Morally Acceptable?

[fl0at]

I'd rather not think about an anal probe.

I question the unprecedented because we knew what bombs do, we knew this was a super, duper bomb and we tested the bomb and witnessed what kind of destructive power it had.

We knew without a doubt we were going to kill a bunch of innocents and determined it to be okay because the consequences justified the actions.

I really, really don't think we had a solid understanding of what the first one was going to do.

I mean, the MOAB is a super, duper bomb. The bat bombs (Bat bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) [really wished those would have gotten deployed...] are pretty neat.

I mean, there were some pretty wild predictions, from some pretty intelligent people prior to the first test: ignite the atmosphere, blow out windows in Russia, alter the Earth's orbit...

It doesn't like they had a good understanding of it, even though they built it. Engineers, right? Right.

We knew we were going to kill some civilians (of a country we were at war with, and were involved in the war effort as much as many of our civilians back home), but they weren't the target.

 

[Volst53]

I really, really don't think we had a solid understanding of what the first one was going to do.

I mean, the MOAB is a super, duper bomb. The bat bombs (Bat bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) [really wished those would have gotten deployed...] are pretty neat.

I mean, there were some pretty wild predictions, from some pretty intelligent people prior to the first test: ignite the atmosphere, blow out windows in Russia, alter the Earth's orbit...

It doesn't like they had a good understanding of it, even though they built it. Engineers, right? Right.

We knew we were going to kill some civilians (of a country we were at war with, and were involved in the war effort as much as many of our civilians back home), but they weren't the target.

You are kidding yourself, if you think that American leaders didn't have a clue what was going to happen with the atomic bomb. We wanted to break their will to fight, and it worked.

Before dropping the atom bomb, we were putting small charges on bats and letting them go in large civilian populations to burn cities down. We weren't above targeting civilians

 

[fl0at]

You are kidding yourself, if you think that American leaders didn't have a clue what was going to happen with the atomic bomb. We wanted to break their will to fight, and it worked.

Yes, several of the physicists and engineers had no idea what was going to happen... but the military and the House did?

I think you are kidding yourself. Nobody had any idea the blast radius, the secondary explosives, the sheer heat of the blast. Nothing has ever come close to the kill circle around even the first blast.

Before dropping the atom bomb, we were putting small charges on bats and letting them go in large civilian populations to burn cities down. We weren't above targeting civilians

We never deployed them. Words have meaning, you know?

 

[JayVols]

I personally have no problem with dropping both bombs on Japan. I buy into the theory that lives were saved by doing so, both American and Japanese. More civilians were killed by our firebombings per month than both nuclear devices combined. The firebombings would have continued. Add to that an invasion where American soldiers would have died by the tens of thousands along with perhaps a million or so civillians that would have fought to the death to defend the homefront, but instead 2 huge booms=war over with less than 100,000 immediately killed. The numbers don't lie in my mind.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[IPorange]

This looks like it is about to transition into a "do the ends always justify the means" type conversation.

 

[tvolsfan]

I personally have no problem with dropping both bombs on Japan. I buy into the theory that lives were saved by doing so, both American and Japanese. More civilians were killed by our firebombings per month than both nuclear devices combined. The firebombings would have continued. Add to that an invasion where American soldiers would have died by the tens of thousands along with perhaps a million or so civillians that would have fought to the death to defend the homefront, but instead 2 huge booms=war over with less than 100,000 immediately killed. The numbers don't lie in my mind.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Agreed

 

[justingroves]

You are kidding yourself, if you think that American leaders didn't have a clue what was going to happen with the atomic bomb. We wanted to break their will to fight, and it worked.

How many Japanese civilians would have died if American soldiers had fought in the middle of a Japanese city?

A prolonged ground attack would have killed as many civilians as the nukes did IMO.

 

[volinbham]

This looks like it is about to transition into a "do the ends always justify the means" type conversation.

Or at least a discussion of how morals are formed and what they are.

