Unrestricted Warfare?

[Kirhean Tribes]

What is your nation's definition of unrestricted warfare?


Are there any circumstances wherein it is not allowed?

Conversely...

Are there any circumstances wherein it is considered appropriate?



For the Commonwealth, unrestricted warfare is defined as:"any warfare utilizing Weapons of Mass Destruction, and/or authorizing the targeting of non-combatants in addition to combatants." (combatants are individuals who are associated directly with a combat force, or who have taken arms for one side or the other)

The Commonwealth generally prohibits it's military from engaging in Unrestricted Warfare. It is considered dishonorable to kill someone who does not intend to harm or kill you. (those who provide service to those who do are fair game, ie. medics/engineers/etc.)

Furthermore, the use of weapons that devastate the environment as well as the OpFor is classified as Unrestricted Warfare, and therefore prohibited. It is best to preserve infrastructure so that, at the very least, you can use it against your enemy.

That said...

If faced with a foe who clearly will fight to the last soldier, and against foes who enlist their entire society in the business of war...unrestricted warfare may be authorized. (classified as "intractable")

For example, if faced by an enemy such as the Zerg of the human game Starcraft...our policy would allow unrestricted warfare. We would target any installation, and utilize maximum force possible. If necessary, we would even be willing to wage nuclear warfare until the dirt was glowing.

[Nupin]

We drop poison gas from our planes like we don't care.Planning to open up a chemical warfare germ breeding house




........in the far future

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

What is your nation's definition of unrestricted warfare?
Warfare where certain rules of warfare are disregarded including but not limited to execution of POWs, no limits on use, as well as location of firepower (it is okay to bomb a school or a church), and no limits on attacking civilian targets.

Are there any circumstances wherein it is not allowed?
Usually when we are defending an ally, or another country during a war.


Are there any circumstances wherein it is considered appropriate?
When the survival of the nation is at stake, or when the enemy must be destroyed at all costs (ex. a terrorist leader is known to be in a village).

[Victorious Decepticons]

Just the idea of having any kind of restrictions on warfare made Leader Megatron check himself with his anti-virus before he could even believe he'd read that right.

[Fatatatutti]

We don't put any restrictions on warfare. Every soldier is restricted only by his/her own conscience.

In the unlikely event that one of our soldiers did something like killing prisoners, he/she would be sent home immediately in disgrace and rehabilitated like any other murderer.

Under no circumstances would any Fatatatutian commander ever use weapons of mass destruction, even if we had any. Anybody with such a lack of honour woulfd never get to a position of command.

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Under no circumstances would any Fatatatutian commander ever use weapons of mass destruction, even if we had any. Anybody with such a lack of honour woulfd never get to a position of command.

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina

Really? So if a nation was invading your people, and destroying everything, literally driving your people to extinction, and you did have WMDs, you still would not use them?

[Southland Sudan]

Few restrictions exist here. Oh, we have laws within the Army, but most armed forces here are paramilitary militias which are raised locally. Plus, we recently fought a conflict with our Muslim neighbors which exceeded two decades. We are likely to be rebuilding from that one for a long time.

If professional soldiers killed prisoners, or did something else equally heinous, they would be arrested, placed on trial before a military tribunal and if found guilty, hanged.

[Akosha]

It is generally considered ill-advised to permit acts of overt malevolence, as such exercises tend to be time-consuming, irrelivant to the persecution of the war, and detrimental to a soldiers mental-fitness.

That said, you could probably get away with about anything in the Akosh military provided you could make a convincing case for its necessity, "we weren't in a position to take prisoners" or "we estimated that a crude remark written with the intestines of their former comrades would have a deleterious effect on enemy moral," would both be perfectly valid.

Ultimately it comes down to, "will this action help win the war, or is this a waste of resources?"

In the sense that we do not permit the latter, Akosh warfare is restricted.

[Fatatatutti]

So if a nation was invading your people, and destroying everything, literally driving your people to extinction, and you did have WMDs, you still would not use them?

That situation would never arise because we'd never have the WMDs in the first place.

It's all about premeditation. If somebody breaks into my house to do me bodily harm, I might try to fight him off with a knife that I happen to have for cooking. But would I keep a gun in the house for the exact purpose of killing him? No. That would border on mental illness.

It's better to die with honour than to live with dishonour.

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina

[Imeriata]

We have a more relaxed “if it will help us win do it” doctrine which means that if it will help the war effort are the generals pretty left to do what they think is best.

[Rumbria]

Rumbrians regard all warfare as unrestricted. That's why it's warfare.

[The chrisman union]

Unrestricted warfare is described in the Chrismanic dictionary as "The widescale use of strategic nuclear weapons, the targeting of civilian population centres and general ignorance of international rules of war." Unrestricted warfare, in all its forms, is just wrong. The whole point of warfare is to protect the citizens of your homeland. How does obliterating your opponent's country and family make you any better than him? It makes you just as worse as your aggressors, maybe even worse. The unrestricted slaughter of "enemy" civilians and non combatants is both dishonourable and immoral.

[Akosha]

So if a nation was invading your people, and destroying everything, literally driving your people to extinction, and you did have WMDs, you still would not use them?

