GameBanshee Forums

What Aegis posted about child soldiers in the Fallujah thread was interesting. To quote:
Now, I personally don't find anything wrong if a man, woman, or child decides to pick up a weapon and fight, as long as they aren't simply meat shields, then there is a problem.

So, is it justified for children to take arms in a conflict where one side is overwhelmingly superior? If so, can they be used as 'meat shields' as well?
More generally, the rules set out in the Geneva Conventions don't seem to cover the realities of modern war, as we see with child soldiers, suicide bombings, Guantanamo bay, and many other examples. Should they be updated, or is that even possible, considering problems of recognition and enforcement? Should they be abandonned, to allow Governmental forces to respond in kind to terrorists and insurgents?
To what extent, if at all, should allowances be made for extenuating circumstances?

Your thoughts?

My head hurts so I will be quick and to the point.


Humans are animals, War is hell. There is no "bad" tactic in war. The killings of those who do not participate in your war is bad. If country A is bombing the hell outa Country B and Country B doesn't even have a airforce. I see nothing wrong with Country B doing all they can to survive, because after all that is what we do all this for. To live a little longer. Sure blowing up children isn't a great way to survive, but in some circles of religion blowing yourself up is the right thing to do and if it can lift some pressure off of those who fight you, good job.

As for children... I think of myself at the age of 10, and If I saw bombs and murder and death and starvation, If I only saw my father die, if I never saw death but it was soon to be brought upon me. I would fight.


Now for my real downer point of view a lot of people dont like.

God isnt real we made him up, we are beasts with the ability to imagine so we created something greater than us so we dont have to worry. Theres something at the end, its all ok. We are beasts animals with intelligence. The young wolf cub will fight back if he is threatend. As would those little kids in Iraq.

As for children... I think of myself at the age of 10, and If I saw bombs and murder and death and starvation, If I only saw my father die, if I never saw death but it was soon to be brought upon me. I would fight.

According to the UN, more than 95% of the children who fight in wars are abducted at an early age from their families and placed into training camps, where they're fed propaganda and taught nothing but who is the enemy, and how to kill.

Originally posted by Beowulf
Should they be updated, or is that even possible, considering problems of recognition and enforcement?

IMO they can only be enforced on the side willing to limit their ability to fight. If side A decides the Geneva Conventions are the only way and side B decides to use this against them, who is to stop them? There is no regulations to war, no referree is going to give side B ten minutes in the "box" for bad behavior.

According to the UN, more than 95% of the children who fight in wars are abducted at an early age from their families and placed into training camps, where they're fed propaganda and taught nothing but who is the enemy, and how to kill.

Well that sucks. I still stand by what I said though....

The Geneva Convention may be considered 'rules of the game' to follow in war, but in real war, even if a country purports to adhere to the Geneva Convention, most of the time the Geneva Convention can't be followed. For example, The GC states that paratroopers cannot be fired upon when in the air. But which moron will let enemy paratroopers float down and commence an attack on friendly positions? Medics are also exempt from attack and such. But the most common engage distance is at 100-200 metres. At that distance who's able to see the dinky red cross armband on the medic? The medic justs looks like an enemy, and is prone to enemy fire, especially since medics are more common in defense positions where 20mm and 40mm rounds are used more often, and just become collateral damage.

The problem with the Geneva Convention, is that a lot of it's guidelines are based on Hobbes rules of Engagement, written back in the 17th (or 18th) century, with only slight modification. At the same time, they only apply if both sides agree to them, and you're right, Araknid, who in their right mind would want to fight a fair fight, especially if they don't have the same resources.

The original Rules of Engagement were written during a time when people were still using Cannons and other black powder instruments, with an effective range of 50 metres, at best (well, Cannons could shoot further, but come on. They weren't that accurate).

Anyway, moving back to the idea of women and children fighters:

@Fable: I wasn't so much refering to women/children fighting as professional soldiers, but rather as resistance or guerilla fighters, as was seen in Vietnam and to a much lesser extent, in Iraq. It's these people that pick up a weapon, and fight for their country (not the political state, or for any nationalistic sense, but rather because it's their country, and their mess to clean up. National Independence, I suppose).

