Poison Gas Saves Lives.

[tjohnson]

GS, why should the US have negotiated terms with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death march? If anything the US was too kind. The reason it needed to be an unconditional surrender was that a new constitution needed to be written for the country and a complete deShintoizing of the Japanese government undertaken.

Jim

Well, here's the thing. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour it was almost exclusively a military target, correct? Now what about bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, (and Dresden and Tokyo)? When you start killing innocent (non-military) people on purpose to get at the military people then you cross a line, IMO.

[BaalChatzaf]

GS, why should the US have negotiated terms with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death march? If anything the US was too kind. The reason it needed to be an unconditional surrender was that a new constitution needed to be written for the country and a complete deShintoizing of the Japanese government undertaken.

Jim

Well, here's the thing. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour it was almost exclusively a military target, correct? Now what about bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, (and Dresden and Tokyo)? When you start killing innocent (non-military) people on purpose to get at the military people then you cross a line, IMO.

No. All of them had military personell, military assets, weapons factories and none of them were declared open cities. They were all kosher military targets under the conventions then applying.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

GS, why should the US have negotiated terms with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death march? If anything the US was too kind. The reason it needed to be an unconditional surrender was that a new constitution needed to be written for the country and a complete deShintoizing of the Japanese government undertaken.

Jim

Well, here's the thing. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour it was almost exclusively a military target, correct? Now what about bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, (and Dresden and Tokyo)? When you start killing innocent (non-military) people on purpose to get at the military people then you cross a line, IMO.

No. All of them had military personell, military assets, weapons factories and none of them were declared open cities. They were all kosher military targets under the conventions then applying.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Conventions" are easily changed and rationalized in the heat of warfare.

[dan2100]

GS, why should the US have negotiated terms with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death march? If anything the US was too kind. The reason it needed to be an unconditional surrender was that a new constitution needed to be written for the country and a complete deShintoizing of the Japanese government undertaken.

Jim

Well, here's the thing. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour it was almost exclusively a military target, correct? Now what about bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, (and Dresden and Tokyo)? When you start killing innocent (non-military) people on purpose to get at the military people then you cross a line, IMO.

No. All of them had military personell, military assets, weapons factories and none of them were declared open cities. They were all kosher military targets under the conventions then applying.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Conventions" are easily changed and rationalized in the heat of warfare.

I would make a distinction, too, between following a convention, whether the convention applies, and whether the convention itself is valid. In the last case, imagine two rival gangs in your town are at war -- in something, say, like the movie "City of God." Imagine they have conventions like it's okay to burn alive innocent bystanders from noon to one on the Sunday following any fight. Even if both sides scrupulously respected this convention -- only burning alive those people who had nothing to do with their war between noon to one on the following Sunday -- and never violated it, I hope even any resident genocidal maniac would agree this convention is not a good one.

As for the specific case, while my position is innocents are off limits all the time and no one is justified in killing them period, there does seem to be a big difference between attacking a military or naval base and attacking a big city with a weapon of mass destruction that happens to also have "military personell, military assets, [and] weapons factories." The latter can't help but target civilians -- kind of like someone firebombing a neighborhood because a known criminal is holed up there. (And, in these particular cases, the goal seems to been not to take out specific military targets, but actually to terror bomb. It was suggested, I've read, too, that the atomic bomb be exploded on some uninhabited island to show the Japanese government the potential of the weapon. Surely, the Truman Administration could've tried that first. It's not like, were there no atomic or nuclear weapons, the war effort would've benefited much from, say, a massive fire bombing raid of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)

[tjohnson]

I would make a distinction, too, between following a convention, whether the convention applies, and whether the convention itself is valid. In the last case, imagine two rival gangs in your town are at war -- in something, say, like the movie "City of God." Imagine they have conventions like it's okay to burn alive innocent bystanders from noon to one on the Sunday following any fight. Even if both sides scrupulously respected this convention -- only burning alive those people who had nothing to do with their war between noon to one on the following Sunday -- and never violated it, I hope even any resident genocidal maniac would agree this convention is not a good one.

As for the specific case, while my position is innocents are off limits all the time and no one is justified in killing them period, there does seem to be a big difference between attacking a military or naval base and attacking a big city with a weapon of mass destruction that happens to also have "military personell, military assets, [and] weapons factories." The latter can't help but target civilians -- kind of like someone firebombing a neighborhood because a known criminal is holed up there. (And, in these particular cases, the goal seems to been not to take out specific military targets, but actually to terror bomb. It was suggested, I've read, too, that the atomic bomb be exploded on some uninhabited island to show the Japanese government the potential of the weapon. Surely, the Truman Administration could've tried that first. It's not like, were there no atomic or nuclear weapons, the war effort would've benefited much from, say, a massive fire bombing raid of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)

Yes, we had a thread about that - it was explained that there were only 2 bombs and one couldn't be spared for a demo. Also it was said that the residents were warned to get out via pamphlets prior to the dropping of the bombs. That is something I guess, but maybe it was just to make the commanders feel more humane - not sure it had much effect. My guess is that the administration wanted the war over ASAP and that's that. As bad as it is that this happened at the end of the war, it's not as bad as if it started out that way - like in terrorist attacks. To actually go out and target innocent people without any provocation is the absolute worst but we must be careful not to let it get us so mad that we act just as bad in retaliation. The end does not justify the means.

