Is it possible to have rules in war?

"All's fair in love and war." - John Lyly (1578)

Or is it? Is their a "nicer" way to kill someone than napalm and white phosphorus? Are the Geneva Conventions just wishful thinking?

I've noticed in the past that many military DUers tend to say no, that war is hell, and the gloves come off. These same posters tend to not give the GCs a lot of weight; the impression is that they're unrealistic and get thrown out the window anyway.

But at the same time, there is something grossly bothersome to all civilized people that war means "anything goes"--most feel there is somehow a fundamental level of ethics involved in the process of killing your enemy. Maybe we're doomed to make the rules, then break them.

Comments?

but I've recently been reading about the 1914 Christmas truce, one of the most moving and heartbreaking stories in the history of war, I think.

You might find this interesting: http://www.kinnethmont.co.uk/1914-1918_files/xmas-truce.htm

John McCutcheon. A very moving song about that event.

I get teary just typing this and I'm a pretty hard guy.

"and on each end of the rifle we're the same"

at the local library.

I also asked for - and got - this book: "Silent night : the story of the World War I Christmas truce / by Weintraub, Stanley".

It's such an amazing story. Did you see the recent obituary of the last English survivor of that incident?

Thank you very much for the recommendation.

You willfind the Weinraub book really interesting and profoundly touching.
Paul McCartney produced a movie about this a long time ago.

You have the title of that movie?

Thanks.

Went on yahoo and did a search for:

"the chrismas truce",movie,mccartney

These internets are amazing to this old guy.

While you're at it do a search for:

"christmas in the trenches",lyrics
You may find some samples to download

Let me know

on edit: Hell, I can't spell "yahoo".

It seems that McCartney used the story of the Christmas truce for the video for his 1983 song, "Pipes Of Peace." I have no idea where I'd ever find it, but I know the song, and good for Sir Paul. It sounds perfect.

I just found the lyrics - they're magnificent.

This OldLeftie thinks you spell really well on these internets, and she thanks you very, very much for the suggestions and information.

Amazing things, yes, these internets.

Here's to you, honey:

:thumbsup:

Rule #1 is to take care of your troops and yourself first and let the cards fall where they may.

That said, nothing excuses the use of napalm (or whatever they are calling it now) or WP. Unfortunately, I have witnessed the effects of both first-hand. And I will never forget it or find any way to justify the use of those evil weapons. I will carry those images to the grave.

Any rule one sets for oneself will be used to defeat one. Just because one will not act in a manner does not mean an opponent will not. Knowing one's opponent will allow one to defeat him/her.

In the end the question is who lives.

"A Book of Five Rings (Go Rin No Sho)", Written by Miyamoto Musashi
"The Prince" Niccolo Machiavelli

Any weapon that has that high a collateral rate is not only impratical but extremely dangerous. Look at this flash
http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html
(really disturbing, don't say I didn't warn you), and rememeber that radioactivity sticks to everything. That means the men coming home are radioactive, and may die of this.

You could carry DU around in your pocket from birth to old age and not have ANY effects. If you get it inside you then heavy metal poisoning would be possible, kind of like lead poisoning.

No matter what a bunch of well meaning web sites may say, DU is simply NOT deadly radioactive. The laws of physics do not respect anybody's politics.

DU is far worse than Agent Orange.

Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War

<snip>

Described as the Trojan Horse of nuclear war, depleted uranium is the weapon that keeps killing. The half-life of Uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years, the age of the earth. And, as Uranium-238 decays into daughter radioactive products, in four steps before turning into lead, it continues to release more radiation at each step. There is no way to turn it off, and there is no way to clean it up. It meets the US Government’s own definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

After forming microscopic and submicroscopic insoluble Uranium oxide particles on the battlefield, they remain suspended in air and travel around the earth as a radioactive component of atmospheric dust, contaminating the environment, indiscriminately killing, maiming and causing disease in all living things where rain, snow and moisture remove it from the atmosphere. Global radioactive contamination from atmospheric testing was the equivalent of 40,000 Hiroshima bombs, and still contaminates the atmosphere and lower orbital space today. The amount of low level radioactive pollution from depleted uranium released since 1991, is many times more (deposited internally in the body), than was released from atmospheric testing fallout.

