not participate in such an action? Do you really think satisfactory evidence and witnesses can be gathered for a trial during a war? Is that a reasonable expenditure of resources?

The military is not a police force. Police can function and maintain order largely because they are a recognized authority of the people and have the arms and numbers to prove themselves so. In a military conflict, both of those advantages are lost.

You cannot win a game of chess by only planning your offense.

Likewise, you cannot win a war by playing a game of chess. The reciprocity defense still applies regardless of whether it is officially recognized -- take nuclear weapons, where the use of one nearly mandates the use of another. Fear of reciprocity is a strong deterrent in military conflict.

All a nation has to do is try to follow these rules, and you've accomplished something.

Have you? A nation which willfully abides by these rules is likely to do so regardless of their nature. As for nations which do not willfully abide? I ask again, what method of enforcement is available? The proposal makes no mention of enforcement, trial, sentencing, or any such matter.

I believe that nationstates needs to make it possible for us to declare war on each other. I was recently offended by a nation and it is a matter of national pride that I be able to avenge this travesty. Make war legal, sure there can be rules but war is war, justleave us to our own devices.
The Great Ogier Has Spoken.

War is a needless travistey thrusted apone the oprest workers of this world.
no good can come of war and people have the right to defent themselvs by whatever means avalibul.
however most of thows rules are for preventing a nation who has the welth and power to create the weppons of mass destruction that will be band.
why would a worker use possin gas, or a nuculer weppon?
they cant make one. and they will onley be using it on fellow workers.
so on the W.M.D. i suport the rules of war but some of them are uninforsibel

Likewise, you cannot win a war by playing a game of chess.
Many wars in the real world Middle Ages were fought and won with chess games. The skill of the players led to defeats of entire armies.

I've heard that, but I've never heard of specific examples.

Ah, the joys of citing nonspecific examples from so far back that they're almost irrelevant. Good to know, though... I sometimes have too much interest in random history for my own good. I keep remembering that I heard about some war that was settled diplomatically by a game of Risk or the then-equivalent... I don't remember any more than that, though.

Only slightly off topic. Ahem. ^_^;