So far we have an absolutist view (fl0at) and consequentialist view (me and a few others implied).

 

[Volst53]

How many Japanese civilians would have died if American soldiers had fought in the middle of a Japanese city?

A prolonged ground attack would have killed as many civilians as the nukes did IMO.

Estimated US casualties for Operation OLYMPIC & CORONET were 250,000 along with 1,000,000 Japanese civilian casualties.


Okinawa and Iwo Jima had shown clearly what an invasion of Japan would be like. The decision was made, the bombs were dropped, the war ended and both military and civilian lives were saved by both countries.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

The Japanese sure have been docile ever since.

 

[JayVols]

Estimated US casualties for Operation OLYMPIC & CORONET were 250,000 along with 1,000,000 Japanese civilian casualties.


Okinawa and Iwo Jima had shown clearly what an invasion of Japan would be like. The decision was made, the bombs were dropped, the war ended and both military and civilian lives were saved by both countries.

I think one must look at the circumstances that brought us into the war. We didn't just enter the war; we were forced into it by Pearl Harbor. Yes, I know all about the oil embargo, and the argument that Japan had no other recourse, etc. But with that school of thought one must also examine why the US shut off trade with Japan. Imperialistic policies championed by the militaristic Prime Minister, Hideki Tojo, led to Japan attacking Manchuria in 1931 to plunder natural resources and settle centuries old grudges. Japan committed untold atrocities in China. The Japanese were not the innocent victims of US policies or aggressions. They were the aggressors, and they paid a price for their aggressive policies. I have zero remorse or reservations about the US' actions to end the war.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Weezy]

I voted no, in that as it is stated in the OP, it is morally unacceptable. But given the situation of the mission involving OBL, as I understand it, is morally acceptable. And that involves a man situating himself in a compound filled with armed combatants. And a man that has admitted and basically bragged about killing thousands of civilians, some including children and women.

 

[n_huffhines]

Generally agreed upon? Really? The Union troops of the US had just won victory through Grant and Sherman's total war strategy; a few years later, the total war strategy was put to use in the Franco-Prussian War.

If you want to discuss military matters, at least inform yourself appropriately.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I am well aware of this. This is actually why I know there was a Geneva Convention in 1864. Historian Thomas DiLorenzo cited it in an argument that Lincoln should have been tried for war crimes. 50,000 southern civilians murdered, and refusal to exchange prisoners that led to many unnecessary deaths (on both sides) in prison camps. Lincoln didn't really care much for law. He was an "ends justify the means"-type leader. He broke all kinds of laws whether international or federal.

It's amusing how much you assume I don't know.

 

[therealUT]

I am well aware of this. This is actually why I know there was a Geneva Convention in 1864. Historian Thomas DiLorenzo cited it in an argument that Lincoln should have been tried for war crimes. 50,000 southern civilians murdered, and refusal to exchange prisoners that led to many unnecessary deaths (on both sides) in prison camps. Lincoln didn't really care much for law. He was an "ends justify the means"-type leader. He broke all kinds of laws whether international or federal.

It's amusing how much you assume I don't know.

It is more amusing how much you assume you do. Please, cite the paragraph in the First Geneva Convention in which it states that civilians should not be targeted?

You could not; it is not there. So, of course, then you tried to state that it was generally understood and agreed to; yet, of course, the history of warfare in the 19th Century in no way represents that sentiment.

Referring to historical arguments by DiLorenzo is on par with referring to historical arguments by Zinn.

 

[n_huffhines]

It is more amusing how much you assume you do. Please, cite the paragraph in the First Geneva Convention in which it states that civilians should not be targeted?

You could not; it is not there. So, of course, then you tried to state that it was generally understood and agreed to; yet, of course, the history of warfare in the 19th Century in no way represents that sentiment.

Referring to historical arguments by DiLorenzo is on par with referring to historical arguments by Zinn.

Great argument. The history of warfare in the 20th and 21st century in no way represents that sentiment either, but I'm pretty sure international law intends to protect civilians.

