Posted on 03/11/2008 3:41:58 PM PDT by DFG
Claude Eatherly, who flew the re-con flight which authorized the bombing of Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, spent the remainder of his life overwhelmed with guilt, made worse by being called a War Hero by everyone around him. Eatherly led a life of petty crime, passing hot checks, using stolen identification, etc. His status as a war hero made it difficult for the system to want to punish him for these "acting out" crimes, until he began to speak out in public against the atomic bomb.
(Excerpt) Read more at imdb.com ...
So to get specific. The weapons factory (or storage facility, or port facility-airport-reshipment center) is a legitimate military target, and the civilians who work they are not strictly non-combatants: they are directly contributing to the military effort. When you hit that target and they are injured or killed, it's not murder.
The people that run the lunch cart, the children in the house near the factory? The child who unluckily happens to be in the house when we finally track down Bin Laden? They are innocent: but you are not intentionally targetting them. Our military, the Israeli military (to mention two militaries who strive to uphold a just warrior ethic) would take steps to try to minimize these deaths if they can; but if they're caught in the crossfire, so to speak, that's collateral and that's not murder.
And as you know, our military would try to medevac them out and save their lives, if they can.
Those unintended injuries and deaths are not the same as murder. These deaths are foreseeable (though not intended) especially when you're fighting an enemy that operates out of residential neighborhoods, blends in with noncombatants and uses civilian shields. Once again, a good military may well end up leaving a trail of collateral damage inthat kind of situation which was NOT intended and which they strained every muscle to minimize.
What's not justified is: (1) deliberately targetting the "innocent," the non-combatants; or (2) deliberately choosing WMDs which cause indiscriminate destruction to "whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants." That is quite different from collateral deaths. That, strictly speaking, constitutes a crime.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki and while we’re at it, Dresden, were all legitimate strategic targets.
All of which were a total military success that achieved their objective.
I like your Pope. I liked the last one too. But he’s wrong on this. It happens.
We did not drop an atomic bomb on Tokyo because it had already been largely destroyed by the incendiary bomb raids.
Truman and Marshall wanted targets that had not been hit yet to send a message to Japanese that they had better surrender or else.
Nagasaki was the secondary target. I believe Nagoya was the primary target but it was spared because of too much cloud cover. Also we only had one more atomic bomb available after Nagasaki. It was back in the US however. Of course, we kept that a secret.
I have read a lot about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I grew up in Vallejo, Ca and both of my parents worked at Mare Island Naval Shipyard. My mom currently is a docent at the museum there and is a history expert on anything related to Mare Island. The atomic bombs went from New Mexico to Port Chicago, Ca by train and then to Mare Island. They were put about the Indianapolis at Mare Island. This is why I have always been interested in this subject.
I don’t think you are defending pacifism. I just think you do not understand the context of what was occurring in WWII, and are viewing it from a comfortable perspective that you are able to enjoy today.
To many Americans today, WWII was a forgone conclusion. We were going to win. No doubt about it.
The reality is that we were in a life and death struggle with evil regimes, who did not bother to hide what life would be like under their heel. It was there for all to see. The Japanese and their treatment of the countries they conquered was atrocious beyond belief, as was their treatment of our POW’s who had an AVERAGE 30% mortality rate. There were many camps it was much higher. This was no hidden thing.
When we were fighting the Japanese early in the war, victory was VERY much in doubt and actually improbable. In places like the Solomon Islands, the Japanese inflicted just as much damage as they were getting. things could have gone the other way. It was a very, very dark and depressing time. As others have pointed out on here, after “victories” such as Saipan, Tarawa, Peleliu, Iwo Jima and Okinawa, attacking the home islands was going to be a slaughter on all sides.
But the question of strategic bombing of populated areas IS related here, due to the nature of the actions of the governments. There are three components to this.
First, both Germany and Japan abrogated the deference to populations of “innocents” by their bombings of the cities during the Spanish Civil War and of places like Rotterdam in the early stages of the war. The Japanese were famous for the Rape of Nanking, and quite proud of it. Various historians try to say it never happened and was an exaggeration by propagandists, but it was quite real. This was long before any allied aircraft even flew over Germany or Japan.
Secondly, both the Japanese and the Germans leveraged ALL citizens of their countries to produce war materials. All ages.
Thirdly, both of those governments deliberately spread out their manufacturing facilities and resources into populated areas to try to preserve them.
War is not a Queensbury Rules engagement. You reap what you sow.
You defined “innocents” as “...non-combatants: people who are not military, and are not directly contributing to the war effort via the weapons industry...”