Edited April 16, 2010 by general semanticist

[James Heaps-Nelson]

GS, why should the US have negotiated terms with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death march? If anything the US was too kind. The reason it needed to be an unconditional surrender was that a new constitution needed to be written for the country and a complete deShintoizing of the Japanese government undertaken.

Jim

Well, here's the thing. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour it was almost exclusively a military target, correct? Now what about bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, (and Dresden and Tokyo)? When you start killing innocent (non-military) people on purpose to get at the military people then you cross a line, IMO.

GS,

Hiroshima was a major supply area and military depot for Japan. The Truman Administration had picked 11 possible targets for the atomic bombs. Leaflets were dropped widely in these cities urging evacuation, saying a weapon of unimaginable power was going to be dropped. You are also conveniently ignoring the distinction of initiating vs. retaliatory force. Arguing against the use of the bombs is one thing, trying to justify a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor or put it in another category is another. Europe and most of Japan's neighbors tried it your way first.

You also ignored one of the most atrocious war crimes ever committed against US military personnel and local civilians, the Bataan Death March. I'm posting a Wikipedia excerpt below:

The Bataan Death March (also known as The Death March of Bataan) took place in the Philippines in 1942 and was later accounted as a Japanese war crime. The 60-mile (97 km) march occurred after the three-month Battle of Bataan, part of the Battle of the Philippines (1941–42), during World War II. In Japanese, it is known as Batān Shi no Kōshin (バターン死の行進?), with the same meaning.

The march, involving the forcible transfer of 75,000 American and Filipino prisoners of war[1] captured by the Japanese in the Philippines from the Bataan peninsula to prison camps, was characterized by wide-ranging physical abuse and murder, and resulted in very high fatalities inflicted upon the prisoners and civilians along the route by the armed forces of the Empire of Japan. Beheadings, cutting of throats and casual shootings were the more common actions—compared to instances of bayonet stabbing, rape, disembowelment, rifle butt beating and a deliberate refusal to allow the prisoners food or water while keeping them continually marching for nearly a week in tropical heat. Falling down or inability to continue moving was tantamount to a death sentence, as was any degree of protest or expression of displeasure.

Route of the death march. Section from San Fernando to Capas was by rail.Prisoners were attacked for assisting someone falling due to weakness, or for no apparent reason whatsoever. Strings of Japanese trucks were known to drive over anyone who fell. Riders in vehicles would casually stick out a rifle bayonet and cut a string of throats in the lines of men marching alongside the road. Accounts of being forcibly marched for five to six days with no food and a single sip of water are in postwar archives including filmed reports.[2]

The exact death count has been impossible to determine, but some historians have placed the minimum death toll between six and eleven thousand men; whereas other postwar Allied reports have tabulated that only 54,000 of the 72,000 prisoners reached their destination—taken together, the figures document a casual killing rate of one in four up to two in seven (25% to 28.6%) of those brutalized by the forcible march. The number of deaths that took place in the internment camps from delayed effects of the march is uncertain, but believed to be high.[2]

On May 30, 2009, at the sixty-fourth and final reunion of Bataan Death March survivors in San Antonio, Texas, Japanese ambassador to the United States Ichiro Fujisaki apologized to the assembled survivors for the Japanese treatment of Allied prisoners of war, on behalf of the Japanese government.[3]

Jim

[tjohnson]

I'm not trying to justify a sneak attack on Pearl Harbour, but compare that to the WTC attack. Also, no matter what atrocities are committed by members of the other side does it justify what we do? Did bombing those cities bring back the people who died in the death march? Violence breeds violence and there is only one way to stop it and that is to stop doing it just to "get back" at the other guy. Or you can go the genocide route ( like Ba'al suggests) and then they can't retaliate anymore.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I'm not trying to justify a sneak attack on Pearl Harbour, but compare that to the WTC attack. Also, no matter what atrocities are committed by members of the other side does it justify what we do? Did bombing those cities bring back the people who died in the death march? Violence breeds violence and there is only one way to stop it and that is to stop doing it just to "get back" at the other guy. Or you can go the genocide route ( like Ba'al suggests) and then they can't retaliate anymore.