Once again, why would they write a provision protecting civilians that aid wounded soldiers, but not protect civilians that were uninvolved? It makes no sense. It's like saying, "If you do not participate in war we reserve the right to kill you, but if you help our enemy's wounded soldiers we cannot touch you per Geneva."

Please explain to me the logic? I bet you ignore this point. Again.

Once again, you are arguing a tangent. The point has always been Truman killed a lot of civilians and we should remember that when we claim to be the world's guardian. I don't really care to argue anything else.

 

[JayVols]

Great argument. The history of warfare in the 20th and 21st century in no way represents that sentiment either, but I'm pretty sure international law intends to protect civilians.

Once again, why would they write a provision protecting civilians that aid wounded soldiers, but not protect civilians that were uninvolved? It makes no sense. It's like saying, "If you do not participate in war we reserve the right to kill you, but if you help our enemy's wounded soldiers we cannot touch you per Geneva."

Please explain to me the logic? I bet you ignore this point. Again.

Once again, you are arguing a tangent. The point has always been Truman committed a war crime by today's standard. I don't really care to argue anything else.

Not stepping in someone else's beefs, but I support Truman's decisions 100%. It can be argued his decision saved lives, both military and civilian. See my previous posts on the matter.eace2:

 

[gsvol]

 

[Volst53]

Did Truman's actions not save the lives of a lot more civilians?

 

[n_huffhines]

Did Truman's actions not save the lives of a lot more civilians?

Maybe. How?

Maybe you are referring to firebombing? An estimated 500,000 were killed by US firebombing efforts. I don't agree with those, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strate...r_II#United_States_strategic_bombing_of_Japan

 

[therealUT]

Great argument. The history of warfare in the 20th and 21st century in no way represents that sentiment either, but I'm pretty sure international law intends to protect civilians.

Once again, why would they write a provision protecting civilians that aid wounded soldiers, but not protect civilians that were uninvolved? It makes no sense. It's like saying, "If you do not participate in war we reserve the right to kill you, but if you help our enemy's wounded soldiers we cannot touch you per Geneva."

Please explain to me the logic? I bet you ignore this point. Again.

Once again, you are arguing a tangent. The point has always been Truman committed a war crime by today's standard. I don't really care to argue anything else.

The logic behind protecting persons who protect the wounded is founded in the mutual benefit received by participants to the Geneva Convention in protecting and preserving their own Soldiers.

As for the history of warfare regarding Geneva Convention nations post-1949 compared to pre-1949, there is a stark difference in how such engagements were fought.

As late as WWII (just prior to the current Geneva Convention, regarded as "The Geneva Convention"), belligerent nations routinely targeted civilians. Germans bombed London. Russians bombed Berlin. The Allies firebombed Dresden and Tokyo. We, unilaterally, dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Since 1949, signatories of the Geneva Convention have routinely not targeted, or at least not with conventional troops, civilians. Have civilians been targeted? Yes; however, they have usually been targeted by proxy and, therefore, there have been far less civilian casualties in the latter wars of the 20th Century involving signatory nations.

You cannot retroactively commit a "war-crime" by present standards. Just as you cannot retroactively try someone in America for a crime that was not on the books when it was committed.

So, you're point in which you "don't care to argue anything else", a tacit argument that this point is somehow unassailable, is flawed, to say the least.

 

[therealUT]

Maybe. How?

Maybe you are referring to firebombing? An estimated 500,000 were killed by US firebombing efforts. I don't agree with those, either.

I suggest you read On War and study Clausewitz's reasons for conducting "total war". In theory, total war actually reduces civilian casualties in the long run by both forcing militants to fight in the open and more rapidly breaking the will of the people, thus leading to much shorter conflicts.

