When I spoke of NT and Christian Western legal philosophy, I was not speaking of pacifism. I do not believe pacifism is a NT doctrine; I believe it is a false doctrine; and while all false doctrrines are harmful in some sense, pacifism is really significantly harmful because it stops rational discussion on what is right and wrong in war. It leads to an attitude of all or nothing (Killing is evil! I don't kill. So go ahead and knife my granny!" ~or, more likely~ "Killing is evil! But I'm not all that goshdarn noble and good, so if it comes to that, I'll knife YOUR granny, and your unborn baby too, because all's fair in love and war and I'm no Francis of Assisi."
Fact is, not all killing is evil. Sometimes killing is just; physical forceful struggle is very often just; failing to do so is sometimes thoroughly corrupt. So the hard work has to be done, the hardest work: drawing the line.
Your points are respectable I think (not wanting to comb through for every possible nuance) BUT: intentional killing of the innocent is always murder.
If that's not murder, then what is murder?
And murder is something you actually must not do.
Unfortunately we do not live in a world where pure points of doctrine exist. Often it is a case in war where every choice is doctrinally "evil".
The notion that there is some sort of pure doctrine that can be imposed in all cases is an interesting class room exercise, it is extremely naive in dealing with problems in the real world.
Your argument rests of false notions of moral equivalence. That some how the Japanese and the Americans were on an equal moral plain. No they were not. The Japanese were the aggressors. It is a total sophistry to assign them to the same moral plain as the victims of their aggression.
This is one of the absurdities of modern theologians. They want to argue that it was some how immoral to use the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs. That we could of “Besieged” the Japanese.
That utter nonsense. The infrastructure of the Japanese islands was breaking down. Japan could not feed it self and rely ed on food imports. Instead of killing Japanese Civilians in the tens of thousands. The Leftist “Siege” would of killing millions from disease, starvation and malnutrition. EVEN then there is NO indication that would of broke the Japanese will. Japanese soldiers hung on various pacific islands for decades after WW 2 ended. Even after the bombs dropped die hard militarists tried to stop the Emperor from surrendering.
Then their is the question. What response would the Japanese been to an invasion and occupation. The Left screams about the Iraqis “Insurgency” what do you suppose a Japanese Insurgency would of done? Also, who knows if the Japanese would of survived as a people? The Civilian and Military casualties on Siapan and Okinawa were horrific. Give the intensifying tempo of suicide attacks,the fire power brought down on the Japanese Home Island prior to and during an Invasion would of killed tens of thousands if not millions of civilians as well as military forces.
So while remaining doctrinally "pure" you would of been guilty in fact of genocide.
Perhaps it is murder. If so, then I am willing to accept the necessity of being a murderer, if being such is necessary to the survival of those I love.
That's one thing about war: while Jesus said "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends", sometimes a man may find it necessary to lay down his soul as well.
Adding to what I said in post #112, I would add "(4) I am willing to accept the deaths of multiple enemy civilians if I judge that doing so saves one American, either military or civilian". For example, if a Taliban mortar crew is shelling a US outpost from an Afghan village, I would support an airstrike leveling the village rather than accept casualties among US forces.