<snip>

Extensive carpet bombing, grid bombing, and the frequent use of missiles and depleted uranium bullets on buildings in densely populated areas has occurred in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. The discovery that bomb craters in Yugoslavia in 1999 were radioactive, and that an unexploded missile in 1999 contained a depleted uranium warhead, implies that the total amount of depleted uranium used since 1991 has been greatly underestimated. Of even greater concern, is that 100 per cent of the depleted uranium in bombs and missiles is aerosolized upon impact and immediately released into the atmosphere. This amount can be as much as 1.5 tons in the large bombs. In bullets and cannon shells, the amount aerosolized is 40-70 per cent, leaving pieces and unexploded shells in the environment, to provide new sources of radioactive dust and contamination of the groundwater from dissolved depleted uranium metal long after the battles are over, as reported in a 2003 report by the UN Environmental Program on Yugoslavia. Considering that the US has admitted using 34 tons of depleted uranium from bullets and cannon shells in Yugoslavia, and the fact that 35,000 NATO bombing missions occurred there in 1999, potentially the amount of depleted uranium contaminating Yugoslavia and transboundary drift into surrounding countries is staggering.



A simple Google search on depleted uranium turns up 1,780,000 hits.

Laruen Moret has been trying to warn the public about the dangers of DU.

LA has a law on the books that ". . . give to all military veterans returning from Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom the right to be tested for depleted uranium (DU) contamination."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheCREST/message/15584

MA has pending legislation to do the same.

IMHO, DU is a weapon of mass destruction.

It is the RATE of decay that is important.

Consider radioactive energy as the water behind a dam. The dam has a leak in it so that in 4.5 billion years half of the water will leak out.

Now another dam has a leak such that in one hour half the water will rush out.

Which dam would you picnic under?

The amount of decay of DU is extremely, extremely, extremely tiny. It is SO TINY that it takes all of 4,500,000,000,000 years for half of the atoms to decay. That is very, very, very, stable.

The decay of occasional atoms here and there do no harm.

Other radioactive products that decays half of their atoms in much shorter times have a far greater number of decay events in any time period so they emit far higher rates of waste products.

Radioactive water behind a dam does not describe the situation with DU. Radioactive water everywhere seems to be closer to what scientists are telling us.

No Harm? It appears that DU does cause DNA damage which is permanent.

Uranyl acetate induces hprt mutations and uranium-DNA adducts in Chinese hamster ovary EM9 cells
<snip>
Questions about possible adverse health effects from exposures to uranium have arisen as a result of uranium mining, residual mine tailings and use of depleted uranium in the military. The purpose of the current study was to measure the toxicity of depleted uranium as uranyl acetate (UA) in mammalian cells.


http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/explaining_how.html">Explaining How Depleted Uranium Is Killing Civilians, Soldiers, Land

Explaining How Depleted Uranium Is Killing Civilians, Soldiers, Land
(Nano-particles pinpointed)
By Christopher Bollyn

Depleted uranium weapons, and the untold misery they wreak on mankind, are taboo subjects in the mainstream media. This exclusive report should break the media embargo imposed on the American people.

Despite being a grossly under-reported subject in the mainstream, there is intense public interest in depleted uranium (DU) and the damage it inflicts on humankind and the environment.

While American Free Press is actively investigating DU weapons and how they contribute to Gulf War Syndrome, the corporate-controlled press ignores the illegal use of DU and its long-lasting effects on the health of veterans and the public.

<snip>

Leuren Moret, a Berkeley-based geo-scientist with expertise in atmospheric dust, corresponds with AFP on DU issues. Recently Moret provided a copy of her letters to a British radiation biologist, Dr. Chris Busby, about how nanometer size particles—less than one-tenth of a micron and smaller—of DU once inhaled or absorbed into the body, can cause long-term damage to one’s health.


Another interesting read is http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james29.htm">DEPLETED URANIUM, ANTHRAX VACCINE AND THE GULF WAR SYNDROME

DEPLETED URANIUM, ANTHRAX VACCINE AND THE GULF WAR SYNDROME
PART 1 of 4
By Dr. James Howenstine, MD.
August 14, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

More and more veterans have become chronically ill from a multitude of symptoms since the end of Gulf War I. For many years the U.S. government denied any responsibility for their mysterious symptoms. Only 7,035 men were injured in this war. A total of 580,400 soldiers served in the first Gulf War. By the end of 2000 325,000 of these troops had become disabled This means that 56 % of those who served in the first Gulf War were disabled within less than 10 years.

