h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Acid test ?
If you're wondering whether I was ever in a war/similar situation, then the answer is, luckily, no. I was in the Finnish army, so the odds of ever having to use these rules are pretty slim... (I hope)

I agree the self-defense bit it's a bit of a paradox, but I think it may be a necessary one in a chaotic situation like war. Like I said, the rulebook is often thrown out when push comes to shove, so there's no guarantee the enemy will follow the conventions.
I suppose Thomas may have seen this possibility, and tried to prepare for it, something like "it's wrong and evil to attack the unarmed, but since we will be fighting the evil ones, it may well happen", thus - don't be unarmed.

Of course the question of who "the evil ones" are is more tricky, naturally both sides of a conflict can discard the rules. I guess Thomas' rule in this case is more of a genteman's code; by demonising the enemy, he's saying something like "they are the evil ones because they attack the unarmed. We must be prepared for that, but if we resort to the same tricks, that would make us evil, too."

Even if it's overtly idealistic I can see a point to it, get enough people to think this way, and you might end up with more humane warfare since the soldiers on both sides will want to be "the good guys".

How does the catholic church, wich I assume embraces these guidlines, justify the crusades? In wich thousands upon thousands of (largly christians) were slaughtered under blessing from the pope? I disapprove of any justification of war. War is ALLWAYS an evil. Somtimes perhaps things get so out of hand thatit becomes a necessary evil (eg. World War 2, Hiroshima and Nagasaki) but these represent FAILURES in a process. These Rules could also be used to justify both sides of a war (eg many middle eastern groups are trying to defend thier lands from more U.S. ineptitude) Although this is just attacking the logic of the arguments. The article it's self was quite well written

In the movie Seven, they found the serial killer by getting a list from the FBI of the library patrons who had borrowed certian books. Apparently every library in America sends the name and address of everyone who borrows book relating to certain subjects to FBI. For example books about nuclear science or chemical weapons. In the movie it was also said that books by saint Thomas are also among the titles that tips the alarm. Does anyone know that it is true or not. First if it is true that the name of the borrower is sent to the FBI and second if saint Thomas works is also included in the dangerous books category.

Oh my. We have gone from a cerebral exercise in the rules of sending the young out to die, to confusion when confronting the grim reality.

Let's face it folks. Tommy A wrote his "rules" when the world was still barbaric enough to believe that there was a "just" war and that some clown with a tin hat had the right to send kids out to war because 1) we need the trade route that goes through their country or 2) that strip of land belonged to us a 100 years ago or 3) the boys in the throne room think I haven't got the balls to kidnap kids from the farms (conscript) to go out and kill the kids from somebody else's farms. Am I being unfair here?

No one has the "right" to declare war. Some people take the authority to do it and the masses stand with their hands limp at their collective side and let it happen. That has never made it right. We are learning to act collectively to keep the peace. The United Nations is an attempt to establish a forum where disputes can be settled without armed conflict. It's really the first time in history this has happened. BushCo is not happy with it because it doesn't fit with his plans so he is out to show the world that the U.N. is irrelevant. Not so. If it fails now it will come back with more strength. The human race is growing up. You want rules for war? Here you go. If no one minds I'll call it Dag's Rules for War.

Rule 1: Don't go to war.

Rule 2: See rule 1.

I doubt that all will obey these rules within my lifetime, but the process of peaceful co-existence has started. It will be achieved eventually. We can learn from the rhetoric of the past, but cannot be bound by it. 150 years ago people had legal shootouts on the streets of this country. There are still shootings going on, but the are not legal, they are fewer and those responsible usually wind up being punished. We are making progress. And, yeah, those red crosses make great targets for snipers who don't care about the rules.

The world is still barbaric enough to believe that there is a "just" war. At least the governments of the US, UK and Spain are still barbaric enough. All three scenarios you describe would be unjust by Thomas' rules.

