Clumsy war discussion

There are several places that would maybe be better for this thread, but I'm not smart enough for a debate room, and this isn't official research for what I'm writing.
Full disclosure: I will consider good ideas to come out of this for what I'm writing.
For now, I just need a little discussion to get going.

Disclaimer: Though this train of thought originated with all the current bullshit in the world, it's not directly about that bullshit.

I'm not even entirely sure how to ask what I wanna ask, so let's see where this goes.
Let's suppose, like naive children, that war has been made illegal. Those who start wars and those who profit off wars no longer have a say. Armies are no longer allowed to pass beyond the borders of their country.
How would this law be enforced without causing a war?

 

Such an arrangement could only arise with such a level of honor and concord between peoples that I reckon states, armies, and borders would already be dissolved.

 

Maybe there is some sort of overlord force that established the law. This force has an overwhelmingly superior military and can destroy anyone who starts a war.
Everyone knows it, so no one starts wars.

 

Aggression doesn't have to be in the form of war, though. This force will quickly have to become an arbiter on trade embargoes, ocean passage, inter and intranational policy. A bad enough crime against humanity is a pretty good reason for conflict. Imagine if a country started burning Canadian tourists at the stake. That's not starting a war per se, but it is a massive human rights violation that Canada would need to respond to in some form. Is initiating a war always unjustified?

Then there's proxy shit like propping up and funding rebels. False flags, denial, sabotage.

I think it would change the rules of the game, but the game would stay.

 

Wars don't happen overnight. There would be all kinds of signs happening before it got to war. So in a world that has outlawed war, I imagine there would also be laws against any sort of provocation for it. There would be strong hate laws and very little tolerance for agitators. It might just be that religion is outlawed, too.

 

It's an interesting question but unfortunately it's too broad to really answer. Only way I could see it ever work is if it's a scenario like the movie 'Captive State' where some entity that has technology far beyond any potential belligerents that they are borderline supernatural.

As for how broad it is, how do you even define 'war'? Well, I guess you start with conflict between two armies. But how do you define an 'army'? Does Civil War count?

Is cyber-warfare included in the restrictions? So would attacks like these be outlawed: https://thehackernews.com/2012/07/iranian-nuclear-program-hit-by-acdc.html

Most wars are fought over resources or religion, or both (even the famous 'Football War' or 'Soccer War' had roots beyond the sport). So you could do maybe a thought experiment of what might happen if such a near-omnipotent adjudicator existed. Best case scenario I can think of is full scale wars are prevented, and inequities between nation states are reduced to keep insurgencies to a minimum through some appeasement process. But you can never satisfy everyone.

Or you could have some scenario like the movie 'Robot Jox' but that still requires either an omnipotent enforcer of rules or cooperation and adherence to the rules by member states.

 

Everybody has nukes, so no one throws one.

I've thought about the overlord idea as well, but I have very little faith in humans to begin with, and there's the almost undeniable fact that power corrupts. As far as I can comprehend, an overlord-system would put the world at the mercy of the overlord.
Hell, I probably wouldn't even trust a Jedi with the task.

No. And yes.
But it's a matter of semantics, for my counter argument. Supposing the Netherlands is burning Canadian at the stake, I could argue that Canada is defending against the shit the Netherlands started. On the other hand, because I want to win this argument; could it be considered insitigation if Canadians kept going to the Netherlands, knowing it is dangerous for them?

This is most definitely something we can agree on. The game is unending.
But if people in my living room are playing Monopoly, and I'd rather watch a movie instead, I should not be expected to pay because there's a hotel on Boardwalk.
Would it be plausible to force participants to do war in a designated area, where the rest of us aren't inconvenienced by it? Like, maybe a patch of ground in Australia, or something. They've got some room in the middle, right?
I'd imagine there'd be less war if people had some time to think about it on the way over, and then had to fight in the searing heat without anybody telling them which one is the Gimpy-Gimpy tree.

Yeah, we'd have laws upon laws, and every which way I look at it we either end up with war, or a police state. I'm unable to dream up a system that doesn't infringe on basic freedoms.