In August 2004 American Free Press reported that eight out of twenty men serving in one unit during the 2003 invasion of Iraq had developed malignancies. This translates into 40 % of the soldiers in that one unit developing malignancies within a 16 month period of time. What is causing these terrible health problems?

Nine members of the National Guard from New York State recently returned from Iraq. These persons were deployed as Military Police. Two manmade forms of uranium were found in urine specimens from 4 of these 9 soldiers. Certainly soldiers in combat roles would be expected to have even greater exposure to inhaling depleted uranium dust.

Since 1943 the military has been aware of the extreme toxicity of uranium as a gas. A Oct 30, 1943 memo from Manhattan Project physicist James B. Conant to Brig. General L.B. Abrams stated that as a gas warfare instrument the radioactive material would be ground into microscopic particles forming dust and smoke and could be distributed by ground fired projectiles, land vehicles or aerial bombs. In this form it would be inhaled by personnel. They estimated that one millionth of a gram would be fatal. There are no known methods of treatment for such casualties.
<snip>

There's a lot of smoke eminating from the use of depleted uranium. Scientific evidence contines to mount that DU is bad stuff.

I'm in the camp that believes our government is covering up the harm that DU poses to humanity. IIRC, our government told us Agent Orange was not harmful. A simple Google seach on "agent orange"+Monsanto yields 75,900 hits. History seems to have proven that our government was lying to us about Agent Orange; I think they are lying about the hazards of DU. Time will tell.

DU is a heavy metal. I have admitted that it is poisonous. But it simply is not highly radioactive. They are two different things.

You appear not to have understood the dam analogy.

Half lives are a measure of radioactive stability. A very long half life is extremely stable. If the half life were infinite it would be completely stable. A short half life is extremely volatile. The more volatile ones are the most dangerous.

A half life of 4,500,000,000,000 YEARS is a stable element and not dangerous. A half life of a few hours is very unstable, and highly dangerous.

Do not confuse heavy metal reactions with radioactive reactions. They are two different things.

Many peace websites attempt to take advantage of people's scientific ignorance and scare them with inaccurate representations.

As sad as it is, this statement is true. Science doesn't mix well with politics when there is an agnda to push.

DU is bad stuff. The reason is not because of radioactivity, but radioacticity scares more people, so SOME on the left are taking advantage of fear to highlight the issue (and making it hard on honest lefties who have to answer to this lack of credibility).

The issue is real, but the radioactivity explanation is not.

just because the other side is not following "the rules" doesn't make it OK. Two wrongs, etc.

If that makes war more difficult for our side then so be it.

Absolute amoral point is the to live is the end game.

It never ends but one can kill all one's enemy and still be alive. Right or wrong one is alive and others are dead. The dead never come back to say how they died or why. The are simply dead.

Amoral yes and alive.

You assume that because your life is over that that's the worst thing that could happen.

You flatter yourself, and reject the notion that dying for one's country or a higher moral standard isn't valid.

Rules are written by the winners for the losers.

Again, this is amoral. One is alive, so one wins.

that human beings are anything beyond individuals. To the rest of society the reason and manner in which they died are very important.

You are taking a very microscopic view of the value of one's life.

and others are dead.

I am not advocating this. But if one's enemy follows this path, it does not stop until one's enemy is dead.

So there can be no rules in war except to kill one's enemy using every and all weapons available.

necessary, it was understood that we were better than that. It was a sacrifice, but one that we were morally bound to make. no more, we have become what we once feared and pitied.

where rules could be applied and at least made token attempts to enforce

This war is against an insurgency, which traditional makes them non uniformed combatants which in this administration makes the GC non applicable

Makes it harder to have "rules" to enforce when there is no command central plan and control the moves each side makes

that the enemy is "non uniformed combatants", so we do whatever we want. Wouldn't it be nicer if people were people - anyone fighting is fighting for an idea, whether it is sanctioned by a larger official government or not. So what's the difference? Insurgents can't collect taxes, therefore they don't have human rights???

