War should be mandatory

First, had my opponent fully explained the conditions of this mandate, I could have argued more to purpose last round; his tactic comes dangerously close to moving the goalposts.Second, though he says "Countries will have an option of choosing whichever nation they want to go to war against," the fact remains that those countries which do not desire war are being forced into it. War, however limited, is still a bad thing for any country. My opponent seems to think he can isolate the effects; where does he think he can stage these wars where cities will not be damaged, vital infrastructure will not be destroyed, and civilians will not die? This is patently ridiculous. Most countries do not have the vast open spaces the US has; there is literally no-where in Switzerland, the Netherlands, the Ivory Coast, Portugal, Japan, or Taiwan that you could stage such a war without killing civilians and destroying agriculture and industry. My opponent also has given no reason why these wars will stay limited. War rarely stays confined to the expected limits; the Union thought the American Civil War would be over by Christmas, and were wrong by four years. I could give many, many more examples had I the time; suffice it to say that a desperate opponent will hardly conform to the rules, and these wars will escalate to involve the whole nation, and all the horrors associated.The existing points, in my opponent's order:1.For reasons of time, I have to concede this one. Had my opponent cared to fully explain his position, this one would not have been necessary. 2. It will cause social disruption"My opponent has given examples of certain countries that have avoided wars for generations. Japan, it seems, has not engaged in warfare for almost 70 years. Well, if that's the case, why then is Japan currently the fourth in the list of defense spending budgets by country?"For defence. Japan does not want war, but it has strong, greedy neighbors; it wants to make sure it isn't an easy target. The social disruption comes from the propaganda, the loss of life (NEVER a popular thing, and has ended governments before this), from the war-time fear. Who would willingly invite that?"Moreover, my opponent is not taking into consideration the civilian lives my proposal will save. As wars are fixed, only soldiers will participate in it. The civilian death toll will be zero. This will in fact reduce social disruption by limiting wars to military personnel."This is utter nonsense. Japan is very densely populated, as is Singapore and the Netherlands. There is no way one could wage war in these countries without massive civilian losses, unless these troops are armed with paintball guns. 3. It will cause political dysfunction"As my opponent said, international politics is a delicate game of power. But when played well, it's always the people of the non-developed countries that get the raw end of the deal. To cite an example, such a well played game between the developed countries and the Libyan president, ensured that trade went on smoothly, without any concern for whether the money is actually going to the Libyan people. The diplomats just want to ensure that their country gets the resources with the least amount of expenditure. This is a bad deal for the Libyan people. Well, you can argue that the Libyans should have done something to prevent a tyrant from assuming leadership, but that's beside the point."Red herring. My point was, international politics is a carefully balanced game; this ham-handed mandate would destroy that balance, and all the trade and alliance benefits of it."If my opponent wants alliances and friendships to be taken into account, by all means. Wars can be fought between multiple allied countries on both sides."Moving the goal posts again. If the voters will let you get away with it, I have nothing further to say here; I have no time. "How my proposal will improve things? Since war is mandatory, a leader has no option but to treat his people fairly, so that they will do their utmost to help the war effort. "This comment shows a poor understanding of history. Some of the worst tyrants were great military leaders, or fought wars through their entire tenure. Examples: Alexander the Great. Hitler. Caesear Borgia. Frederick the Great. Napoleon Bonaparte. The list goes on; this point is utterly wrong.4. It will cause economic ruin."As we have seen, countries that have not fought wars in generations are still spending a lot in defense. I fail to understand how fixing everything, so that you know beforehand how much you will need to spend (to a reasonable extent) and damages with regards to environment, civiilian life and society limited to the utmost; will be a cause for economic ruin."That spending is nothing compared to what id spent in wartime; and very little of the peacetime spending ends up on the bottom of the ocean or blown up. Vast amounts of the resources expended in wartime are completely wasted. Who would volunteer to put their country through this pointless cost?What is the cost if someone should carpet-bomb another in order to win one of these contest wars? Can you put a price tag on the infrastructure destroyed, on the environment pointlessly ruined, on the steep civilian casualties, on the terror and anguish? WHAT SANE COUNTRY WOULD AGREE TO THIS MANDATE?The answer is simple. No country would. No-one would ever agree to let someone else tell their country when and with whom to war."My opponent raises points about investments, loans, etc. But I fail to see how such things will be affected unduly. Investors will know exactly when a war will be fought, and what all could be lost. It's also not like a war will be fought every other week and on critical parts of the country. I'd take this over any kind of uncertainty related to war. Nothing is simple in economics, but the removal of uncertainty plays a huge factor in economic stability (I think I can get away with this statement without linking sources?)"They know when, but they have no guarantee of it's limitation. Investors will not build factories to let them get destroyed by bombs; will not build railways to have them seized by troops. You cannot remove the uncertainty from war, when the only sure thing about it is its tendency to get out of hand. You cannot prevent a commander breaking the rules - you cannot enforce any "rules." This is war. People play to win. Adding some pre-school "rules" will impress no-one - especially not the investors who stand to lose everything, and the civilians who stand to be killed for your little social experiment.5. There is no method of enforcement.For a body to be created which had any sort of enforcement power, the military associated with it would have to be significantly stronger than the US's. Again, a HUGE waste of resources. No-one would contribute to it, for reasons given above; the soldiers who joined it would be treated as traitors to their country, and finding capital to keep it going would be virtually impossible. This purposal is enormously impractical, dangerous, and harmful. The good sense and inertia of the nations would doom this idea should it ever be purposed, because they understand what I have outlined here: War isn't certain. Peace is worth keeping. Mandatory war is pointless and wasteful, and could destroy the nations involved; who is going to sign up for this?If a nation wants to fight another, they will do it, without giving the other nation the luxury of rules and an overseeing body enforcing them. Everyone else wants peace; mandatory war is worse than counter-productive for them, and so they won't join.-C.