we did not sign the treaty banning cluster bombs either...and neither should we have.
“we did not sign the treaty banning cluster bombs either...and neither should we have.”
Right, we might need to use them on Russian soldiers one day, or Russian air fields.
AGREE 100%!
As the great General Robert E. Lee observed:
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it."
USMC Lieutenant General "Chesty" Puller:
"Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't be any AMERICA because some foreign soldier will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!"
Is there anything more foolish than rules designed to make war more "humane"?
Such well-meaning but short sighted efforts only serve to makes warfare more acceptable, more bearable with the end result of increasing, rather than decreasing, the likelihood of armed combat and making conflicts last longer.
The way we wage war should be so horrible for our enemies that few consider it an option.
If we had fought in Iraq and Afghanistan the same way we fought Germany and Japan the war would have been over years ago and we would have sustained fewer casualties.
In the end the most humane policy is to wage war unconditionally, in the most ferocious way possible, to completely and utterly destroy the capability and will of your opponent as rapidly and decisively as possible.
There would be fewer wars and they would be over more quickly.
Enemies will hesitate before mounting a challenge if they know that will be the response. They will not hesitate if they know you are reluctant to fight your best fight, hesitant to trade blow for blow.
When they know they can willfully kill your families, women and children, and destroy your homes while you consider your self too civilized to respond in kind they know they have the advantage and are more eager to start and sustain armed conflict. Ultimately they will be the victor, even against a superior force.