It is of course recognised that the only force which supports international law is the appeal to the conscience of the nation, for there is no international tribunal to punish countries for deeds committed in time of war. While it is unlikely that the rough game of war ever will be played (it certainly never has been in the past) in exact conformity with the rules of the jurists, there are certain methods of waging war which England would not employ, and certain acts which she would not commit in the event of hostilities breaking out between herself and a civilised country. She would not use explosive bullets. She would not fire on undefended towns, and would endeavour to avoid the destruction of non-combatants and their property. She would not poison wells, she would not endeavour to accomplish the assassination of a commander-in-chief, she would not abuse a flag of truce, she would not murder prisoners who behaved themselves, and put to death those who surrendered. On the other hand, she would consider herself at perfect liberty to employ submarine boats, torpedoes, and mines, both military and naval; to discharge shells filled with high explosives, whether lyddite, melinite, or other substance, from aerial machines; to intercept the enemy’s messages and to mislead him by sending false ones; to commence hostilities without issuing a declaration of war;[2] to fire on, and if necessary sink, the merchant ships of the enemy; to starve a garrisoned town; to erect wire entanglements and similar obstructions; to offer wrecking lights as navigation lights; and to employ any “stratagem” or “_ruse de guerre_” which might serve some useful end. With regard to stratagems, it appears to be quite proper to disguise ships and men, and to use false signals, false colours, and neutral flags, though a British naval officer would probably not fire into his enemy before hauling down his neutral or false colours. Footnote 2: The Romans considered that no war could be just unless it was preceded by a formal declaration. Vice-Admiral Rodney M. Lloyd pointed out in a recent letter to the _Times_ that while in naval warfare all stratagems were admitted, expected, and provided against, in military operations, on the contrary, some acts of a similar kind appeared to be objected to. The Boers, for instance, frequently disguised themselves in British khaki uniforms, and endeavoured to delude sentries and guards. Some writers refer to this as “the abuse of the khaki uniform” and “the treacherous use of the khaki uniform,” but if such things are permitted in naval operations it is difficult to see why they should be considered immoral if practised on land.