Replies

>>I think Rightwing2 is spot-on with this elegant, succinct belief: the killing of innocents is always morally wrong.<<

Killing innocents is always regrettable, but not morally wrong in all cases. The evolution of Just War and morality of killing has evolved over time, and even the Conventions on war recognize that in war innocents sometimes get hurt/killed. What matters in the aim and proportional goal of the act that caused the injury/death.

>>Con Doesn't matter the place, the time, the circumstances.<<

It certainly does matter, otherwise you would prohibit our troops from shooting back if they are being fired upon by a bad guy that used civilians as a shield. In addition, you would say it is wrong to drop a bomb on a munitions factory, staffed with civilians that are being forced to work there, as this factory is making weapons that will be used to kill Americans. You would also make it immoral to attack a command and control building in a downtown location, merely because some innocents may be harmed. (In the Kosovo campaign we ran modeling and simulation studies before dropping bombs on targets in downtown Belgrade. If the civilian cost was too high, we did not attack. However, if the military gain was sufficient, it was attacked.)

One must keep in mind the military gain when contemplating an action that would result in civilian lives being lost. If by shutting down a command and control center means we make the bad guys’ fielded forces combat ineffective and his SAM batteries blind, that action is certainly acceptable in most cases.

>>It's wrong and we should not be a party to such barbarism.<<

It is wrong to deliberately target civilians as the aim and object of the attack. It is not wrong to attack military targets with proportional civilian losses--and that is an acceptable international standard.

I strongly suggest you do a little reading on the subject: Just War, by Tucker, Just and Unjust Wars, by Michael Walzer are two great books to begin your education. Once you have studied these books, and understood St Thomas Aquinas' influence on the subject, will then be able to speak knowledgably on the subject.

One could argue that Paul Tibbets saved countless millions of lives and helped end the Cold War peacefully without a nuclear holocaust. The world saw firsthand the devastation caused by atomic weapons and the potential for even greater destruction. If the weapons had never been used in warfare, I wonder if the Soviet Union would have shown the subsequent restraint in their use or us for that matter. The images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are burned in the collective psyche of the world.

The US made the right decision in dropping the bombs to save American lives and ending the war with a submissive Japanese population. The unintended consequence was the impact they would have on the post-WWII world and the ending of future world wars. Paul Tibbets is a true hero who understands the meaning of total warfare and unconditional surrender.