@Aegis: The convention was last updated in 1949, long after the era of 50m cannon.
I can't find anything about Hobbes' rules of engagement. Could you post a link which summarises them? I would have thought that Hobbes wouldn't be the kind of thinker to inspire someone like Dunant

In relation to the convention only applying where both sides have signed - that's true, but not a problem. Everyone signed the 1949 version.
There was an attempt in '77 to extend the convention to cover guerilla warfare too, but lots of countries abstained, including the US and Britain. Their problem was that it gave protections to guerilla groups, as per the '49, but withdrew the stipulation that they operate openly, have a fixed leadership structure, and behave "in accordance with the laws and customs of war". They felt it would benefit terrorists.

I wasn't so much refering to women/children fighting as professional soldiers, but rather as resistance or guerilla fighters, as was seen in Vietnam and to a much lesser extent, in Iraq.

Would you consider a child capable making a choice to put their life at risk in such a manner? Would you consider it necessary to a resistance movement to recruit children? I'm fairly sure the French did OK without that particular tactic, along with many other groups throughout history.
What makes the difference between a legitimate resistance movement and terrorism? Might the use of child fighters be one of the criteria?

@fable: What (if any) is the signifigance of the distincition between child soldiers and children who fight in wars?

(not the political state, or for any nationalistic sense, but rather because it's their country, and their mess to clean up. National Independence, I suppose).

I'm confused by this. Apart from the nation (the cultural entity), and the state (the political entity), what else is there for them to be fighting a resistance movement for?

In an attempt to answer the questions I posed at the start:
I don't think the convention needs updating. Children should never be recognised as combatants, and thus should be treated as civilians. Thus, the group they fight for would be guilty of war crimes, possibly loosing their own right to be recognised as legitimate combatants, and so not under the normal protections.
The use of suicide bombing is a terrorist activity, and so disqualifies groups who use it from from legitimate combatant status.
Basically, the Geneva convention still defines legitimate conduct of war. Things like terrorism fall outside it, as does the use of child soldiers, and groups using those kind of tactics shouldn't enjoy protection under international law (the children should be protected). Those tactics are totally illegitimate, and should be maintained as such.

My mistake, it wasn't Hobbes, it was Hugo Gortius that wrote the initial rules of engagement, which laid the foundation for the Geneva Convention.

Anyway, I'm currently about to step out to go to work, so I can't respond properly right now, but I'll get back to you.

@fable: What (if any) is the signifigance of the distincition between child soldiers and children who fight in wars?

Who was discussing that? I was answering RT's remark:

As for children... I think of myself at the age of 10, and If I saw bombs and murder and death and starvation, If I only saw my father die, if I never saw death but it was soon to be brought upon me. I would fight.

He appeared to be under the impression that children fight in wars because they want to protect their devastated families. In fact, nearly all children fight in wars because they have been kidnapped, brainwashed, trained, and given guns.

Interesting subject. An understanding of the Geneva convention as it applied to my combat role was implanted into my brain during the initial phases of my military training. For the most part, soldiers of the US, Britian, Canada, Australia, and other Western European countries all pledge to abide by the GC in times of war.

War is insane. Imagine that you are standing upon the shoulder of a bustling superhighway...where the flow of traffic is, say, 65 mph (120 km/hour? I forget). Car after car goes speeding by...then you are suddenly pushed into the midst of it by an invisible hand...

The beastial, the noble, the courageous, and the cowardly all clamor in the heart of armed combat. Every primitive, primeval instinct you have battles to assume control of your body as you are placed within the ultimate fight or flight scenario....life or death. If you lose that battle, you will certainly perish. You must push yourself beyond the terror and adrenaline in order to survive.

The heart of war is mindless, and there is death there. It can be said that war is a human innovation, and I would have to agree. Even the animals seem to conduct themselves with some form of dignity and mutual respect...amongst the groups of social animals such as chimpanzees and wolves, rituals are observed - even by rebellious individuals. It can be said that a wolf pack is a safer place to be than a human society...and I would have to agree there, as well.

