The "rules" of war

Does anyone else find the "rules of war" an absurd concept?

OK, here's the deal with war.

So, these two countries tried to work out their differences, but finally decided that the matter could only be settled by brute force. Whoever is stronger or better at breaking stuff and killing people gets their way. When one side has had enough punishment they cry "uncle."

It seems to me that if you've made the decision to go to war, and you believe you are right, you are going to cause as much damage, death, and pain as possible as quickly as possible to get the other side to give up. There's only one reason to go to war. To win.

However, we have decided there should be "rules." People you can't kill, things you can't break, pain you can't inflict. We are going to bring you to your knees, you'll be begging for mercy, but we're going to do it in as pleasant and polite and painless way as possible. Does that even make any sense?? The more pleasant, polite, and painless you are, the less likely the other side will give up. If that's the case, why do a war in the first place? You're just playing a "game." A sophisticated, costly, international sports event. Why not just do that? Have the countries get together and have a sports event. Something violent if you want... football or boxing. Have all the normal rules. The winner gets their way in whatever conflict is on the table. It would save a lot of blood and terror. Heck, why not rock paper scissors?

In my opinion, you do everything you can to work out your differences without war. But if you get to the point where you decide that force and power is the only way to settle it, then go for it! No holds barred.

The silly way it is now, it reminds me of a star trek episode where they beamed down to a planet and these two countries were at war. It had evolved to a point where the countries' computers battled each other, and based on the results each day one side or the other would have to kill a certain number of their own citizens, humanely, of course! I thought it was a fascinating commentary on what "war" could eventually evolve to. And, it shows the absurdity of the whole concept of war with rules.

Also, what if one side decides they're not going to follow the rules? It doesn't matter, unless other countries get involved to inflict more damage on the offending country. In some sense, you don't want to piss off the whole community of nations. They are happy watching you two duke it out, but if you break any rules, punch below the belt, well... we'll have to TAKE AWAY YOUR BIRTHDAY!!

Heck, if the international community is so effective at making sure the rules of war are abided by, why can't they decide to just outlaw war in the first place?

War. I'm just not a big fan. I'm pretty sure if the world were run by women there would never be a war. Ever.

Is it possible for countries to nag each other to death?