The US stopped the violence in World War 2 by using decisive force, we've enjoyed good relations with Germany and Japan since then. Also, you need to count the number of innocent civilians in occupied China and Japanese prison camps who would have been killed had the US not taken action. Those innocent Japanese civilians who were still unaware of the what the Japanese government was doing were hostages to the regime.

Jim

[BaalChatzaf]

The US stopped the violence in World War 2 by using decisive force, we've enjoyed good relations with Germany and Japan since then. Also, you need to count the number of innocent civilians in occupied China and Japanese prison camps who would have been killed had the US not taken action. Those innocent Japanese civilians who were still unaware of the what the Japanese government was doing were hostages to the regime.

Jim

All 23 of them. The Japanese people served their God Hirohito with a whole heart. In a war there are no innocent people on the other side; only targets.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited April 16, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[dan2100]

The US stopped the violence in World War 2 by using decisive force, we've enjoyed good relations with Germany and Japan since then. Also, you need to count the number of innocent civilians in occupied China and Japanese prison camps who would have been killed had the US not taken action. Those innocent Japanese civilians who were still unaware of the what the Japanese government was doing were hostages to the regime.

Jim

All 23 of them. The Japanese people served their God Hirohito with a whole heart. In a war there are no innocent people on the other side; only targets.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This seems, to me, just like the rhetoric of terrorists.

Also, if all the Japanese people, including infants unable to yet speak, much less give consent, were solidly behind the War Party in Japan -- the actual ruling faction at that time -- then why was it necessary for the Japanese government to have a secret police, to punish people for doing things that went counter to government policy, to draft people into the military, and to otherwise use coercion against the Japanese?

[James Heaps-Nelson]

The US stopped the violence in World War 2 by using decisive force, we've enjoyed good relations with Germany and Japan since then. Also, you need to count the number of innocent civilians in occupied China and Japanese prison camps who would have been killed had the US not taken action. Those innocent Japanese civilians who were still unaware of the what the Japanese government was doing were hostages to the regime.

Jim

All 23 of them. The Japanese people served their God Hirohito with a whole heart. In a war there are no innocent people on the other side; only targets.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This seems, to me, just like the rhetoric of terrorists.

Also, if all the Japanese people, including infants unable to yet speak, much less give consent, were solidly behind the War Party in Japan -- the actual ruling faction at that time -- then why was it necessary for the Japanese government to have a secret police, to punish people for doing things that went counter to government policy, to draft people into the military, and to otherwise use coercion against the Japanese?

Dan,

I agree that there was resistance to the regime. Because the largest minority in Japan were various strains of Buddhism, much of that resistance was passive militarily. Many religious minorities who would not submit to the Shinto talisman were jailed, given starvation rations and beaten severely. Tsunesaburo Makaguchi, the president of Soka Gakkai died in prison in 1944 and his disciple Josei Toda suffered health complications from his stay in prison for the rest of his life.

Jim

[BaalChatzaf]

This seems, to me, just like the rhetoric of terrorists.

Extremism in the defense of Liberty is not a vice. I think Barry Goldwater said that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan2100]

This seems, to me, just like the rhetoric of terrorists.

Also, if all the Japanese people, including infants unable to yet speak, much less give consent, were solidly behind the War Party in Japan -- the actual ruling faction at that time -- then why was it necessary for the Japanese government to have a secret police, to punish people for doing things that went counter to government policy, to draft people into the military, and to otherwise use coercion against the Japanese?

Dan,

I agree that there was resistance to the regime. Because the largest minority in Japan were various strains of Buddhism, much of that resistance was passive militarily. Many religious minorities who would not submit to the Shinto talisman were jailed, given starvation rations and beaten severely. Tsunesaburo Makaguchi, the president of Soka Gakkai died in prison in 1944 and his disciple Josei Toda suffered health complications from his stay in prison for the rest of his life.

Jim

I'm not even talking about resistance, passive or active. My point is that it's much more likely most people only acquiesced to War Party rule in Japan. To see this people as supporters and not innocent steps over the line, in my opinion -- over the line into terrorist logic. In fact, it's the kind of argument I've often seen offered up by terrorists and their supporters: the civilians they target are not innocent because they're not actively resisting or protesting the regime they live under. It saddens me to see people here adopting that sort of twisted reasoning.

[dan2100]

This seems, to me, just like the rhetoric of terrorists.

Extremism in the defense of Liberty is not a vice. I think Barry Goldwater said that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But this is not extremism in the defense of liberty; it's merely your defense of genocide. You, after all, take no account of the liberty much less the lives of innocent individuals you'd so casually exterminate. And my guess is you probably have nothing against using coercion to a military in the first place. So the liberty of Americans who don't support your genocidal policies is likely to be trampled under your foot as well.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

This seems, to me, just like the rhetoric of terrorists.