I wasn't going to bring it up, because it's a whole other can of worms, but it's one of the first things that came to mind.
I suppose a more reasonable option would be to outlaw the promotion or imposing of religion. And getting rid of tax breaks for "the church." I've always wondered how religious some religions would be if it cost them money.

 

Unprovoked wars of aggression are currently illegal according to international law. How to enforce?

War of aggression

 

Good point. Interesting point, too.
In my sole opinion, a war would be any explosive, violent, situation that drags a large amount of people into it against their will. This should not include sporting events. I don't care for them, but in most cases they don't cause the physical, mental, and economical destruction that is associated with war-wars.

Whatever the definition of war, they're going to keep happening. So I'd suggest that whoever decides it's war, goes and fights that war. Leave the rest of us out of that nonsense.
If the counter argument is "But I'm the president" then you're out. You can't be president anymore. Should have thought of that before you started a war.
My theory is that when there's no one doing the fighting for them, then instigators will be a lot less instigatory. But since there's always gonna be some dude with a tank going "I'll help ya out, boss" I'll settle for the not-in-my-backyard strategy.

I sorta started that in the reply I was typing before I saw your post.
It does not end well for anybody other than the adjudicator. It's a bit of a who watches the watchmen situation there.

But you can satisfy a majority. In a war, the majority is the group that isn't playing, and by not warring all over them, they should be at least a little satisfied.

 

So, everybody is basically aware of the fact that they're committing a crime if they do war. Yet it keeps happening because we can't have nice things.
Granted, I've yet to check the wiki-link, but the quote you posted doesn't say how to enforce without the enforcing turning into a war of its own.
Even with treaties, pacts, laws, tribunals, and kisses of angel dust, it's still just a bit of a "thanks for letting us know" situation. For the most part, it seems to do what it intends to. Trust me, you're not gonna see the Netherlands rolling out both its tanks to get Belgium back, because we don't wanna deal with explaining that bugfart of a kerfuffle to America.
But it takes only one guy to go "You said what about my God?!" and prove how toothless the system really is.

By my calculations a sanctioned war should not be able to happen at all, unless there's an unsanctioned (act of) war preceding it.

Damn. The more I read the wiki, the worse it gets.
The UN Security Council will determine if there was an act of aggression.
So like a parent listening to two kids going "he did it," the UN has to do that with people who should know better.

Fuck me, it's almost hilarious that there are so many rules for making war, and no rules that prevent it.
I think if we can figure it out in this thread, we're gonna have to decide who can put the Nobel Peace Prize on their mantle.

 

Getting a bit more specific, the big powers such as the US, Russia, France, etc. have military industrial complexes with enormous influence in their governments, which include enormously lucrative industries (often the most lucrative) which benefit from war or at least a constant state of belligerence and tension in various parts of the world. There is also an overlapping but distinct set of commercial interests, also extremely powerful, who often find it beneficial to foment violence or unrest in various places to achieve their aims. And these interests command an array of lobbies, think tanks, and media organizations which secure the compliance of politicians and the consent of the general public. To even make a step toward the arrangement we're imagining, these various powerful interests would have to be dislodged from their position of power, in several places at once. Given their track record it seems unlikely that they would allow this to be done by normal legal or "democratic" means.

*Crass song plays*

 

Well if we go the scifi route there's the classic bit at the end of The Stars My Destination where Gully Foyle goes teleporting around the planet distributing the planet-destroying weapon pyrE to random crowds of people.

 

I am minded of Blackadder's explanation of the causes of WW1:

Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.

Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?

Edmund: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.

George: What was that, sir?

Edmund: It was bollocks.

Giving *everyone* a planet destroying weapon seems like madness.

 

Goes back to the national policy itself, but I suppose forbidding a military draft of any kind would be a start.

Honestly, I think simply dominating the earth and placing it under a utopian (dystopian) single ruler is the practical way to go about it given all that power. The amount international squabbling and geographical/ancestral feuds is a nightmare to try and untangle. 'Who started it' is a really easy question and a really hard question at the same time.

