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.