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.
Amen and well said.
Here where I live, about 27 miles from the facility where the Plutonium for Nagasaki was fabricated, I have heard quite a few opinions on the matter. Most emanating from former Hanford workers and their families mirror yours, as one might expect. Similar sentiment at Los Alamos, where my dad worked for a while, naturally. I hope y'all are correct; haven't made up my mind on this one and probably won't absent direct input from the Holy Spirit!