Replies

DFG, thanks for this discussion. I think we're getting somewhere here.

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:

weapon-makers, even "civilian" workers in residential districts, are directly contributing to aggressive warfare and therefore do not have the presumption of "non-combatant immunity" --- a weapons workshop is a legitimate target, even if it's on your kitchen table, and
truly collateral deaths (meaning kids, grocers, etc.) can be justified if they are truly not "targetted" -- that is, if they happened to be there and the deaths were not realistically avoidable in the pursuit of essential military objectives.

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'd say of course they knew that ordinary civilians would die. But I don't think it's correct to say it was done for the "shock" or "terror" effect you describe. It was to impress on Japan that it was futile to continue the fight. It was to convince them that they faced total destruction if the war was to continue. That's not a subtle difference. It's not merely to inspire fear, it's to convince them that they had lost.

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.