# Should the rules of war apply to the aggressor only? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 6, 2006, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-rules-of-war-apply-to-the-aggressor-only/367615 "2006-08-06T22:18:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-rules-of-war-apply-to-the-aggressor-only/367615/21 "2006-08-07T16:33:42Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > If you’re a guerrilla who doesn’t wear a uniform and hides among the civilian population you’re going to get a lot of your fellow countrymen killed. If you don’t mind getting innocent people killed, or in fact want those innocent people killed, then I suppose you should go ahead. Thing is, when a regular military kills innocent people, it’s dismissed as “collateral damage”. Why is it “collateral damage” only for them ? Because the rules are designed for the benefit of the conquerers, who _have_ regular militaries; not the people who fight them, who don’t. Either it’s wrong for both sides, or neither; the present rules try to have it both ways. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-rules-of-war-apply-to-the-aggressor-only/367615/22 "2006-08-07T16:36:04Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > But they _are_ all the enemy, and _are_ treated as such. When you conquer a country, for any reason, the vast majority of the people will hate you and want you dead. But they’re not all the enemy, though, and they can’t be treated as such. If they’re all the enemy, than the only way you can hold land that’s been conquered is with genocide and extermination, and that doesn’t often happen…when the Normans took over England, they didn’t kill off all the Saxons, when the English took over Ireland, they didn’t kill off all the Irish, when we took over Germany after WWII, we didn’t kill off all the Germans. That’s because the majority of the civilian population didn’t want the invaders dead, or if they did, they weren’t worked up enough about it to do anything. That’s why killing civilians is seen as such a bad thing…because they’re non-combatants…they’re not the enemy, they’re not taking up arms against you. That’s also why guerilla resistance movements tend not to work. They’re outgunned, and they tend to piss off the native population enough, who mostly wants the fighting to stop, that the population no longer supports them. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-rules-of-war-apply-to-the-aggressor-only/367615/23 "2006-08-07T16:41:22Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > If you’re talking about rules like how the resistance should dress in uniforms and so forth, those rules are just silly, designed by the aggressors to make conquest easier. If you conquer someone, and they fight back, you have no one but yourself to blame. What “rule of war” says that resistance fighters have to wear uniforms? The GC concerning POWs explicitly states that resistance fighters, even if they don’t wear uniforms, get POW status just like uniformed soldiers do: > [@](#): > > 1. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. Nothing about uniforms there. As far as “so forth” goes, well that just means they must “carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.” You don’t target civilians, you don’t behead prisoners, etc. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-rules-of-war-apply-to-the-aggressor-only/367615/24 "2006-08-07T16:43:19Z")
Some non-combatants do take up arms against an invader. Witness the resistance movements in the occupied countries during WW2. Whether or not these movement did a great deal of harm to the Germans is open to debate but they certainly got a lot of their countrymen killed by way of reprisals which were often 10 (or more) civilians for each German soldier killed. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-rules-of-war-apply-to-the-aggressor-only/367615/25 "2006-08-07T16:56:47Z")
> [@chowder](#): > > Surely the object of a war is to defeat the enemy in as short a space of time with the least casualties to your own forces. This being the case then any commander in or out of the field should be at liberty to ensure that his side is victorious no matter what methods are used to subdue the enemy. No, the object of war is not to defeat the enemy in as short a space of time with the least casualties. The object of war is to achieve whatever policy goals you’re going to war for. War is the continuation of politics by other means, etc. Now, sometimes yes, your goal will be simply to defeat the enemy as expeditiously as possible. But sometimes your goals will be more nuanced, and in those cases you will most likely need to use more nuanced means than merely going out and kicking ass. This is especially true when your opponent is using guerilla tactics against you, and has some substantial level of support from surrounding civilians. In such cases, use of the most expeditious ass-kicking possible tactics is entirely likely to create more enemy partisans than it kills, and hence is not advisable. See: Napoleon in Spain, USSR in Afghanistan, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-rules-of-war-apply-to-the-aggressor-only/367615/26 "2006-08-07T17:15:17Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > But they’re not all the enemy, though, and they can’t be treated as such. If they’re all the enemy, than the only way you can hold land that’s been conquered is with genocide and extermination, and that doesn’t often happen…when the Normans took over England, they didn’t kill off all the Saxons, when the English took over Ireland, they didn’t kill off all the Irish, when we took over Germany after WWII, we didn’t kill off all the Germans. In your first two examples it took many generations, and there’s still resistance in Ireland, rather famously. In the case of the Normans/Saxons, there’s been enough rape/intermarriage/time that as far as I know, it’s not a big distinction anymore ( I’ve never been there, so correct me if I’m wrong ). Germany is a special case, as they appear to have accepted they were in the wrong and/or stupid for taking on most of the planet at once. How often does that happen ? > [@Captain Amazing](#): > > That’s why killing civilians is seen as such a bad thing…because they’re non-combatants…they’re not the enemy, they’re not taking up arms against you. But it’s _not_ seen as a bad thing; it’s dismissed as “collateral damage” all the time. I don’t see many Americans worked up over the civilians we’ve killed in Iraq. It’s only seen as bad when a third party we disapprove of does it. > [@Captain Amazing](#): > > That’s also why guerilla resistance movements tend not to work. They’re outgunned, and they tend to piss off the native population enough, who mostly wants the fighting to stop, that the population no longer supports them. In other words, when you slaughter/rape/torture enough of the civilians, they’ll submit out of fear. The guerrilas die from being outgunned, and no one wants to join them because they don’t want their families dragged off to the torture chambers, or their villages napalmed as “collateral damage”. > [@John Mace](#): > > What “rule of war” says that resistance fighters have to wear uniforms? The one mentioned by **RickJay**. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-rules-of-war-apply-to-the-aggressor-only/367615/27 "2006-08-07T17:34:14Z")
