Here's a though experiment: What if we ditched the Geneva convention and all the restrictions on war, including bans on chem/bio/nuke/mines etc?
Would that not result in less (major) wars?
Here's the argument: It would just be to costly to go to war. If the people you are attacking could retaliate without restriction, you're going to weigh your options a little more carefully. If Ukraine had access to, and was allowed to use nukes & chem/bio weapons, do you think they would have been invaded?
MAD (Mutual Assured destruction) has worked for Nukes - no one wants to take that risk. So wouldn't it work for all restrictions on war?
Would that not result in less (major) wars?
Here's the argument: It would just be to costly to go to war. If the people you are attacking could retaliate without restriction, you're going to weigh your options a little more carefully. If Ukraine had access to, and was allowed to use nukes & chem/bio weapons, do you think they would have been invaded?
MAD (Mutual Assured destruction) has worked for Nukes - no one wants to take that risk. So wouldn't it work for all restrictions on war?