 

Yup. Money.
Realistically, we're just gonna have to live with war.
That's why I'm still hanging on to the idea of letting them duke it out somewhere they won't bother anymore. We'll get the peace and quiet, and everyone interested can keep making money from having things go boom.

It seemed like a bad idea at first, because of the non combatants in the nation. And puppies.
But if you think about it, it sort of puts the power in the hands of the people, by forcing them to keep their government in check.
Right now, if the Netherlands decides to invade Canada, you'll get a few people going "wait, nooo, better not" but by the time the match is on, nobody's caring about Canada. I doubt the match would have any impact if it meant the Netherlands would become non-existent. You bet there will be a bunch of people knocking on doors in The Hague.

That said, there's still going to be a bomb in our basement. So... I have my reservations about this. ;o)

Every New Year's Eve people here insist on proving they can't even be trusted with firecrackers.

There's a relatively brief timeframe after a war that's best for implementing change, but it's terribly easy to revert to primal behavior.

I work at a program about the Royal family sometimes, and without fail there's always at least one guy in the crew who thinks we should get rid of the Royal family. I'm ambiguous about the whole thing. They're not getting in my way.
But it often sparks a discussion (though it doesn't really involve the war aspect). I think a king or queen with actual power wouldn't be that bad, provided it's done right. I call it a benign dictatorship, which usually gets me a few looks.
The idea is that the wellbeing of the leader is directly tied to the wellbeing of the people.
The leader would get to make the final decision. Their word is law. But before their word is uttered, there will have been advisors of all relevants sorts, and referendums for the people to voice their opinions. So basically politics as usual, but with one person who has the power to say "look, my wife is making lasagna, so I'm done here. This is what we're doing, period."
But the decisionmaker's livelihood depends on how their decision affects the people they decide for. Maybe we'd get to eat his wife's lasagna if that decision was wrong.

I think that's what 's attempted with the system we already have, but in practice the decisionmakers aren't really forced to care. Best case scenario, some minister of something-or-other will just step down. A lot of time they pop up in another ministry, but otherwise there's a cushy CEO job waiting for them at a bank. They don't really have to answer for their screw ups.

Fun fact: Johan and Cornelius de Witt were eaten by the Dutch people for screwing up. Some dude took the time to paint it, too.
You'd think that was a little bit of an excessive reaction, but it turns out Johan was also one of the founders of modern insurance, so... I hope the dogs were fed well too.

 

Forgot to quote this one.

I've always wondered about the effectiveness of drafted soldiers. They did away with it in the Netherlands just before my number was up, but I can tell you they would have had one seriously unmotivated soldier on their hands.
You'd think a force of people who volunteered to be there would me more effective.

But maybe not for our purposes? I get the impression that if one volunteers to do something, they want to go out and do it too. Which is great for a food delivery person, but when it comes to shooting things... I dunno.

 

The US has not had a draft since about 1974, maybe 1973. The high school seniors of the year previous to me did not all get drafted.

Before that occurred, that was one thing you could bank on every male's mind since VietNam "police action" was still going on. Besides sex, I mean.

 

I think most people who volunteer for military service don't do it to shoot people, but to protect their country and culture. I believe drafts are good for procuring meat for the manpower requirements when volunteers run out. It's not necessarily that they are effective, it's that they are required.

 

Just had a thought - going back to the OP - how to eradicate war? Turn all people into pacifists. Have all people absolutely believe that all forms of killing are immoral. Maybe (in your WIP) human life itself becomes more than sacred - it becomes God. You can really have fun with the belief systems with this one. Just a thought. What do you think?

 

That might eradicate wars as we know it but if you don't eradicate the dynamics that cause war to begin with, you'd still have bad actors, and ultimately everyone exploiting the rules as much as they can. So if you can't kill, can you use force? That's required for violence and oppression, so some may still resort to maiming enemies, enslaving them, etc. Burning their crops, homes, etc.