I think our government has labelled the other side as an insurgency for convenience. The "insurgents" could very well just be people who believed in the original form of government they had, and are trying to defend it, if you wanted to look at it that way.

at all.

The Trojan War is probably fiction but reflected the attitudes of war in those days. Civilians particularly weren't targeted until there was a victor. Civilians, could be taken as hostage/slaves (remember Achilles hostage Briseis, whom he had the quarrel with Agammemnon over) but they weren't killed. When one side won, then the men of the losing side still alive were all executed and the women and children taken into slavery. Then the city was looted, razed and torched, not before.

So here are people, who are semi-barbaric, who seemed to have a basic grasp that civilians, mainly women and children, weren't targets for killing and maiming (although rape was quite the vogue). The women of the enemy often moved freely among the opposing army. Remember the story of Judith in the Bible. So if they had a concept that non-warriors had some rights to remain alive and not be maimed, why don't we?

There must be rules to limit the barbarity or else the human race would perish. Imagine germ/bacterial warfare.

It was dropped on two cities in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki with large civilian populations including old people, women and children.

even one thousand years hence. Slaughter everyone, and enjoy doing it.

All cultures - hell, all *species* have ways to resolve conflict that are ritualistic and don't involve actual physical harm. SO, say in a primitive culture you have a dispute over which tribe gets to use the water hole - (I'm not talking about Survivor here). You send your two strongest, bravest young "warriors" to have their stick fight, which is more of a dance, and whoever wins that wins water rights for the tribe. You don't have a big free-for-all slaughter of the offending tribe members.

If you watch a lot of nature documentaries, you'll notice that bighorn sheep ram their horns together until someone backs down, that wolves have a complex set of body postures that communicate leadership, that they all scent-mark, etc. But they all seem to realize that unless the situation is extreme, it's better to "fight" without actually causing physical harm.

I'm also reminded of the Revolutionary War - how the British came over with all their war conventions, and the revolutionaries just fired on everyone. The British were aghast, because you're just not supposed to fire on officers - it isn't done! (Do I have my history correct here?).

There's always the risk that the enemy won't follow the rules - but I think that living things all have an understanding that you first should exhaust all other possibilities before causing physical harm.

We are the only species on Earth that kills its own for profit, pleasure and punishment.

When wolves do fight, the loser will lie on its back, exposing its most vulnerable parts. The winning wolf will then turn away without hurting the loser.

We feel superior to that?

We and chimps both seem to have inheirited a violent xenophobic streak from our common ancestor. A group of chimps hill often go into another group's territory and kill any chimps that are away from the safety of the rest of the opposing troop, aparently for the hell of it. There is a disturbing number of similarities between the violent behavior of chimps and humans, especially MALE chimps and humans.

Usually very heavily armed opponents will be careful about going to combat with each other, so lions will go through a ritual that enables them to measure each other and the likely loser will usually back down. But a lion WILL NOT GO THROUGH THE RITUAL BEFORE ATTACKING A ZEBRA. That is where your analogy breaks down. Some nations are run by dictators who are predators. The strong attack the weak. To avoid attack, one must be strong.

The champions battle works only when the thing being fought over is minor. Suppose that in your waterhole scenario, the losing tribe has to go into the desert where there is no water and die. Do you think that they will accept their champion losing?

but not the first - but only on a technicality. The lion-zebra analogy is predator vs prey, which is different from predator vs predator. Or maybe a better explanation is conflict within the same species. Lions and zebras don't speak the same language. They don't have a symbolic way of communicating, whereas lions understand each other.

Are you saying (just a question!) that if the US was fighting another country or group that was particularly viscious and un-diplomatic, that "no rules" fighting would be justified, or at least, the only thing to do?

I agree that eventually, when it comes to life or death, that any creature will go all out to ensure survival. I also think most wars in current history have had little to do with physical survival, and more to do with preservation of comfort, way of life, and ideas. Whether you go with the idea of attacking Iraq for oil, or attacking Iraq for freeing the Iraqis, neither of those involves direct survival of the attacking group.

I think the losing tribe in the waterhold scenario would accept their chamions defeat, if it just meant moving to a less nice water hole. Probably more often the case than having to go without water at all.

I have always wished that we could just have a football game, or gladatorial combat, to settle things. Or to be really idealistic, some kind of formal debate. I think human beings could be up to it if they really tried.

