What's the point in having laws in war? War is inherently

>>130436469
But some people would rather not negotiate than have their cities nuked.

>>130436469
>War is inherently lawless and happens when all diplomacy has failed
Says who? Since when are you an expert on war?

>>130436469
there arent "really" any laws in war. It really only matters if you broke the "law" if you lose.

>>130436469
When you conquer a people, you need them onside after, if you've just raped and killed all their women children and burned down all their historical monuments you have no chance to rule that people ever.

Look up the geneva convention and educate yourself

>>130436469

Laws in warfare are more for eventually getting the warfare to stop.

>>130436469
Laws were always between Christian nations. Later secular war laws were introduced, but still mostly Christian nations applied them.

I'm not sure muds can obey, or asians care about laws.

But in short wars between races were always brutal - look at ww2 pacific

>>130436469
There is not rules in a war...

The rule you cite is a convention between countries which they were OK to don´t use certain kinds of weapon...

No one wants Napalm being used against their men, the convention says what countries accept not using as long the other part don´t use as well...

Chemical weapons are hazardous not to only soldier but civilians, no one will use because a lot of countries will enforce not using them

Laws of war are only effective against countries who are not Russia, China, UK, France and US

>>130436469
>>130437457
Basically war rules is to limit other countries of using it...

>>130436794
This