Also, if all the Japanese people, including infants unable to yet speak, much less give consent, were solidly behind the War Party in Japan -- the actual ruling faction at that time -- then why was it necessary for the Japanese government to have a secret police, to punish people for doing things that went counter to government policy, to draft people into the military, and to otherwise use coercion against the Japanese?

Dan,

I agree that there was resistance to the regime. Because the largest minority in Japan were various strains of Buddhism, much of that resistance was passive militarily. Many religious minorities who would not submit to the Shinto talisman were jailed, given starvation rations and beaten severely. Tsunesaburo Makaguchi, the president of Soka Gakkai died in prison in 1944 and his disciple Josei Toda suffered health complications from his stay in prison for the rest of his life.

Jim

I'm not even talking about resistance, passive or active. My point is that it's much more likely most people only acquiesced to War Party rule in Japan. To see this people as supporters and not innocent steps over the line, in my opinion -- over the line into terrorist logic. In fact, it's the kind of argument I've often seen offered up by terrorists and their supporters: the civilians they target are not innocent because they're not actively resisting or protesting the regime they live under. It saddens me to see people here adopting that sort of twisted reasoning.

Dan,

The context of this matters a lot. Arguing that civilians are hostage to a genocidal regime is not saying they are not innocent. Some are, some aren't. There were probably a lot of Japanese soldiers who fought and died because they were afraid of what might happen to their families if they did not. There were plenty of families that kept their mouth shut and went about their business for the same reasons. In totalitarian or fascist regimes there is a lot of effective propaganda. In Videla's Argentina where I lived for a short while when I was young, they used to broadcast videotapes of dead victims of the government on TV as if they were still alive.

If the Japanese had developed a biological superweapon, could the US leaders have lived with themselves if they hadn't done what was necessary to win the war?

Jim

[BaalChatzaf]

But this is not extremism in the defense of liberty; it's merely your defense of genocide. You, after all, take no account of the liberty much less the lives of innocent individuals you'd so casually exterminate. And my guess is you probably have nothing against using coercion to a military in the first place. So the liberty of Americans who don't support your genocidal policies is likely to be trampled under your foot as well.

There has never been a war without collateral damage and that includes the 30 Years War and the Hundred Years War. It is the nature of the enterprise. Learn to live with that fact. Get with the Program.

And no one is talking Genocide. Rather it is the policy of Hard War which is what we used against Japan. Are the Japanese extinct? The important thing is to get The Bad Guys. The collateral damage happens because the Bad Guys do evil against us. If they would not do that to us, no blood would be shed. In a Hard War, as soon as the core of opposition is destroyed we can be kind to the survivors, as we were in Japan. No one was killed simply because they were Japanese.

We should be prepared to bomb as many cities and level as many Madrassas and Mosques as is required until the Jihadis are wiped out or rendered harmless. After that we can practice our compassion with the survivors.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan2100]

Dan,

I agree that there was resistance to the regime. Because the largest minority in Japan were various strains of Buddhism, much of that resistance was passive militarily. Many religious minorities who would not submit to the Shinto talisman were jailed, given starvation rations and beaten severely. Tsunesaburo Makaguchi, the president of Soka Gakkai died in prison in 1944 and his disciple Josei Toda suffered health complications from his stay in prison for the rest of his life.

Jim

I'm not even talking about resistance, passive or active. My point is that it's much more likely most people only acquiesced to War Party rule in Japan. To see this people as supporters and not innocent steps over the line, in my opinion -- over the line into terrorist logic. In fact, it's the kind of argument I've often seen offered up by terrorists and their supporters: the civilians they target are not innocent because they're not actively resisting or protesting the regime they live under. It saddens me to see people here adopting that sort of twisted reasoning.

Dan,

The context of this matters a lot. Arguing that civilians are hostage to a genocidal regime is not saying they are not innocent. Some are, some aren't. There were probably a lot of Japanese soldiers who fought and died because they were afraid of what might happen to their families if they did not. There were plenty of families that kept their mouth shut and went about their business for the same reasons. In totalitarian or fascist regimes there is a lot of effective propaganda. In Videla's Argentina where I lived for a short while when I was young, they used to broadcast videotapes of dead victims of the government on TV as if they were still alive.

If the Japanese had developed a biological superweapon, could the US leaders have lived with themselves if they hadn't done what was necessary to win the war?

Jim

Um, the problem here is that there is no direct link between terror bombing and winning -- as was pointed out before. (Also, the Japanese were ready to surrender earlier on condition -- the main condition being, if my memory's correct, that the Emperor not be dethroned. Well, he wasn't.) The various killings of innocents did not even achieve the goal -- or both Germany and Japan would've surrendered much earlier.

Regarding, too, hypotheticals, like a biological superweapon, that's a red herring, don't you think? The truth is by mid-1942, the tide had turned. But by mid-1945, they were no longer an active threat to the US and there seems to have been no reason for killing innocents.

