In a boxing ring, one guy can utterly dominate the other. That's

No holds barred Russia and usa would decimate continents, without even using atomic devices.
It really only gives an advantage to the larger militaries and nuclear powers.

>>34016565
> if the armies decided that they didn't care about laws, dignity, or world order, they'd war in an unbeatable way?

Yeah, it's called nuclear ICBMs, famalam.

The Geneva conventions don't impose much of a disadvantage, outside very niche scenarios. They're merely a way for war between civilized dudes to not suck more than it has to.

>don't fake surrender
>don't blow up hospitals
>wear a uniform

So hard, such unfair.

>Is "modern" warfare like that?
No.

>Are there armies who today would lose conventional wars, but if the armies decided that they didn't care about laws, dignity, or world order, they'd war in an unbeatable way?

Not really. Wars are won largely by logistics and planning. Being "mean" doesn't help with either of those.

File: 1492923399611.gif (976KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

976KB, 300x168px

>>34016565
bump 4 interest.

Op, you should read The Salvation War for a decent example of a truly no holds barred military

>>34016565
>But if these two same guys fought, in the real world, especially if it was life and death, the other guy could easily dominate.
wrong
have you ever even been in a fight?

>>34016583
>The Geneva conventions don't impose much of a disadvantage

They do if you follow them while fighting an enemy that doesn't.

Those conventions were established for western armies using conventional forces under the direction of a legitimate government. It's fucking stupid to use those same conventions against forces that don't abide by them, like Mudslime insurgents, Sub-Saharan nigAfrican tribal fucks, or any other group of savages.

>>34016583

Apparently even that is too much to ask for as all three of those rules have been consistently broken in the majority of wars since WWI, and it makes the UN look like a bunch of limp-wristed faggots who are too weak to enforce their laws.

>>34016583
>>34017178

Should have just done what the empire did to muslims who rebelled during the Indian mutiny (although Hindus suffered equal fates)

Gather any accused, make them prove they were not involved in anything, if they could not they were pissed on by the lowest caste people gathered together , made to lick up said piss then drink pigs blood, they were then either sewn up in pigs skins then hung or strapped to the muzzle of a cannon and "fired"

>>34017178
>They do if you follow them while fighting an enemy that doesn't.

so you are going to explain how exactly conventions puts western armies at disadvantage ?

>>34017860
Just the targeting limitations, alone, are enough of a disadvantage to toss that shit when confronting those that don't follow the conventions.

Conventional forces are required to wear distinctive uniforms, or distinctive markings, use vehicles with distinctive markings, carry I.D., and openly carry weapons. This puts them at a distinct disadvantage due to the fact that they can be detected long before they enter an area of operations. Meanwhile, those that don't abide by that shit can walk around among the public with no issues.

Then there's the fact that those conventions prevent signatories from legally exterminating "non-combatants", which are actually just another logistics and intelligence arm of any insurgency.

The disadvantages are enormous, and only a fool, like those that exist in U.S. and western government, would impose such nonsense on their own forces.

>>34017088
I can assure that within the ring Trayvon would have utterly decimated Zimmerman. In the real world he got dead.

>>34017860
>Enemy piles into ambulance
>Can't shoot because ambulance

>Enemy builds bunkers under schools and hospitals
>Can't bomb enemy bunkers without carefully evacuating enemy civilians off the top of them

>The entire difficulty of labeling which guys in street clothes are enemy combatants and which ones are civilians as well as whether women and children are still noncombatants when they're willingly serving as shooting rests

>>34016565
>That's because there are rules.

No, that's because one is better at fighting.

If you take the guy who is a good boxer out of the ring and then tell him and the other guy now they can do whatever they want the boxer is still going to win.

>>34018757
Because Ali performed so well against Inoki.

File: ................jpg (47KB, 615x410px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 615x410px

>>34018842
>mfw Inoki damaged his leg so bad amputation became a serious consideration