In modern times, when waging WAR itself is a supreme crime, will it make any sense to have a rule of war?

I think, in reality warring parties will care for only one rule of war i.e., “Kill or be Killed”.

To understand war crimes you should understand what war is. War is nothing but destruction of everything (Lives, infrastructure, property, nature, economy, etc).

War is usually caused by leaders who wage war for their personal benefits (Business, ideology, expansion, etc) but they involve their citizens citing various reasons. They are ready to sacrifice the lives of people and destroy the economy. They send soldiers to fight and die in the war, but they themselves stay well protected and seldom go the front-lines.

Unlike ancient times, modern warfare is a complex system which involves entire nation. Weapons and ammunitions are manufactured by civilians in factories and are stored near cities, because it requires people for their maintenance. Modern weapons means - unlike before 100 years ago war - wars are not fought in battlefields but in entire country (cities, seas, forest, villages, farms, etc). Therefore not only soldiers but civilians casualties also happen.

Soldiers are trained to shoot first and then talk later. So when an army enters a civilian area, you cannot always expect good behaviour from the soldiers. Nowadays even some civilians carry arms and sometimes the nation themselves arms the civilians to help defend the country. If a soldier feels threatened by a civilian’s behaviour or activity, the soldier will shoot at the civilian. From the soldier’s point of view he did it for his own survival. But the civilian media projects it as a horrible crime, because the soldier shot at an innocent unarmed civilian.

In modern time it has become a fashion for the media to report war. In a war-zone News reported cannot be verified. Glorifying war (death and destruction), naturally they are biased. This must be stopped.

It is now common for some wealthy nations to say war is fine (it is a massive business opportunity) but the warring parties should follow a rules set by them. If they don’t follow the rules it is a war crime. But some of the same nations who are preaching others in the Act of War have themselves done some of the greatest crimes against humanity. They have dropped nuclear bombs, not once but twice, on civilian cities instead of fighting the enemy’s military to stop the war. Whatever they do, they say they are doing it “for humanity” (even killing thousands) but if their enemies do the same things, they say it is a “crime against humanity”.

As long as Humans live, chances of war are always present. A brilliant leader would find a way not to fight a war. Wars can be stopped with proper negotiations.

I think that killing in the name of war is nothing but an act of murder. And murder is a crime. So war is a crime. So instead of stopping the war they concentrate on smaller things and call them as war crimes.

"If you go by the definition of war crimes, then throughout history, most of the rulers and leaders of the world are War Criminals and therefore their place in history must be removed".

There should not be a term ‘War Crime’ when ‘WAR itself is a Crime’.