Again, too, if this kind of killing of innocents works so well in winning wars, then why didn't Germany win the Battle of Britain? Why didn't, too, the Soviets use strategic bombing on each other? Why didn't the German use of some strategic bombing on the Soviets work? The Soviets, in fact, lost huge numbers of people, civilian included, yet continued to fight on. If you were correct here, don't you think the German bombing and killing of Soviet civilians would've brought the Soviets to the knees? And, also, don't you think that bombing German cities -- which killed plenty of innocents -- would've brought Germany to its knees?

[dan2100]

But this is not extremism in the defense of liberty; it's merely your defense of genocide. You, after all, take no account of the liberty much less the lives of innocent individuals you'd so casually exterminate. And my guess is you probably have nothing against using coercion to a military in the first place. So the liberty of Americans who don't support your genocidal policies is likely to be trampled under your foot as well.

There has never been a war without collateral damage and that includes the 30 Years War and the Hundred Years War. It is the nature of the enterprise. Learn to live with that fact. Get with the Program.

It's interesting that you'd mention the Thirty Years War, which depopulated parts of what is now Germany. Why would you mention that in this context? To make your case, wouldn't you want to mention wars that were actually much less harsh?

I'm also unsure why you believe the Hundred Years War -- a conflict even many militarists view as one of the longest pointless wars or series of wars in history.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Dan,

I agree that there was resistance to the regime. Because the largest minority in Japan were various strains of Buddhism, much of that resistance was passive militarily. Many religious minorities who would not submit to the Shinto talisman were jailed, given starvation rations and beaten severely. Tsunesaburo Makaguchi, the president of Soka Gakkai died in prison in 1944 and his disciple Josei Toda suffered health complications from his stay in prison for the rest of his life.

Jim

I'm not even talking about resistance, passive or active. My point is that it's much more likely most people only acquiesced to War Party rule in Japan. To see this people as supporters and not innocent steps over the line, in my opinion -- over the line into terrorist logic. In fact, it's the kind of argument I've often seen offered up by terrorists and their supporters: the civilians they target are not innocent because they're not actively resisting or protesting the regime they live under. It saddens me to see people here adopting that sort of twisted reasoning.

Dan,

The context of this matters a lot. Arguing that civilians are hostage to a genocidal regime is not saying they are not innocent. Some are, some aren't. There were probably a lot of Japanese soldiers who fought and died because they were afraid of what might happen to their families if they did not. There were plenty of families that kept their mouth shut and went about their business for the same reasons. In totalitarian or fascist regimes there is a lot of effective propaganda. In Videla's Argentina where I lived for a short while when I was young, they used to broadcast videotapes of dead victims of the government on TV as if they were still alive.

If the Japanese had developed a biological superweapon, could the US leaders have lived with themselves if they hadn't done what was necessary to win the war?

Jim

Um, the problem here is that there is no direct link between terror bombing and winning -- as was pointed out before. (Also, the Japanese were ready to surrender earlier on condition -- the main condition being, if my memory's correct, that the Emperor not be dethroned. Well, he wasn't.) The various killings of innocents did not even achieve the goal -- or both Germany and Japan would've surrendered much earlier.

Regarding, too, hypotheticals, like a biological superweapon, that's a red herring, don't you think? The truth is by mid-1942, the tide had turned. But by mid-1945, they were no longer an active threat to the US and there seems to have been no reason for killing innocents.

Again, too, if this kind of killing of innocents works so well in winning wars, then why didn't Germany win the Battle of Britain? Why didn't, too, the Soviets use strategic bombing on each other? Why didn't the German use of some strategic bombing on the Soviets work? The Soviets, in fact, lost huge numbers of people, civilian included, yet continued to fight on. If you were correct here, don't you think the German bombing and killing of Soviet civilians would've brought the Soviets to the knees? And, also, don't you think that bombing German cities -- which killed plenty of innocents -- would've brought Germany to its knees?

Dan,

In this day and age with uncontested superior air power we talk about be able to choose targets in war but even that ability is limited. In World War 2, you could generally take heavy losses attacking mostly military targets.

The only reason the Soviets held out against blitzkrieg was that the German supply lines were stretched and Hitler faced a harsh Russian winter.

The English would have yielded eventually to the Nazis if the US hadn't entered the European theatre.

I don't know enough about the dynamics of the Soviet engagement of Japan in China to know if that caused their surrender. It is clear that the US had a more comprehensive invasion with chemical weapons planned if the atomic bombs didn't cause surrender.

I do think the US had to consider the Japanese bioweapons program, it turns out that the Japanese program was much less effective as an airborne weapon than MacArthur anticipated and there is much debate whether any useful information was gathered from Unit 731 in exchange for amnesty from war crimes.