What is the difference between A Guerrilla fighter A Resistance fighter A Partisan. There must be one (I think) but it must be a very fine line between one and the other. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-rules-of-war-apply-to-the-aggressor-only/367615/28 "2006-08-07T17:56:16Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Thing is, when a regular military kills innocent people, it’s dismissed as “collateral damage”. Why is it “collateral damage” only for them ? Because the rules are designed for the benefit of the conquerers, who _have_ regular militaries; not the people who fight them, who don’t. Either it’s wrong for both sides, or neither; the present rules try to have it both ways. Wrong again. The distinction between collateral damage caused by military action and the killing of human shields behind which non-rule-abiding insurgents hide is that the former is an unintended result that is minimized to the extent possible by the military, but the latter is an intended result that is maximized to the extent possible (and, if necessary augmented in Photoshop) by the insurgents. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-rules-of-war-apply-to-the-aggressor-only/367615/29 "2006-08-07T18:13:37Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > Wrong again. The distinction between collateral damage caused by military action and the killing of human shields behind which non-rule-abiding insurgents hide is that the former is an unintended result that is minimized to the extent possible by the military, but the latter is an intended result that is maximized to the extent possible (and, if necessary augmented in Photoshop) by the insurgents. First, are you claiming that regular militaries _never_ kill civilians on purpose, and irregulars _never_ try to avoid civilian casualties ? Second, dead is dead. It’s ridiculous to claim that it’s worse to kill a dozen on purpose than a million as a side effect. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-rules-of-war-apply-to-the-aggressor-only/367615/30 "2006-08-07T19:16:41Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > The one mentioned by **RickJay**. I don’t know that those two things are the same. As long as resistance fighters carry arms openly, they don’t need to wear uniforms. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-rules-of-war-apply-to-the-aggressor-only/367615/31 "2006-08-07T19:38:44Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t know that those two things are the same. As long as resistance fighters carry arms openly, they don’t need to wear uniforms. So you think it’s wrong for the resistance to, say, pull out a hidden pistol and shoot an enemy soldier in the back ? Is it wrong for them to set off a bomb under an enemy vehicle ? Lure a soldier away with a prostitute and beat him to death when he’s alone ? Poison his drink ? Run one down with a car ? I don’t. And don’t bother with the retort that the soldiers will then assume all civilians are part of the resistance and kill/abuse them; they’ll do that _anyway_. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-rules-of-war-apply-to-the-aggressor-only/367615/32 "2006-08-07T20:08:26Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > It does. The point of a “uniform” in the rules of war is that it’s distinctive…it’s something that easily distinguishes soldiers (ok to shoot) from civilians (not ok to shoot) Cite? I mean, is this a \*codified \*definition? Or the way you think it should be? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-rules-of-war-apply-to-the-aggressor-only/367615/33 "2006-08-07T20:25:50Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > So you think it’s wrong for the resistance to, say, pull out a hidden pistol and shoot an enemy soldier in the back ? Is it wrong for them to set off a bomb under an enemy vehicle ? Lure a soldier away with a prostitute and beat him to death when he’s alone ? Poison his drink ? Run one down with a car ? I don’t. > . It depends on if such actions have any reasonable chance of succeeding in driving out the occupying force, and if driving out the occupying force would actually improve things. Just because someone is an enemy soldier doesn’t make it moral to kill them. Is it moral to pull out a hidden pistol and shoot a civilian from the occupying country? Is it moral to secretly travel to the occupying country and randomly poison people? Is it moral to pull out a hidden pistol and shoot one of your own countrymen? If they are a collaborator? What if you just want to make the point that the occupier can’t keep the streets safe? Is it moral to plant bombs in a marketplace in order to kill civilians from your own country? Is it moral to pull out a hidden pistol and shoot soldiers from your own country if you don’t support your own government? How about civilians? Is it moral to randomly murder prostitutes if you think prostitiution is evil? At some point you’re just a serial killer, regardless of how you justify your killing. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-rules-of-war-apply-to-the-aggressor-only/367615/34 "2006-08-07T20:39:02Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Cite? I mean, is this a \*codified \*definition? Or the way you think it should be? Yes, from Article 44 of the 1977 protocol to the Geneva Convention treaties: > [@](#): > > 1. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he > carries his arms openly: > > (a) during each military engagement, and > (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate. The combatant has to wear a uniform or, if he can’t, has to carry his arms openly in order to “distinguish themselves from the civilian population…” ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2006, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-rules-of-war-apply-to-the-aggressor-only/367615/35 "2006-08-07T21:30:54Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Yes, from Article 44 of the 1977 protocol to the Geneva Convention treaties: > The combatant has to wear a uniform or, if he can’t, has to carry his arms openly in order to “distinguish themselves from the civilian population…” Ta, thanks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-rules-of-war-apply-to-the-aggressor-only/367615.md?page=1)