That situation would never arise because we'd never have the WMDs in the first place.

It's all about premeditation. If somebody breaks into my house to do me bodily harm, I might try to fight him off with a knife that I happen to have for cooking. But would I keep a gun in the house for the exact purpose of killing him? No. That would border on mental illness.

It's better to die with honour than to live with dishonour.

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina

Alright then, say that the enemy was in the prossess of invading your nation and you just-so-happened to intercept a convoy of theirs which was carrying WMDs. Obviously these weapons were intended for use against your state, and it is probable that they have the will and ability to field more of them. Do you sit back and enjoy as they prepare to exterminate your people, or do you use their own weapons against them, claim them as yours, and threaten to do it again if they don't back off?

[Akosha]

Unrestricted warfare is described in the Chrismanic dictionary as "The widescale use of strategic nuclear weapons, the targeting of civilian population centres and general ignorance of international rules of war." Unrestricted warfare, in all its forms, is just wrong. The whole point of warfare is to protect the citizens of your homeland. How does obliterating your opponent's country and family make you any better than him? It makes you just as worse as your aggressors, maybe even worse. The unrestricted slaughter of "enemy" civilians and non combatants is both dishonourable and immoral.

I detect a note of discord.

This:

The whole point of warfare is to protect the citizens of your homeland.

Has nothing at all to do with this:

How does obliterating your opponent's country and family make you any better than him?

With regard to the first point the citizens of your homeland will be well protected when your enemies lie dead in a sea of cinders. With regard to the second, it doesn't... but that's not the point of warfare is it?

[Fatatatutti]

Alright then, say that the enemy was in the prossess of invading your nation and you just-so-happened to intercept a convoy of theirs which was carrying WMD. Obviously this weapon was intended for use against your state, and it is probable that they have the will and ability to field more of them. Do you sit back and enjoy as they prepare to exterminate your people, or do you use their own weapon against them, claim it as yours, and threaten to do it again if they don't back off?

You quote me and then you ignore what you quoted: It's better to die with honour than to live with dishonour. How could we live with our own people knowing we had dishonoured them?

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina

[Akosha]

Alright then, say that the enemy was in the prossess of invading your nation and you just-so-happened to intercept a convoy of theirs which was carrying WMD. Obviously this weapon was intended for use against your state, and it is probable that they have the will and ability to field more of them. Do you sit back and enjoy as they prepare to exterminate your people, or do you use their own weapon against them, claim it as yours, and threaten to do it again if they don't back off?

You quote me and then you ignore what you quoted: It's better to die with honour than to live with dishonour. How could we live with our own people knowing we had dishonoured them?

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina

How could you live with yourselves knowing that you could have saved your people from extinction, but chose not to?

[Sarzonia]

As a general rule, Sarzonia does not believe in "limited warfare" owing to a history of problems when it has attempted to fight "limited wars" that has been RP'd.

As soon as Sarzonia declares war or has war declared on it, the government actually suspends the Constitution. In addition, it does not accept Geneva Convention-esque restrictions from the World Assembly or any other body.

If Sarzonia is fighting for its very survival, it will do whatever it takes to win.

[New Caldaris]

In the Imperial Commonwealth of New Caldaris the old saying basically says it all:

all is fair in love and war

[Amn Voss]

"Unrestricted Warfare"; if it gets the job done, we'll do it. Simple.

[Fatatatutti]

How could you live with yourselves knowing that you could have saved your people from extinction, but chose not to?

Would you care to think that through again? If my people were extinct, I'd be extinct too.

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina

[Uawc]

We don't put any restrictions on warfare. Every soldier is restricted only by his/her own conscience.

In the unlikely event that one of our soldiers did something like killing prisoners, he/she would be sent home immediately in disgrace and rehabilitated like any other murderer.

Under no circumstances would any Fatatatutian commander ever use weapons of mass destruction, even if we had any. Anybody with such a lack of honour woulfd never get to a position of command.

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina

This is pretty much the same policy of the UAWC. Debate needs moar rails.

[Ostronopolis]

"Unrestricted Warfare"; if it gets the job done, we'll do it. Simple.

^ This.

[JJ Place]

What is your nation's definition of unrestricted warfare?


Are there any circumstances wherein it is not allowed?

Conversely...

Are there any circumstances wherein it is considered appropriate?

JJ Place: Unrestricted Warfare:

When war has broken out in ever single corner of the country; all De Facto responsibilities and human rights are still in effect, all who do not recognize these Codes of Conduct will be punished severely. All major crimes are grounds for death at the hand of the being you have wronged if the Legal System has broken apart due to the war chaos.

[Inabi]

You seem to be giving a lot of 'What-ifs' to Fatatatutti in order to mess him up.

And failing at it.

[Akosha]

How could you live with yourselves knowing that you could have saved your people from extinction, but chose not to?

Would you care to think that through again? If my people were extinct, I'd be extinct too.

-- Gen. Castro-Stalina

Ultimately yes, but there would, of course, be period of in which doom was merely inevitable and not yet manifest. During which you would have time to reflect on the choices you've made, and how they led the innocent lives, who were entirely dependant upon you for their defense, to certain slaughter.