From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Monte Davis wrote:
> John Cuccia  wrote:
>
>
>>The "laws and
>>customs or war" are peacetime constructs which have no influence on
>>wartime conduct.
>
>
> I can't agree. The professionalization of European war *did* lead to
> less misery for civilians in the 18th and 19th centuries. (The 20th
> told itself it had invented total war, when in fact it had simply gone
> back to the 17th and before.)
>

Cough cough....less misery etc for european civilians. If you were of dusky
hue then....

> The bad rep of gas in WWI -- regardless of whether it was practical,
> or more or less "inhumane" than bullets and shells -- *did* constrain
> its use in WWII.
>

Hummm.. more like early deterrance. Again though it was basically OK for
poeple to use it against non-europeans (e.g Italy in Ethopia etc)


> The bad rep of nuclear weapons *has* constrained their use against
> non-nuclear powers for 60 years.
>

Deterrance/balance of terror. Let's hope the Russians love their children
too etc. It's about raising the cost of war. If war is cost free (or
appears to be) then it becomes a fairly easy option (recent US actions are
an example). e.g. Had Iraq had H-bombs & ICBM'es then no "iraqi
freedom" no way no how.



> That constraints like these -- and on a smaller scale, the issues of
> POWs at stake in this thread -- are fragile, incomplete, and liable to
> be discarded in desperation, or by an evil regime, doesn't mean
> they're without value. They get stronger, and gain wider adherence,
> with time.
>

Simple economics...raise the cost of war lower the demand.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5