The torture debate
Lots of stuff out there about *why* there's even a debate about the use of torture in wartime (contravenes Geneva convention, we don't do that in America, etc.) I'm not going into that.
But I haven't seen one point mentioned, and I wonder about that. Specifically, if I as a combatant *knew* the other side mistreated prisoners -- wouldn't every fighter become a kamikaze at that point? Why would I ever let myself get captured?
Every battle becomes a fight to the death. Every misunderstanding, every bit of confusion -- all proceed to annihilation, because there's never any reason to let yourself live past this battle. How can this ever lead to a clear resolution of the conflict, without it becoming an endless conversation of destruction? If the point of a fighter is to "win" the battle, how can you ever declare that you have "won" if the fighting never stops? Worse, the combatants will quickly lose sight of what they are fighting for, and fighting becomes its own purpose. And it will inspire noncombatants to *become* combatants. This is strategically speaking, MORONIC.
This is talking on purely martial terms here. I'm not even touching the moral side of the equation, which to me seems kind of trivially, painfully obvious.
But I haven't seen one point mentioned, and I wonder about that. Specifically, if I as a combatant *knew* the other side mistreated prisoners -- wouldn't every fighter become a kamikaze at that point? Why would I ever let myself get captured?
Every battle becomes a fight to the death. Every misunderstanding, every bit of confusion -- all proceed to annihilation, because there's never any reason to let yourself live past this battle. How can this ever lead to a clear resolution of the conflict, without it becoming an endless conversation of destruction? If the point of a fighter is to "win" the battle, how can you ever declare that you have "won" if the fighting never stops? Worse, the combatants will quickly lose sight of what they are fighting for, and fighting becomes its own purpose. And it will inspire noncombatants to *become* combatants. This is strategically speaking, MORONIC.
This is talking on purely martial terms here. I'm not even touching the moral side of the equation, which to me seems kind of trivially, painfully obvious.