I recognize your position that targeting of civilians is never justified, but if an army took that stance, it would soon find the opposition army mingled among the civilians.

I've enjoyed this debate and generally found your positions cogent and well thought out. You can have the last word with a rebuttal if you want it.

Jim

[dan2100]

Dan,

The context of this matters a lot. Arguing that civilians are hostage to a genocidal regime is not saying they are not innocent. Some are, some aren't. There were probably a lot of Japanese soldiers who fought and died because they were afraid of what might happen to their families if they did not. There were plenty of families that kept their mouth shut and went about their business for the same reasons. In totalitarian or fascist regimes there is a lot of effective propaganda. In Videla's Argentina where I lived for a short while when I was young, they used to broadcast videotapes of dead victims of the government on TV as if they were still alive.

If the Japanese had developed a biological superweapon, could the US leaders have lived with themselves if they hadn't done what was necessary to win the war?

Jim

Um, the problem here is that there is no direct link between terror bombing and winning -- as was pointed out before. (Also, the Japanese were ready to surrender earlier on condition -- the main condition being, if my memory's correct, that the Emperor not be dethroned. Well, he wasn't.) The various killings of innocents did not even achieve the goal -- or both Germany and Japan would've surrendered much earlier.

Regarding, too, hypotheticals, like a biological superweapon, that's a red herring, don't you think? The truth is by mid-1942, the tide had turned. But by mid-1945, they were no longer an active threat to the US and there seems to have been no reason for killing innocents.

Again, too, if this kind of killing of innocents works so well in winning wars, then why didn't Germany win the Battle of Britain? Why didn't, too, the Soviets use strategic bombing on each other? Why didn't the German use of some strategic bombing on the Soviets work? The Soviets, in fact, lost huge numbers of people, civilian included, yet continued to fight on. If you were correct here, don't you think the German bombing and killing of Soviet civilians would've brought the Soviets to the knees? And, also, don't you think that bombing German cities -- which killed plenty of innocents -- would've brought Germany to its knees?

Dan,

In this day and age with uncontested superior air power we talk about be able to choose targets in war but even that ability is limited. In World War 2, you could generally take heavy losses attacking mostly military targets.

The only reason the Soviets held out against blitzkrieg was that the German supply lines were stretched and Hitler faced a harsh Russian winter.

The English would have yielded eventually to the Nazis if the US hadn't entered the European theatre.

I don't know enough about the dynamics of the Soviet engagement of Japan in China to know if that caused their surrender. It is clear that the US had a more comprehensive invasion with chemical weapons planned if the atomic bombs didn't cause surrender.

I do think the US had to consider the Japanese bioweapons program, it turns out that the Japanese program was much less effective as an airborne weapon than MacArthur anticipated and there is much debate whether any useful information was gathered from Unit 731 in exchange for amnesty from war crimes.

I recognize your position that targeting of civilians is never justified, but if an army took that stance, it would soon find the opposition army mingled among the civilians.

I've enjoyed this debate and generally found your positions cogent and well thought out. You can have the last word with a rebuttal if you want it.

Jim

No time tonight to cover all these issues, but to make two minor points. One, the Germans lost the Battle of Britain in 1940 -- a little over a year before the US entered the war and long before the US had any direct military impact in Europe.

Two -- I hope you'll take this in good humor -- the privilege of granting who gets to say the last word belongs to no one, don't you think? You do understand, I hope, how some might see your granting of such as patronizing...

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Dan,

The context of this matters a lot. Arguing that civilians are hostage to a genocidal regime is not saying they are not innocent. Some are, some aren't. There were probably a lot of Japanese soldiers who fought and died because they were afraid of what might happen to their families if they did not. There were plenty of families that kept their mouth shut and went about their business for the same reasons. In totalitarian or fascist regimes there is a lot of effective propaganda. In Videla's Argentina where I lived for a short while when I was young, they used to broadcast videotapes of dead victims of the government on TV as if they were still alive.

If the Japanese had developed a biological superweapon, could the US leaders have lived with themselves if they hadn't done what was necessary to win the war?

Jim

Um, the problem here is that there is no direct link between terror bombing and winning -- as was pointed out before. (Also, the Japanese were ready to surrender earlier on condition -- the main condition being, if my memory's correct, that the Emperor not be dethroned. Well, he wasn't.) The various killings of innocents did not even achieve the goal -- or both Germany and Japan would've surrendered much earlier.

Regarding, too, hypotheticals, like a biological superweapon, that's a red herring, don't you think? The truth is by mid-1942, the tide had turned. But by mid-1945, they were no longer an active threat to the US and there seems to have been no reason for killing innocents.