Define “directly contributing to the war effort”.
Is producing food for troops part of the war effort? Can a military survive without food? How about a factory that produces shoes for the troops? Or clothing? How about a house where eight year old kids are sewing uniforms or polishing brass casings for ammunition as part of the effort? Does their government put them at risk by asking them to do that, which they then willingly do with the approval of their parents?
War is about breaking things and killing as many as possible;
if you do not have the guts to do that, then do not go to war. And if the enemy ever attacks us, you should surrender.
My late Father in Law was scheduled to be deployed for the invasion of Japan. Needless to say, I’m glad he didn’t have to go.
Same for my father.
What the Council Fathers said in GS about counter-city bombing wasn't anything new. It was a reiteration of the fundamental moral law that says that you don't deliberately massacre civilians. Not that you can't bomb ANYTHING in a city --- you can certainly destroy military sites, military factories, supply and transport facilities, etc. And civilians will be (unintentially) included in the collateral damage. That's understood. But you can't target civilians, which is what you're doing if you use a WMD to try to annihilate a whole city.
Is this something you disagree with? In other words, do you think that noncombatants are a legitimate target?
"In 1927, Congress tried to outlaw bombing of cities in wartime (Kellogg-Briand Act). A lot of good that did.
Laws are sometimes ineffective, but that does not constitute an argument against the principle per se. For instance, there's a law against would-be immigrants crossing our borders without permission and without papers. "A lot of good that did." But still, that law is right in principle.
Besides, the UCMJ still makes a distinction between collateral damage on the one hand, and the massacre of civilians on the other. And of course says it's illegal to massacre civilians. Do you think that distinction should be dropped? I'm not dumping on you here. I'm pro-US military. I'm proud my 18-year-old son just signed up for the Marine Corps Reserve. I'm just looking (respectfully) for your point of view.
There was no such thing as a “non-combatant” in WWII Japan or Germany. The times were different. You cannot apply today’s morals to WWII. These “non-combatants” worked in the factories and a lot of manufacturing of smaller parts were scattered around in their houses. By bombing the workers, we slowed down the weapons factories. WWII bombing also was not accurate. There was no such thing as a “smart weapon”.
Our enemies today get their arms from other countries. The arms used against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan come from Russia, Iran, France, Syria, China, Pakistan, etc. We do not need to bomb “non-combatants” today.
I have a big problem with the ROE (rules of engagement) that our military has to live with today. I just finished reading “Lone Survivor” by Marcus Lattrell. This is about a Navy SEAL team’s mission in Afghanistan. Because this team of 4 SEAL’s were concerned about ROE, they did not shoot what appeared to be a group of “non-combatants”. The SEAL team members knew that these “non-combatants” were a problem but they were afraid of trumped up charges from over-zealous JAG lawyers. These people reported the SEAL’s position to the Taliban terrorists. The SEAL team member’s decision ended up costing the lives of 3 of the SEAL team members. Marcus Lattrell was the only one to survive and he almost died as well.
BTW, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets. The HQ for 5th division and the 2nd General Army HQ were there. It was also a communications center and assembly area. What sealed the deal for Hiroshima was that it was the only targeted city without any POW camps nearby. Nagasaki was one of the largest seaport in southern Japan.
The purpose of the atomic bombs was to give the Japanese such a shock that they would immediately surrender. Millions of people lived and we kept Russia out of Japan. I’d say it was worth it.
If the need arose to hit Iran with a WMD to prevent the US from getting hit with a WMD, I would have no problem with it. I do not believe in proportionate response. I believe in hitting the enemy with overwhelming force and getting the war over with. In the end, that saves lives on both sides. I am sure that is what most Marines on the front lines would support.
Thank you to your son for his service.
You made the good points that many Japanese were involved in arms-making even even workshops scattered around in their homes and neighborhoods; and besides, with no such thing as a “smart weapon”, WWII bombing was unavoidably accurate.
This is all true, and I realize it. I think I made two points though, that address this:
The Israelis are facing this all the time when they have to bomb a residential block which houses pregnant women, preschoolers, an IED workshop in the basement and a bunch of rocket launchers on the roof. I am not faulting the US military or the IDF for these kinds of war-related deaths in the conditions described. It's distressing and sad and ugly, but it's not murder.
And whether the present ROE's are unreasonable, or whether JAG prosecutors are over-zealous, I do not know. But that's talking individual cases, not principles: and you and I agree in general that, as you said, "We do not need to bomb civilians today."