When Grant and Sherman finally decided on total war, they brought the South to its knees very quickly. The Franco-Prussian war was extremely quick and, while gruesome, civilian strife was limited in both duration and scope. The Schlieffen Plan was designed to be one of the most rapid war plans ever executed and the blitzkrieg plans of WWII, if the Nazi Political Regime had adhered strictly to Clausewitzian theory, would have ended that war at Dunkirk (instead, Hitler decided to halt the advance, allowing the British to flee, instead of decimating them on the beach).

 

[Volst53]

I suggest you read On War and study Clausewitz's reasons for conducting "total war". In theory, total war actually reduces civilian casualties in the long run by both forcing militants to fight in the open and more rapidly breaking the will of the people, thus leading to much shorter conflicts.

When Grant and Sherman finally decided on total war, they brought the South to its knees very quickly. The Franco-Prussian war was extremely quick and, while gruesome, civilian strife was limited in both duration and scope. The Schlieffen Plan was designed to be one of the most rapid war plans ever executed and the blitzkrieg plans of WWII, if the Nazi Political Regime had adhered strictly to Clausewitzian theory, would have ended that war at Dunkirk (instead, Hitler decided to halt the advance, allowing the British to flee, instead of decimating them on the beach).

What do you think of the theory?

And if it is true than would it be Immoral to not conduct "total war"?

 

[n_huffhines]

The logic behind protecting persons who protect the wounded is founded in the mutual benefit received by participants to the Geneva Convention in protecting and preserving their own Soldiers.

As for the history of warfare regarding Geneva Convention nations post-1949 compared to pre-1949, there is a stark difference in how such engagements were fought.

As late as WWII (just prior to the current Geneva Convention, regarded as "The Geneva Convention"), belligerent nations routinely targeted civilians. Germans bombed London. Russians bombed Berlin. The Allies firebombed Dresden and Tokyo. We, unilaterally, dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Since 1949, signatories of the Geneva Convention have routinely not targeted, or at least not with conventional troops, civilians. Have civilians been targeted? Yes; however, they have usually been targeted by proxy and, therefore, there have been far less civilian casualties in the latter wars of the 20th Century involving signatory nations.

You cannot retroactively commit a "war-crime" by present standards. Just as you cannot retroactively try someone in America for a crime that was not on the books when it was committed.

So, you're point in which you "don't care to argue anything else", a tacit argument that this point is somehow unassailable, is flawed, to say the least.

K, you are right. You got me arguing this tangent and you are right. There was no written international law against murdering civilians in wartime until 1949.

I wouldn't try Truman ex post facto for war crimes. It's just useful to put into context the crimes against humanity that he, FDR, and Lincoln committed.

 

[n_huffhines]

I suggest you read On War and study Clausewitz's reasons for conducting "total war". In theory, total war actually reduces civilian casualties in the long run by both forcing militants to fight in the open and more rapidly breaking the will of the people, thus leading to much shorter conflicts.

When Grant and Sherman finally decided on total war, they brought the South to its knees very quickly. The Franco-Prussian war was extremely quick and, while gruesome, civilian strife was limited in both duration and scope. The Schlieffen Plan was designed to be one of the most rapid war plans ever executed and the blitzkrieg plans of WWII, if the Nazi Political Regime had adhered strictly to Clausewitzian theory, would have ended that war at Dunkirk (instead, Hitler decided to halt the advance, allowing the British to flee, instead of decimating them on the beach).

So Lincoln didn't authorize total war?

I highly doubt that 50,000 southern civilians would have died had the Civil War gone 20 years, without Sherman targeting them.

I understand that might make sense in WWII with air raids, and such, but in the Civil War when soldiers fought out in mostly open country, civilians weren't dying.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

K, you are right. You got me arguing this tangent and you are right. There was no written international law against murdering civilians in wartime until 1949.

I wouldn't try Truman ex post facto for war crimes. It's just useful to put into context the crimes against humanity that he, FDR, and Lincoln committed.[/QUOTE]


I guess it would have been better for WWII to have lasted a couple of years longer so more people could be exterminated in Germany's concentration camps. Germany and Japan started the war; America was just doing what was necessary to bring it to a conclusion.