Again, too, if this kind of killing of innocents works so well in winning wars, then why didn't Germany win the Battle of Britain? Why didn't, too, the Soviets use strategic bombing on each other? Why didn't the German use of some strategic bombing on the Soviets work? The Soviets, in fact, lost huge numbers of people, civilian included, yet continued to fight on. If you were correct here, don't you think the German bombing and killing of Soviet civilians would've brought the Soviets to the knees? And, also, don't you think that bombing German cities -- which killed plenty of innocents -- would've brought Germany to its knees?

Dan,

In this day and age with uncontested superior air power we talk about be able to choose targets in war but even that ability is limited. In World War 2, you could generally take heavy losses attacking mostly military targets.

The only reason the Soviets held out against blitzkrieg was that the German supply lines were stretched and Hitler faced a harsh Russian winter.

The English would have yielded eventually to the Nazis if the US hadn't entered the European theatre.

I don't know enough about the dynamics of the Soviet engagement of Japan in China to know if that caused their surrender. It is clear that the US had a more comprehensive invasion with chemical weapons planned if the atomic bombs didn't cause surrender.

I do think the US had to consider the Japanese bioweapons program, it turns out that the Japanese program was much less effective as an airborne weapon than MacArthur anticipated and there is much debate whether any useful information was gathered from Unit 731 in exchange for amnesty from war crimes.

I recognize your position that targeting of civilians is never justified, but if an army took that stance, it would soon find the opposition army mingled among the civilians.

I've enjoyed this debate and generally found your positions cogent and well thought out. You can have the last word with a rebuttal if you want it.

Jim

No time tonight to cover all these issues, but to make two minor points. One, the Germans lost the Battle of Britain in 1940 -- a little over a year before the US entered the war and long before the US had any direct military impact in Europe.

Two -- I hope you'll take this in good humor -- the privilege of granting who gets to say the last word belongs to no one, don't you think? You do understand, I hope, how some might see your granting of such as patronizing...

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Dan,

The context of this matters a lot. Arguing that civilians are hostage to a genocidal regime is not saying they are not innocent. Some are, some aren't. There were probably a lot of Japanese soldiers who fought and died because they were afraid of what might happen to their families if they did not. There were plenty of families that kept their mouth shut and went about their business for the same reasons. In totalitarian or fascist regimes there is a lot of effective propaganda. In Videla's Argentina where I lived for a short while when I was young, they used to broadcast videotapes of dead victims of the government on TV as if they were still alive.

If the Japanese had developed a biological superweapon, could the US leaders have lived with themselves if they hadn't done what was necessary to win the war?

Jim

Um, the problem here is that there is no direct link between terror bombing and winning -- as was pointed out before. (Also, the Japanese were ready to surrender earlier on condition -- the main condition being, if my memory's correct, that the Emperor not be dethroned. Well, he wasn't.) The various killings of innocents did not even achieve the goal -- or both Germany and Japan would've surrendered much earlier.

Regarding, too, hypotheticals, like a biological superweapon, that's a red herring, don't you think? The truth is by mid-1942, the tide had turned. But by mid-1945, they were no longer an active threat to the US and there seems to have been no reason for killing innocents.

Again, too, if this kind of killing of innocents works so well in winning wars, then why didn't Germany win the Battle of Britain? Why didn't, too, the Soviets use strategic bombing on each other? Why didn't the German use of some strategic bombing on the Soviets work? The Soviets, in fact, lost huge numbers of people, civilian included, yet continued to fight on. If you were correct here, don't you think the German bombing and killing of Soviet civilians would've brought the Soviets to the knees? And, also, don't you think that bombing German cities -- which killed plenty of innocents -- would've brought Germany to its knees?

Dan,

In this day and age with uncontested superior air power we talk about be able to choose targets in war but even that ability is limited. In World War 2, you could generally take heavy losses attacking mostly military targets.

The only reason the Soviets held out against blitzkrieg was that the German supply lines were stretched and Hitler faced a harsh Russian winter.

The English would have yielded eventually to the Nazis if the US hadn't entered the European theatre.

I don't know enough about the dynamics of the Soviet engagement of Japan in China to know if that caused their surrender. It is clear that the US had a more comprehensive invasion with chemical weapons planned if the atomic bombs didn't cause surrender.

I do think the US had to consider the Japanese bioweapons program, it turns out that the Japanese program was much less effective as an airborne weapon than MacArthur anticipated and there is much debate whether any useful information was gathered from Unit 731 in exchange for amnesty from war crimes.

I recognize your position that targeting of civilians is never justified, but if an army took that stance, it would soon find the opposition army mingled among the civilians.

I've enjoyed this debate and generally found your positions cogent and well thought out. You can have the last word with a rebuttal if you want it.

Jim

No time tonight to cover all these issues, but to make two minor points. One, the Germans lost the Battle of Britain in 1940 -- a little over a year before the US entered the war and long before the US had any direct military impact in Europe.