All heads of state have the right to declare war, and there are times when it is right to do so. At these times, far from standing idly by, the populace would quickly rid themselves of a head of state who failed them. In response to Pearl Harbor, should Roosevelt have phoned Hirohito to talk him out of expunging US influence from the Pacific? Would the good folks of Minnesota applauded such a response?

I agree the UN is a positive step, and does help to promote peaceful alternatives, thus being founded on Aquinas rules 2 and 4. The UN can be and is manipulated by those with the power to do so, but it is nevertheless a force for peace.

As for rules of war, I'd like to go back to one of the old ones, from St. Thomas' era, where the king who declares war has to do so from the front, not the rear. Knowing that they would be in the front line rather than a 'secure location' would have a profound effect on their judgement of what would and would not constitute a just war.

There are far more gun deaths each year in the US now than there were in 1850, and (nearly) all the shootings by police are legal, as are those committed in self defence. We are still pretty barbaric...

I tend to think that the pacifistic view that war is never justified is overtly simplistic. Note that this is not the same as saying war is good, but sometimes war is necessary. Total pacifists tend to use the maxim "war is always wrong" to avoid actually having to think about the problem.
Sometimes war is a lesser evil, the second world war and the holocaust certainly showed that war sometimes is necessary, and can bring by some good. In Bosnia the UN peacekeepers were at times playing football with Serbian soldiers while other Serbian soldiers were off slaughtering civilians. When NATO finally intervened, sure, it wasn't pretty, but eventually the use of force on a much larger scale than the UN could deliver was necessary to stop the ethnic cleansing...
The trend during the last couple of years has, IMHO, been that lots of Europeans slag the US for acting like a global police, but in reality, not very many Europeean countries would have been able or willing to defuse the crisis in Bosnia, for example.

I am not saying that the US and Europen powers were wrong to get involved in WW2. But that war was a direct result of end of world war 1. If the nations of the world had not made such a mess with the treaty of versili (spelling is horrid I know, but so is my french ) The I maintain the holocaust wouldn't have happened at all. So while War may somtimes be necessary it ALLWAYS represents a failer at an eariler point.

tinker, I'm disappointed. Alright everyone here's the word. We are barbaric. Let's kill each other. It's okay. We don't need to try to raise ourselves out of the mud.

Heads of state have the right to declare war. Remember that when Bush takes us into a war or wars that will destablize most of the globe. Should we have negotiated with Japan? Yes, but not at the close of 1941. The trouble started with Commodore Perry's chest-beating, do-it-my-way-or-else treatment of Japan in 1854. Instead of trying to negotiate he came in on his first visit to Edo (Tokyo) and made demands on how the Japanese were to behave when dealing with the Americans. Before you get tuned up on American Arrogance, Great Britain, France, Russia and the Netherlands followed suit imposing one-sided treaties that caused financial damage to the Japanese economy and loss of honor to the Shogunate. Much of the 20th century conflict had it's roots in this exchange. Sdiver has also given you the root cause of WWII. If not for the punishing harshness of the Treaty of Versailles, the environment that gave Hitler a platform would never have existed. He would have been another nameless bar room brawler.

And, please, don't bandy skewed numbers to prove your point. The population of the United States in 1850 was around 23 million. With a current population closer to 300 million it's quite likely that there would be more shootings today while still being a more controlled environment.

My point was and is that we are making progress. Of course, with the current administration and it's tactics that may all go to hell in a handbasket...

