virus: Ethical War - Good or Bad?

Lior Golgher (
Thu, 02 Jan 1997 17:50:29 -0800

Animals never fight the way humans do. When they fight, they either
fight for territory or for status. They
don't harm each other but rather scare each other off. That's because
physical violence isn't profitable, not because of deep moral
conscience. As for predator-prey relationships, those aren't relevant as
canibalism isn't
the reason for wars - humans don't hunt each other for food.

The first human wars erupted as soon as there were territories and solid
settlements upon which to defend.
Before that stage it was simply more worthy to wander elsewhere rather
than spend essential resources on
violent assaults.

By setting ethical rules for wars we make them perceptually less
horrible and more considerable. Things like
Geneva Convention lower the expected cost of wars, so the reasons for
them could be equally lowered.
Whether it's Kuwait's oil, UN's reputation or Clinton's position in
poles, the reasons to engage in wars
are as minor as the presumed cost of it. The ceaseless violations of
Geneva Convention by all sides are only
used to display the enemy as a senseless monster.

Why don't we utterly eliminate all ethical rules for wars? A la guerre
comme a la guerre - Nuking the soldiers,
napalming the wives, raping the sheeps and eating the children... Wiping
out major cities and sniping UN \red
cross \salavation army forces... When wars would cost so much, it would
be utterly non-profitable to rush into
one. Wars could be prevented by the most realistic threatens rather than
arbitrary moral values.

I'm not talking about Mutual Assured Destruction, which only prevented
'small' wars of becoming world wars.
I'm talking about 'small' wars causing inevitable lethal damage, so no
one would have the guts to fight it.

What do you think?