• Yes, We need to keep civilians safe

    There should be rules because other wise people are going to just run around killing who they want. Killing innocent people will get killed just imagine little children getting slaughter that is not a sight any human should have to see. This is my opinion on the topic thank you

  • Yes. Because other wise mass destruction

    If their was no rules then any country could just go and start killing innocent people. They could go to a big city and start killing people like who would want that if you say you do you are crazy. In my opinion war needs rules to keep people safe

  • There are rules for wars to prevent damage outside the battlefield.

    Wars can be very destructive and wars are fought using soldiers and weaponry. There are rules about not using firearms against civilians because they are not part of the war. It's mainly the soldiers that fight. Leaders can also decide on rules to prevent unnecessary deaths but some leaders are stubborn and break the rules because they can't lose. Rules can be set but that doesn't mean they can't be broken. Rules are more of a thought and people can decide whether to break it or not.

  • Yes; Affirmative; Positive

    Like any other legal dispute between two sides, a war must and does have rules in order for there to be minimal civilian casualties that include rules to not engage in fighting against civilians or medical personnel that help in reviving or helping the injured and have no influence on the war. Also the Geneva Conventions that were later on revised and updated on in 1949, shortly after the second world war, stated the general rules of war. There were also wars that did and still do not follow rules. These wars are called "total wars" such as terrorists attack, for example the 9/11 incident that included attacks on civilians.

  • War should have rules, and it does - but they are not enforced well enough.

    The Geneva Conventions revolved around setting up rules of war and conduct in war, such as how you treat POWs. These conventions were adopted to prevent the massive amounts of murder and genocide of WWII. However WWI is really the first war that ushered in thoughts that war should have rules, having killed millions upon millions, with new and more dangerous technology, such as chemical warfare. These rules are generally followed, but I feel that not enough repercussions are given to those who break those rules (such as the Syrian Government using chemical weapons right now in the civil war). This is because countries can (and sometimes do) just ignore the UN and its laws such as the DPRK.

  • Yes, techinically it does

    Over the thousands of years that wars have occurred generals, kings, emperors, leaders, and civilians have come up with basic ideas for the rules of combat. There are countless regulations, treaties, and other agreements that testify to this. However just because there are rules monitoring war, these rules are not always followed. These rules were often put into place do make war more civilized and less deadly, but humanity in general has a violent side and a sometimes short memory, meaning that hundreds of years, or maybe sometimes just ten years, after a war people forget why the rules are there, or get so passionate with Antipathy that they choose to ignore these rules and attack with no heed to the lessons of people of the past, nor the logic or wise words of those who counsel against it.

  • Why not ?

    Even though in a massive war people will do anything to win, even breaking the "rules" it is still good to have them. People will break them but it doesn't hurt to have them. Why not?? We have rules today, people break them people don't. There is no harm in having them.

  • Yes but not always followed.

    Hypothetically, war does have rules that are called the Rules of Engagement, and no, this is no marriage proposal scheme but a sophisticated set of rules that dictates the actions of armies on the battlefield. The Rules of Engagement help to satisfy most people in creating a balanced playing field and helps to limit the civilian casualties like the rule against using weapons towards civilian populations or the rule that stops military personnel from targeting medical ships which can be clearly marked with a red cross on the sides. Although there are many rules, many are bent by governments are individuals just because they feel justified.

  • Most wars have had implied rules.

    In early times, when two large armies faced each other. Some leaders would negotiate rules to the battle. Sometimes it would result in a one on one challenge between the best warrior from both sides. The idea being that this warrior reflects the ability of that side and had the two armies battled the results would be the same. This meant that instead of hundreds or thousands killed, only one would die. Other rules have also been attempted but often are broken. This is because of the excuse that desperate times have called for desperate measures. Because one side refuses defeat, they feel the only way they could achieve victorious is if they break the rules and justify it afterwards. Sometimes it works, sometimes it fails. In modern times, we have weapons that could mean mutual destruction if not collateral destruction of other nations, possibly the world. The fact that many countries will not accept defeat at any price means that if these weapons are put in their hands, all rules are out the window and any measure needed to keep them from such weapons should be taken or else cause the extinction of human life on earth.

  • War can still be civil

    War is an action by a government or nation against another state, and with so many ways for a just cause war to go uncivil, rules must be laid down. Agreeing that civilians are not targets in a war is a sensible start for policies, and also banning the use of dangerous weapons like chemical weapons and nuclear weapons prevents a localized war from having effects around the world. Even though we strive to eliminate war, we have to still establish civil rules that prevent war from being utter savagery without cause.

  • War cannot have rules in a time of desperation.

    It is nice to think you have rules when you are standing over the enemy. In a time of desparation I think that a people with a cause will do anything in their power to succeed. Rules do not apply in these situations. The people with the most power are the ones who “make up the rules” during a time of war. You can never make war humane because at the end of the day it is still people killing people.

  • There is nothing civil about actively trying to murder another human being in open fighting.