I think the problem with this discussion is the word "war" itself and the many situations that it is being applied to. For example American government does not recognize Bin Ladin as a waring opponent. The government does not accept him as a warrior. Of course Bin Ladin considers himself a warrior and a holy one too. Both sides regard war as so dear and precious that are not willing to let the other have any piece of it. They want the whole notion and idea completely in their own monopoly. This usage of the word war has roots in the eighteen century war scholars and the following recognition and classification of the whole act into one unifying idea. People of ancient times had different words for it, crusade being one. They would not use the word war so sparingly. Even right now in different parts of the world this word or the exact equivalent is not used as it is in the west. Of course the west has a religious view of the war. It needs this view to justify the idea. And only religion can provide that. Judaism the true warrior religion and Islam both have glorified the idea of war (By the way Muslims use Jihad which literlly means a great trial or effor). My point is that if the people of a country or society have a clear understanding of why they are entering a mortal conflict they usually find another word or idea to describe it. The word war is utterly vague and only the masters of the tribe or the kings trough the help of religion can shape it into some temporary idea. Of course the notion of constant and never ending war, propagated by the Mr. Bush Administration is a wishfull trick that hopes to do away with this business of having to justify starting of a new conflict everytime. That from a moron like Mr. Bush is quite an achievement. I am sure that saint Thomas is thinking to himself "Why didn't I thing of that".

"The King's divine right to rule is confirmed by the Church which is guided by God. The King's subjects must fight the King's wars and accept any hardship imposed on them. If they don't they will go to Hell."
That sounds like Bush today. He has has not SAID we are going to hell for protesting but would like too


Rule 5. The good guys (that's us) arrive on the battlefield with 1,000 soldiers to find that there are only 500 black hats waiting for us. Under Rule 5, therefore, we must give half of our men the day off so that we can meet the enemy with proportionate force.
I do think to threaten the *ultimate* weapon as Bush did is wrong and Over kill at this stage! To uneccesarily pollute for generations AND beyond the "enemy" territory!

Try to make up rules for a just war that are not seemingly trivial.It is as difficult as describing Love or beauty, or heartache and grief. It is so extreme there is only trivial language in comparison. Some would call the phrase *just war* an oxymoron.

Thomas was a man, and a dangerous one at that, he said the mundane at the best of times and the stupid at the worst. The more you read of Thomas' writings the more laughable it gets. The Hitchhiker's Guide has more intelligent rules to life, the Universe and Everything (including war!) than Tom ever will. His kind of ignorance start wars.

Reminds me of er... I think it was rousoe. He was paid by the gentry so he wrote philosphy that supported what they wanted to do...

Don't be disappointed, Trazeus. Acknowledging that there is still a strong element of barbarism around is not the same as condoning it, and I'm not arguing that we are no better than we were. Realism is important here, however, especially as we stand on the brink of a singularly unjust war, and we must acknowledge the distance we have to travel. I suspect sarcasm where you seem to have changed your view on the existence of a right to declare war, but we agree that it is seldom really justified, and we certainly agree that the human race needs to develop a much greater capacity to avoid it.

All of human history is a flow and it is rare to be able to draw a box around a particular event and isolate its causes. So, yes, the US had no choice but to declare war in 1941, which was my point, and yes, it would have been better if there had been more talking, more humanity, more respect leading up to and following Japan’s emergence from being a closed society in the mid 1800s, which was yours, I think. Oh, and I wouldn’t dream of getting ‘tuned up’ on american arrogance ( well, yes I would, but not right now…) especially given that we Brits gave you a pretty good blueprint for imposing one sided economic treaties – and in 1854 we had a whole British Empire to prove it…

We are making progress. We are beginning to learn to act collectively to keep the peace, but it is hard work, and the temptation of the barbarous quick fix is still strong and breaks out all too easily. Multi-nation forums need to be built up and supported, even when they don’t go the way we want. The UN, the European Union, the Arab League, even FIFA all play a positive role in developing dialogue not killing wars. We need to support them, develop them and make them stronger.

Oh and on your last point, I didn’t bandy skewed numbers to prove a point, I merely pointed out an inaccuracy in your posting. I can’t find any figures pre-1933 on US gun deaths, but I’d be very interested in the per-capita rates from the 1850s and the present day…

tinker - Thank you for a more gentle post than my own. My only defense is that I'm frustrated by the helpless feeling watching my country once more behaving foolishly to the cost of diplomatic currency and, soon, human life. I do know that there is a growing movement in the U.S. in opposition to Bush's methods, but it's a long road. I stand on opposite sides of the issue with my own brothers. You're right, we have to keep communicating and trying to understand one another.