Two -- I hope you'll take this in good humor -- the privilege of granting who gets to say the last word belongs to no one, don't you think? You do understand, I hope, how some might see your granting of such as patronizing...

Dan,

I do take it in good humor. Reading my post again, I do see how it might have come across that way. I should have simply said that I'd run out of time for the topic. I apologize.

Jim

[Aaron]

In this day and age with uncontested superior air power we talk about be able to choose targets in war but even that ability is limited. In World War 2, you could generally take heavy losses attacking mostly military targets.

Arguing against collateral damage is not the same as arguing against intentionally killing innocents. I agree that accidentally hitting a hostage or bystander when shooting back at an attacker is regrettable but ultimately on the hands of the attacker. However, sometimes Objectivists - including big-Os such as Brook and Epstein in their 'Just War Theory vs. American Self Defense' - make the serious mistake of instead attempting to justify intentionally targeting innocents, not just collateral damage.

Some such attempts misplace individualism with collectivism when talking about foreign policy - e.g. attempting to treat 'Japan', 'US', etc. as individuals in an ethical equation and forgetting that those are placeholder collectives and the individuals still exist. Trying to justify killing anyone and everyone in a geographical area because the government in control of that area attacked someone else ignores the individuals. This attempt at collective guilt ultimately requires a collectivist, 'hive' view of ethics, at odds with Objectivism.

Sometimes simple pragmatism - 'end justifies the means' comes in too. This form seems generally behind the rationalization of Dresden, Hiroshima, etc. (fortunately I don't see many Oists arguing that every German or Japanese civilian 'deserved it'). Whether those mass killings of civilians actually led to the desired end may even be in question, but regardless the means is completely at odds with an individualist ethics including non initiation of force. Usually someone arguing pragmatically will back off when faced with a question like 'if the My Lai massacre helped motivate N Vietnamese, surrender would it be justified?' or 'if raping and murdering every third Japanese girl in America helped motivate Japan to surrender, would it be justified?'. It's not clear why they back off, though, as once someone accepts such pragmatism there isn't an objective basis for guidelines.

(I'm not concerned with non-Objectivists here; obviously it's possible to have someone embrace more twisted ethics.)

Aaron

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Arguing against collateral damage is not the same as arguing against intentionally killing innocents.

Aaron,

I agree with this. I would also include the damage to troop morale and the psychological damage this causes. It's not good to cultivate indifference to the suffering of innocents. With everything questionable in Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels, I believe him when he mentioned that the prison guards at WWII German concentration camps had serious problems with alcoholism, poor sleep, etc.

Many of our soldiers return from war with serious psychological damage. Killing innocents is not involved in every case, but it is a major concern.

I was never a soldier, but if I were, I do know I would never want to be fighting alongside a psychopath who got off on killing innocent people.

I agree that accidentally hitting a hostage or bystander when shooting back at an attacker is regrettable but ultimately on the hands of the attacker.

I reject this entire formulation. The ARI fundies like to use this pass-the-buck attitude to justify indifference to killing.

I hold that killing should never be a topic of indifference, and I also hold that morality has nothing to do with this situation in a trade-off manner ("I take the blame for you killing this one, but you take the blame for me killing that one." I.e., using human lives like poker chips in a casino.) The only real morality on our side I see is the good of attempting to win the war and the good of attempting to minimize damage to innocents. The morality I see on an aggressor's (bully's) side is the evil of attacking a peaceful country.

But when inevitable force is involved, it's all regrettable, not a moral bargain for anyone.

For instance, I think it's wrong to justify the WWII Japanese innocent victims of the atomic bomb by saying that their deaths were the fault of the Japanese government. Our killing those innocents did not make the Japanese government any more evil than it already was. It was less bad to do that than the alternative, but that did not make it good, nor did it make it a pass-the-buck blame game. It was something regrettable that had to be done to win the war. Nothing more. And it was horrible to have to do it. It was not something good to do.

Michael

[sbeaulieu]

I can assure you that the US does everything to scrutinize its soldiers' actions when in combat. Our Law of Armed Conflict is very explicit on who/what are considered legal targets. It's not in the least bit ambiguous. As the US is the most powerful military force on earth, we are always held under the microscope, and should be. I can also attest that infractions are dealt with severely. The DoD doesn't take kindly to armed personnel making assumptions/interpretations of the LOAC when it's plain as day.

We tread as carefully as possible when engaging the enemy. No intel is 100% accurate and as such, decisions on the ground are crucial. Experience and mettle are a must for any warrior. Unfortunately, the pace and rigors of war are a contributing factor to bad decisions, decisions being the key word. Innocent or not, it's on the person who pulls the trigger. They have that choice, and once made can never be undone.

~ Shane