    All of you need to remember something. Human beings are not perfect, they are not always afraid to die, and they make very bad choices because they are hasty and don't think before they act. There have never been and will never be any rules to war, those "rules" that we write down are meant to prevent the waging of "cruel and inhumane war". Now think about that, "Inhumane war". A war that isn't cruel? That isn't horribly violent and destructive? We're just playing pretend to try and hide our eyes from the truth. To hide how terrible war is in its entirety. The taking of human life on a grand scale is never civil and never anything but a chaotic and blood soaked struggle to stay alive and destroy the enemy. Morals don't apply to war and neither do ethics or reason and they never will. War is never without cause as we usually find our justifications, whether those justifications are valid are beside the point, to fight and die. However, it is true that war is always savage. The next time you think about rules in war remember the MAD policy and remember what happens if just one person decides a button needs to be pushed. Isn't humanity just awful?

  • Rules would be broken.

    During a war, it consists of two political government engaging one another, and with a set of rules that are enforced, they will surely be broken in due time by one of the two sides. Like in other situations, some people would follow rules, whilst other would break them, but however people who have broken those rules, especially during a war would create higher consequences with larger affects towards the opposing side (for example the usage of mustard gas in Syria). Having these rules to be broken, will also be a large surprise for the country and also people that are following those rules, possibly causing even more casualties. Finally, giving soldiers rules will create a hypothetical set of morals that they can follow, in which despite is good as it seemingly keeps them sane, if their leaders force them to broke those reals, it will also result in them breaking their morality, causing great harm towards the soldiers mentally.

  • War should not have rules.

    During a war, people will do anything to win. Therefore, even if there are rules, there is no point of having the war. The soldiers can just ignore it and they might not know about it anyway. Also, we do not know when we will have war and what kind of war.

  • No, war knows no rules.

    I think prior to the Vietnam War there were certain rules of engagement that were expected, and those were basically that the warring parties would face off against each other and everyone would know whose side you were on. In Vietnam tactics that used civilians were employed in a way that nobody knew who to was like a gentlemen's agreement had been breached. I think America's problem is that despite it all we think there should still be rules when there aren't. We are a bit naive.

  • Not anymore are there rules.

    In the past there use to be a sense of rule toward wars, but within the last 50 years those rules are gone. In colonial time people would almost walk up to other troops and begin firing upon them. No running for cover, no trying to flank them, and they would almost agree on the exchange of gun fire. Now everything is guerrilla style and each side is trying to kill the other without being seen. Hell, no technology has been used to carry out war tactics. Often causalities are used as shields and are sometimes killed due to accidents. War is not prestigious as once was either, you use to do it for your country now soldiers come back not sure why they went.

  • Gvg kjg jyg

    Jgkj gg yhh jk gk j hj j j j j j j jj j jj j j j jj j jjj j jj j jj jgkj gg yhh jk gk j hj j j j j j j jj j jj j j j jj j jjj j jj j jj jgkj gg yhh jk gk j hj j j j j j j jj j jj j j j jj j jjj j jj j jj jgkj gg yhh jk gk j hj j j j j j j jj j jj j j j jj j jjj j jj j jj jgkj gg yhh jk gk j hj j j j j j j jj j jj j j j jj j jjj j jj j jj jgkj gg yhh jk gk j hj j j j j j j jj j jj j j j jj j jjj j jj j jj

  • Gvg kjg jyg

    Jgkj gg yhh jk gk j hj j j j j j j jj j jj j j j jj j jjj j jj j jj jgkj gg yhh jk gk j hj j j j j j j jj j jj j j j jj j jjj j jj j jj jgkj gg yhh jk gk j hj j j j j j j jj j jj j j j jj j jjj j jj j jj jgkj gg yhh jk gk j hj j j j j j j jj j jj j j j jj j jjj j jj j jj jgkj gg yhh jk gk j hj j j j j j j jj j jj j j j jj j jjj j jj j jj jgkj gg yhh jk gk j hj j j j j j j jj j jj j j j jj j jjj j jj j jj

  • People are dying

    People are dying because it kills people such as you and your mom and your lol and you dog and your hi and you are the chosen one because you saved life and saved people and saved your self so sleep with no hunger at all dudes and girls and

  • War is needs to be even worse in order to stop it.

    Look, I understand were the pro-rule people are coming from with " we need to limit damage and civilian casualties ". Then again, if we let there be no rules of war then what reasonable country would want to go to war? With no rules the allowance of biological weapons, toxic gas, and even modern day weaponized lasers become a possibility. If that is in play, no one if going to want to go to war. I mean, humans are ignorant and want to go to war over ths tiniest of annoyances. However, we always put self preservation above said annoyances. And with no rules, war will even bloodier, more horrible, more deadly. And while it is true that the leaders of countries that are of questionable sanity could take advantage of a lack of rules and become much more dangerous. That level of danger will trigger the self preservation I mentioned earlier and countries that haven't tolerated each other for decades will suddenly come together and stop the greater threat for the good of mankind.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.