War will never go completely away. It seems to be as much of a part of our existence as human beings as the need to socialize with one another is. As soon as the tools of war are dismantled and the soldiers sent home, another armed menace arises in the world...history has handed us all bitter lessons in this regard during the past century. We were not prepared for the aggression of Nazi Germany, nor of Japan...if we had been, how many lives could have been spared?

Ah well...I am in High Lord Dave mode here, but to me, it all boils down to this: what turns a killer into a soldier, and a beast into a human, is morality. That's the core of the GC...war is an unfortunate reality that, like it or not, we must be prepared for. By separating the combatants from the non-combatants, human suffering can be diminished a great deal...

Yes, it sounds absolutely insane. However, it is the only recourse for a moral , yet pragmatic, creature. As for me...if I found myself standing upon a crowded street in downtown Baghdad pursuing (or being pursued) by my enemy, I would NOT fire my weapon into the crowds, for any reason at all. If my commanding officer issued an order to do so, I would refuse upon the grounds that doing so would violate the GC, therefore making the order an unlawful order.

What if several people upon that crowded street suddenly pulled out AK-47s, pointing them in my direction? And what if some of those people were kids???

Originally posted by Chanak
What if several people upon that crowded street suddenly pulled out AK-47s, pointing them in my direction? And what if some of those people were kids???

But what you're describing isn't war, it's but an unlawful attack. A better analogy for war would be if a city politician egged on his or her followers to carry AK-47s into the next street and shoot up the population; or a politician gave his followers weapons "just to protect themselves," and then told them the people in the next street were preparing incendiary bombs for an attack later that night.

For all those who are mystified by my admittedly awful analogies, war since the dawn of time has almost always been caused by somebody up top convincing some large group of people to do his/her dirty work for his/her ambition, goals and glorification. Defense without ever attacking is another matter. Defense without attacking is laudable. Unfortunately, sooner or later someone gets in charge who sees the advantage of using that force pro-actively, just as Dubya used its "peacetime troops" meant for the defense of US citizens to take over Iraq without the slightest provocation.

Originally posted by fable
@fable: What (if any) is the signifigance of the distincition between child soldiers and children who fight in wars?

Who was discussing that? I was answering RT's remark:

I was just wondering if the statistic you gave us applied to guerillas, or only soldiers, since RT made the distinction.

Originally posted by Beowulf
I was just wondering if the statistic you gave us applied to guerillas, or only soldiers, since RT made the distinction.

A reasonable point. I'd have to ask, though, what the difference is between a guerilla and a soldier, since soldiers serve in guerilla units, and many guerillas are either soldiers or bear legit army credentials.

@Fable I wasn't implying in the whole why most children fight, rather explaining how I would feel. A single child. The definition of Child confuses me here to a bit, what ages are we talking. 8, 10, 14? I know it takes 18 to become a "man" in America but in other countries when does a child become a man and this whole debate of their legitamacy in war debunk because well they arn't children by thier culteral standards?

@Beowolf Suicide bombings are not terrorist tactics, terrorism is a tactic itself. The Japanese sucide plane bombers were soldiers not terrorists or is it the other way around? If Hamas had cluster bombs they would use them, sure suicide bombing an innocent crowded isreal street is terrorism but so is carpet bombing said area.


I believe what fable said is right, most likely most children in war fight because they are brainwashed into believing so. Now the ones that are kidnapped at a young age and stuff thats harsh... but in the simple idea of those who are "brainwashed" (Not kidnapped but rather just following a belief perhaps like that young Palestinian boy (correct me if he wasnt) that had a bomb attatched to him because he wanted the virgin wives).. ok my tangent isnt making sense.

How many Adults are brainwashed to fight causes as well as children and well I guess my point would be when does a child become a man and a man become a soldier?

During war, and by war I mean any time someone comes into my land with a weapon attempting to either take my land, ideals or rights, there is no standard no right way to deal out death. IMHO the only "right way" is the fastest, move on to the next and hope you survive the night.


BTW anyone catching band of brothers on the History channel, damn that stuff makes me weepy.