So that brings us to the issue that kicked off this discussion: Hiroshima.
Is it true to say that "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets"? The whole cities, as such? Or isn't it true, rather, to say, "There were legitimate military targets IN Hiroshima and Nagasaki"?
The distinction makes a difference, as I see it, even if the casualties were exactly the same.
I mean this: if the U.S. went in with bombers to obliterate the Army HQ, the communications center and assembly area, etc., and in the course of hitting the admittedly legitimate military targets, sparked the kind of firestorm that killed 100,000 people, it's possible -- possible --- that that could be justfied. Horrible, but justified on the grounds that the civilian deaths were never part of the "calculus" of how effective or successful the bombing missions were. Making a flambeau of children, elderly and refugees did not form part of the intention.
Pause a minute here.
That puts many of the Allied bombing missions in a moral light: the weapons were as accurate as they possibly could be (even though that means, "not very accurate"), the obliteration of the miltiary targets was an absolutely essential objective, and therefore the civilian deaths, though foreseeable, were NOT THE SAME AS MURDER.
"The purpose of the atomic bombs was to give the Japanese such a shock that they would immediately surrender."
That --- eaxtly that --- is where we have a problem. I understand the need to "shock," but if it's moral to target civilians for deliberate incineration because of the effective shock value --- because you hope it'll make the other side give up --- then explain to me why it's not OK for Hamas to do it.
The very definition of terrorism is committing mayhem against the innocent for the sake of the psychological impact: the shock.
Overwhelming force against military targets to end a war as quickly as possible: yes. Absolutely yes. I'm for that. Overwhelming force as in indiscriminate massacre: no. I would not offend my God.
I don't have a whole lot of time to spend on tussling this out forever, but I think a certain amount of tussle is worth it, because it's one of the big moral questions of our time: Is it permitted for any reason directly and deliberately and intentionally to kill an innocent human being?
The answers to the questions about abortion, human embryo experimentation, target=city bombing, WMD's, terrorism, etc. all depend on our answer to this one.
I thank you (and others) for paying attention to that question. It deserves attention.
Oh! So did I, finally (last night). Thank you for reminding me; and if you want to remind me even more, I will be thanking you even more.
God is the Master of Life. That's exactly why it is within His rights to to take the life of any man, even an innocent one (like commanding the sacrifice of Isaac.) And that's exactly why it is not our right to do so: because we do not possess Divine Sovereignty.
God makes that perfectly clear by the many times God declared the shedding of innocent blood to be abhorrent to Him. (23 times in the verses at the link. Looks like He's trying to make a point.)
He has the right to command it. That is the exception.
He has the right to forbid it. And He does forbid it, forbid it, and forbid it. That is the rule.
Do you think the Bishops would have made their only dogmatic moral definitions in a world-wide Ecumenical Council about things that never happened?
(Excuse me, I'm not saying this to insult you and I know you're pro-life, but that's like saying: "No woman chooses abortion." People do choose this kind of moral error, targeting innocent lives. Maybe not eagerly, gleefully, rejoicingly --- of course not. Maybe they choose it because they didn't understand the full implications. Maybe they choose it because they felt they "had no choice." But choose it they do, as a means to an end.)
Amen and well said.
Keep in mind, too, that Japan did NOT surrender after the first bomb. Some in the military leadership did not want to surrender even after the *second* bomb. It wasn't until they (and of course the Emperor) believed we had more of those bombs that they finally capitulated. Lucky for us they didn't find out that we didn't actually have any more ready to go.
Truman and the U.S. military leadership was aware of this risk, that the bomb might not result in surrender due to the hardened nature of the Japanese ethos. That's why they chose targets that would at least be strategically useful in case we had to invade anyway. As I recall those cities were big sources of ammunition and ordnance.
It wasn't merely about fear. But lets be clear: Fear and intimidation are *always* used in *every* military operation. They are powerful motivators to get your enemy to do something, or not do something. Using fear or terror doesn't make you a terrorist.
It's a little like trying to describe the difference between art and obscenity. I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.
One of the differences is that terrorists target civilians to the *exclusion* of all else. Honorable warriors are offended by the kind of person that straps on a bomb and walks into a pizza parlor to kill children. But the honorable warrior may not be offended when the pizza parlor is hit with a 500lb JDAM because Mullah Omar is seen sitting in there. The former is seen as cowardly, and the latter a target of opportunity.
Is one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter? I don't know. Some people think that's true. I hesitate to agree with that statement if only because I think there is a difference. An honest difference and not one merely of perspective and jingoism.
Yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.