On that last point. I'll see if I can find per-capita figures. I do know the mid to late 1800's were a horribly brutal and bloody time in our history. I haven't studied that period for some time and will have to do some research for hard numbers.

I share a lot of your fustration. I hate the way Bush is running what little internation reputation we had left into the ground. Every time I read the news I feel sick with despair for the shere malignate stupidity our goverment is displaying (A: France is not getting roylties off french fries so they do not care what we call them and B: WE call them French Fries because our GI's did not know what country they were in.) And yet I am persoanly powerless to prevent it. I support what anti-war activities I can but I begin to understand the desire to belive the propagandisit lies and keep you head in the sand so you don't have to think about it. Even recreational drug use begins to have a appeal.

I think I will just flee the country instead. Maby new zealand, or perhaps just go north to canada.

I share the frustration of a political leadership who are completely disregarding worldwide public opinion on this issue, but please don't leave the country. We need a vocal opposition to Bush in the US more now than ever. All you can do, as I have done here, is write to your elected representatives, expressing your concerns and asking them the hard questions. If they profess to being Chrisitans, this is easier.

Having said that, I've heard New Zealand is a lovely place to live. If you like a quiet life...

Sdiver :He was paid by the gentry so he wrote philosphy that supported what they wanted to do...

Sounds like the job for a modern day politicians speech writer or PR spin doctor.

It is amazing to see the idea of America and what it supposedly stands for go down the drain like this. We are living in a truly new age. The British labor prime minister is getting his votes and support from the British conservative party in the British parliament and from leftovers of Franco in Spain. The master of MI6 walks in the parliament with a plagiarized copy of some academic work that was done 10 years before as hard intelligence and fact against the regime of Iraq, all the while claiming there is more where this came from, demanding the rest of the world along with the British parliament to believe him when he says I am only in this for the sake of democracy. The Americans have put (well, not quite) a man in the highest office of the land that can not read through one sheet of speech without making ten faces and fifteen silly gestures insisting that the rest of the world believe him when he says that the Americans should be afraid from and definitely by force destroy a man who in reality can not exert his authority over 60 percent of his own territory. These are strange times indeed.

However, no one should make any mistakes about this. About fifty percent of Americans support this war. Considering the magnitude of the treat the support for this war is much higher than the support the Americans gave to the idea of standing up to Hitler. The sad fact is that America is in the process of turning into a fascist nation. Do not mind the half hearted anti war protests or the silent minority or even this year?s Oscar awards nominees. Simple arithmetic tells the majority of Americans that they should get it while the going is good. And as one right wing columnist put it, "Why worry about the deficit, someone will pay for it. They always do." It seems that innocent Iraqi blood is gaining currency in America.

My resolution to flee actually goes back a couple of years...to the last presidential election as a matter of fact. For the first time I resolutly went to the polls and cast my vote to oppose ramparnt stupidity in this nation. In other words I voted for Gore in Texas. Nothing could have drivin home the point more clearly that my voice does not matter to this country.

I have tried to find groups of like minded people, but what I have discovered is that there are people more eloquent then me already damning this administration and it's shallow short term decisions. I find myself at a loss for how I could contribute more then some of these sources are already.

One the other hand I have a friend who is both wealthy and politicaly powerfull. SHe is supporting the administration because the narrowminded policy will give her short term returns and damn the long game. I have basically givin up hope. All nations fall. None have lasted forever. I was comfortable with this in the firm knowldge that this one would last my lifetime, now I am not so sure.

Sorry didn't mean to be quite so depressing, must have used the Klatchen Coffee by mistake this morning, I think I am going to go take a couple shots of gin and see if the world doesn't seem a slightly better place.

I think it's unjust to start any war but just to finish one.