RE: bayonettes are too a useful device

John spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> It seems like, the way things are going, more and more weapons are
going
> to be banned.  I personally feel that this is a load of crap.  If
there
> is a future full scale war, I hope not, anything will go.  Look at
> previous wars, look at your self.  If someone over a hill is trying
> their best to kill me and my family, I'll do anything to stop him.

Sure, I don't disagree if you are talking about all out war. The US 
hasn't seen one of those in 50 years. The other wars have been to 
varying degrees less than fully engaging. Sure they've trotted out 
nasty new weapons from time to time (some have suggested that is why 
the US likes to have these little wars, but I'm not sold on that). 
But the point is most wars aren't full out wars, but limited 
conflicts. How do you keep them limited? You limit the scope of the 
conflict by limiting areas of operation, weapons deployed, force 
levels, doctrines, etc. The point is, if you don't want all out war 
(which you've pointed out is neither a gent's sport nor sane, then 
you try to ban things (and hope that is enforceable) that lead down 
that path. 

Someone pointed out to me the hypocrisy of the US thumping India for 
nuclear testing (US more than 2000, India 4....). That's like us in 
the developed world riding the 3rd world about pollution.... we just 
got away with it because we did it sooner and in ignorance. It's 
pretty hypocritical to be all upset over that. HOWEVER, I'm in favor 
of the US, japan, etc. coming down like a ton of bricks on India. 
Why? The world doesn't need more nukes. It doesn't need more folks 
learning how to make better, faster, stronger, less easy to stop, 
etc. - better bombs basically. I'm quite happy having 10 or so 
countries with the bomb and the others kept out of the club by the 
clout of those ten, specially since I live near the largest one and 
they will (for their own reasons) protect me and represent my 
interests in most ways.  

I'm thinking powerful states in the future will continue to collude 
to keep their smaller competitors limited, AND they'll use economic, 
political, and diplomatic means to do so. And it will probably be 
moderately (but not completely) successful, just like it is today. 

It seems to me the powerful states would embargo, sanction, and 
generally pressure the smaller states into following their ideas and 
conventions (which are probably quite civilized) for small wars. Of 
course, when a BUG pops his head in, or when someone bloodies the 
nose of the big power or threatens the life of a big state, then 
obviously these conventions (as the Geneva Convention is witness to) 
go out the window with remarkable haste. 

In short big powers will force their will on others, and act to limit 
conflict which isn't in their interest. General war is not good for 
business, and most large states revolve around huge economies. 

People on this list have suggested monowire would be banned. I might 
think their might well be a ban on indiscriminate use of land mines, 
and on certain types of nuclear or particle weapons. 

Other ideas?
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay
Software Specialist
Police Communications Systems
Software Kinetics Ltd.
66 Iber Road, Stittsville
Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page: 
     http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page: 
     http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/