That is what happens in the business world. For the far greater part, they struggle, but within parameters. Usually, businessmen try to find win/win solutions because those are more stable. But that is when there are alternate waterholes.

There are human predators, and human prey, and they don't speak the same language. They begin for radically different world views. If you don't believe me, think about common violent criminals and their victims. Drop in on the threads about Stanley Tookie Williams and the push for clemency for him and notice the difference in the language of the two sides. Their words are all English, but the worldview is radically opposed.

Sometimes, wars are about survival. I am not going to address the current wars, because I was answering the question in the abstract. I am talking about war in general.


FWIW - I am a Vietnam Veteran.

the more desperate side, the one that can't win in a fight on equal terms, is the one that ups the level of barbarity in what it does.

There's a point where what you do to win a war voids the moral rationale that lay in engaging it and makes it worth winning. The moral bankrupcy point. Countries abide by the Geneva Conventions as a kind of barometer- when you're violating them more than your enemy is, you're probably the more morally bankrupt side.

I think it was Dorothy Parker who said (I paraphrase) "When I hear someone say they're going to be realistic, they're merely announcing they're going to do something bad."

that is the relevant question for the side that wants to ratchet up the vileness.

is that on the table?

I am trying to speak about all wars, and do not desire to debate on any specific war.

The use of a weapon can carry with it costs beyond the battlefield. That goes into the thinking of the people who control those weapons.

War is about living and dying. What would you do to stay alive in a brutal situation?

and in effect says our civilians belong to a superior class which is entitled to more protection than theirs (they're not). Would you murder innocent women and civilians "just to be safe"? Was My Lai justified? We are in a sorry state if our military can't make this fundamental ethical distinction.

Killing innocents who happen to be in the wrong place or just unlucky is always a part of way. In WWII, on D-Day, do you think that there were no French civilians who happened to live close to the beach and were in the bombardment zone?

If you are a general of a force and seriously hold to a value of NEVER allowing fire if innocent civilians are at risk, then a ruthless enemy would defeat you by always using innocent civilians as shields. For example, they would always place their anit-air missiles on the roofs of hospitals and elementary schools. You would have the "high moral ground", but you and your forces would be - DEAD.

War is not about "honor". It is about who is alive when it is over.

And, Yes, you do consider your own civilians to be more worthy of protection that others. That's why you go to war in the first place.

What gives you the right to determine that an Iraqi civilian has less right to live than an American?

War is all about honor. War is about sacrifice. War is about always taking the high moral ground. If survival is all that is involved then we are animals. We aren't.

Your attitude is why our military is in such a sad state right now. It's now dishonorable to serve. That's why no one is enlisting any more.

...external superior force willing to do so, and even then only if that force is able to monitor all war activity. Rules exist for the people that need them, and the only rule in war is to be the survivor.

and it was quite successful even without monitoring all war activity.

The UN was created to mediate differences, but I agree that "superior force", which the UN is lacking, is required to make the rules stick.

One, it was after a World War, and everyone was broke, and most aggressors were also war-ravaged. They couldn't have done much more if they had wanted to.

Two, the rules were made by the victors of that war, and they gave themselves the spoils from it, leaving the losers with even less to try to use in breaking the rules.

My original post had to do with rules made before and during a war, not after it.

If Hitler had let his Generals run the war and not tried to play general himself, it is likely that he would have won. Then what would have happened to your UN and the monitoring of war crimes.

War crimes trials are for the victor to impose on the defeated.

Totally out to lunch with your assumption that it's "likely" he would have won.

The reason we won was because we were armed with the superior moral position, which in the end is undefeatable. Your "if" assumes the impossible.

You assume the good guys always win. Sometimes they don't.

and will continue to do so. Assuming they don't become bad guys in the process.

It is true that all empires ultimately fall, but that doesn't mean they fall to good guys. Usually they fall to other bad guys.

Of course, the victors will always call themselves the good guys and present history to future generations in a light that is favorable to them.

and one of the crowning achievements of civilized society is the Golden Rule, which as a fundamental ethical truth is about as universal as they get (Confucius, Jesus, and Hillel all subscribed to it).

