War, what is it good for?

War crimes: Redudancy or necessity?

(note, this one's a bit more opinion based than fact based).

In this day and age, we've got Weapons of Mass Destruction, atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, and disease warfar. Yet, for some reason, we choose to use infantry and we choose to use slower methods of war. Why is this? It's because of something called "war crimes".
To me, the words "war crimes" are redundant, murder is the ultimate sin, thus war is it's uber-pregnant love-child. However, not all people agree with me. So here's the history of the term "war crime".

You've got 4 Geneva Conventions dealing with prisoners of war (1864, 1949, 1949, 1949); The Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907; the Biological Weapons Convention (1972); and, the Chemical Weapons Convention (1993). Basically, these 4 "conventions" decreed what would and would not be legal for war-fare.

Now, is it just me, or do rules of war sound a little stupid? First off, how do you enforce said rules; secondly, how do you really know what weapons every one has; thirdly, how do you stop a country/force someone to follow them? Really, if a country has, I don't know, let's say the ebola virus in a ready-made bomb, who's to stop them from using it? Or even worse, a blue bomb, it destroys all biological material, but leaves everything else intact. (it may or may not exist...)

Anyway, back to the "rules". Gases, biological warfare, atomic bombs: forbidden. Torture, "unfair treatment of prisoners", neglect of the sick and wounded: forbidden. There are even rules for the "opening of Hostilities"...

I mean, isn't war supposed to be horrific, bloody, and quick? It seems that these "rules" would hinder the process of war. If you want to win a war, do it quickly, don't use infantry, and fuck the rules.

and this is coming from a pacifist. Except, in the case of war, then fuck the enemies and do everything in your power to win quickly and effeciently!


stay tuned to the next post "and we call this one General Ignorance 101"