The even larger issue, one that underpins a lot of laws of warfare, is that you want people to have every good reason to surrender. If POWs have to be treated according to specific laws, then everyone knows approximately how bad it can be, and they all know that at the worst, they can surrender. If you can set POWs to work clearing minefields or commit any other given atrocities against them, then armies have every reason to fight to the death rather than surrender when backed into a corner, and that doesn’t do anyone any good.
it’s a fair point. but the reality of many wars reaching a point of “total war” ware both sides abandon any rules agreed to or even within their own cultural norms, it has a limit to how effective it will be.
surrendering in a losing war very early and quickly is wise, but few people who are running a country at war are wise or motivated by any form of loss reduction.
The even larger issue, one that underpins a lot of laws of warfare, is that you want people to have every good reason to surrender. If POWs have to be treated according to specific laws, then everyone knows approximately how bad it can be, and they all know that at the worst, they can surrender. If you can set POWs to work clearing minefields or commit any other given atrocities against them, then armies have every reason to fight to the death rather than surrender when backed into a corner, and that doesn’t do anyone any good.
it’s a fair point. but the reality of many wars reaching a point of “total war” ware both sides abandon any rules agreed to or even within their own cultural norms, it has a limit to how effective it will be.
surrendering in a losing war very early and quickly is wise, but few people who are running a country at war are wise or motivated by any form of loss reduction.