White phosphorus, napalm, and torture are not things which we would find acceptable for an enemy to use indiscriminately on our children. From this notion we create basic acceptable rules of behavior, and when we break them we become the "bad guy".

I have been there. Vietnam. If you want to learn about what really happens, I don't mind helping. If you want to look at history, I don't mind talking.

If you want to armchair theorize - I have no time for that.

Never been in the military. Then again, I don't really have time for recounting My Lai or the other horrors we inflicted on the Vietnamese people, because you're going to tell me that napalm is what "really happens", as if that implies it HAS to happen.

I'm not sure what your point is--are you saying that anything goes? Think we should nuke Iraq? You seemed to want to drop that subject fairly quickly.

This seems so obvious to me. We can, for example, sign the Geneva Convention, and according to our Constitution then the rules of the Geneva Convention have the binding force of law. Anyone who violates those rules is breaking binding law and should expect to suffer consequences.

Either that or we are not a nation with respect for the rule of law; we are instead lawless, subject to tyrannies of stealth and force, to the dominion of power over the powerless, Somalia with Smart Bombs. If that is what we've become, well, then each of us must decide what steps we should take to either correct our course or rest anxious in our complicity. As Chalmers Johnson once said (on CSPAN), get out while you still can (!), buy that condo in Vancouver or Costa Rica, prepare -- or stand and fight!

(On edit: To be technically correct, Johnson didn't say "stand and fight", I added that...)

if you just do whatever you want? Even an attempt at civility in war helps, although it will never stop some people from breaking the rules, being barbaric and viscious. It at least HELPS.

Otherwise, everyone is justified to do whatever they want - they just have to say they felt threatened by the "other guy", and blammo - that's the end of that!

"Rules of war" is putting a pretty face on killing.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

he would not have had the chance to say that..

Pacifism does not work in nature or human nature.

Rule number one is that a good guy never pre empts unless absolutely necessary.

Rule two - A good guy fights fair and that includes you don't torture.

Rule three- You have an honest debate with the american public all long with truthfull weekly progress reports

Rule four - you call your radio attack dogs off your critics. Even Nixon meet with war protestors.

I am an american, I love this country with all my heart and soul.
I am sick of what the gop did to it with Iraq. I feel deep emotional pain at over what the flag of the finest country in the world has come to represent. And I hate having a President whose so univereaaly loathed that noone shook his hand at the late Pope John Pauls funeral.

So too answer your question yes there are things you do both here and at home to make the war more fair and ethical. Unless I have been readding too many captain america comic books.

agree 100% -- couldn't have said it better :thumbsup:

In Vietnam in 1968 over 80% of the male population of the city of Nha Trang was "unaccounted for". IOW they were more than likely enemy soldiers. It was no secret that Nha Trang was known to be an enemy R&R center and a somewhat truce was unofficially called. We would sit in a bar and at one end of the bar would be about a half dozen or so Army age Vietnamese men and we would not bother them or them us. Nha Trang was almost never subjected to incoming fire so it was just sort of ignored by all concerned. Americans knew they were enemy and yet we didn't bother them and they did not bother us. It was an unspoken rule that somehow we all obeyed.

check out #1 above

:thumbsup:

It wasn't much of a secret. :shrug:

we will be caught in the crossfire at some point too.

Not only is it inhumane and disgusting, it serves to enflame a population against the guilty party.

It only takes a shred of a notion of what is right to follow unwritten rules. Don't wantonly kill, don't murder surrendering soldiers, don't destroy important parts of infrastructure and so on. It's obvious.

one would think so. Apparently not to the policymakers.

when it comes to many policymakers.

I think having rules for warfare recognizes that in most scenarios, we still have to live with each other after its over. I don't think anyone wants an "anything goes" mentality if it leads to constant unending war culminating in total destruction of everyone.

In England. Because you are practicing the wrong form of Christianity.

There once was a time when combatants fought with honor, that day is long gone. Where is the honor in pushing a button and killing people miles away from you? Where is the honor in sniping people from hidden locations? Modern warfare does not allow for honorable combat.

The rules are there ain't no rules.

the only thing technology provides is a shield for one's conscience -- you don't see the blood, don't smell the burning flesh.

In theory there's no reason why you couldn't use advanced weaponry in an "honorable" way...but it sure does make it easy to cut corners.