The morality of bombing civilians The morality of bombing civilians - Page 7

starting strength gym
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 103

Thread: The morality of bombing civilians

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    143

    Default

    • wichita falls texas march seminar date
    • woodmere new york april seminar date
    Quote Originally Posted by JJdd View Post
    Do you support the Geneva Convention? What about traditional rules of war and gentleman's agreements? Those worked for a long time. And the point is the US nuking Japan was punitive, not militarily necessary. They were ready to surrender. That is evil regardless of your thoughts on total war.
    Japan had just publicly rejected a call for surrender before Hiroshima.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJdd View Post
    The reason the allied civilian death counts are so high is not because of the axis targeting them en masse but because the Russian and Chinese leaderships were incompetent and evil. Mass starvation and soldiers being sent to the front without weapons are not the fault of the axis. It was never the axis intentions to conquer the planet and it wasn't realistic to expect them to do so.
    It kind of was their fault, wasn't it? They invaded these desperate countries in the first place. They only didn't immediately intend to conquer the planet because there was no way they feasibly could at the time. The Americas presented a very big challenge for that. They also would've had to ultimately deal with each other in that regard.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    As policy? How do you know this?
    Yes, they're issued to them during periods where sleep is impossible. This isn't a secret; it doesn't show up in the media much (one example I can think of is in the HBO series "Generation Kill" about the first Gulf War) but you can find lots of references to it in military academic literature. I also have some friends who are ex-marines who said they were given them in Iraq at various times.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    La Jolla California
    Posts
    1,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by old guy View Post
    My son is a Marine. I got to know a lot of them pretty well and thank God none of them talk like this. But they really are tough guys so felt no need to I guess.
    'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

    Your son and his friends are the real heroes.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    525

    Default

    It is never moral to target civilians, nor is it effective in modern warfare given the precision strike and ISR capabilities of the US Military. Collateral damage is minimized, but is almost never avoidable. This was especially true in Iraq and Afghanistan given the urban/communal environments and because our enemy almost ubiquitously held civilians in positions where they would be secondary casualties or outright murdered them to make it appear U.S., ISAF or indigenous forces were responsible.

    It is useful to study history and learn the deep lessons of the past, but in some ways the battlefield doctrine of the early 20th century is about as applicable as studying the Romans or Greeks.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Chicago Burbs, IL
    Posts
    769

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BillA View Post
    For those of you interested in the numbers and effects, the contemporary US Strategic Bombing Surveys covers both the European & Pacific Theaters. It's a long slog of a read—perhaps it's better to do the ol' college paper survey - Intro, Conclusion, sections of interest—but if you are looking for insight into the morality of the bombing, you won't find it here.

    The United States Bombing Surveys, (European War) (Pacific War).
    I had not read this in may years... and confess to only getting through the European portion this time.
    Google "Victor Davis Hansen" if you want a serious footing on the morality of bombing question. I am unaware of anyone his equal on the topic.
    After reading widely on the topic my whole life, Hansen change my view of the war materially.

    And yes, I was in error leaving Hungary out of the "Axis" countries. Hell, I knew that when the Russians surrounded Stalingrad, they did so by attacking Hungarian troops. Marking the Axis powers was an after thought, and Hungarian casualties were as likely as not from the "Allied" power Russia. Certainly in the decades of suffering that followed the war for Hungary, that was the case.

    If we were really interested in a vexing moral issue, it would be our alliance with Russia.

    There are no easy answers, only easy questions.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Rowe View Post
    It is never moral to target civilians, nor is it effective in modern warfare given the precision strike and ISR capabilities of the US Military. Collateral damage is minimized, but is almost never avoidable. This was especially true in Iraq and Afghanistan given the urban/communal environments and because our enemy almost ubiquitously held civilians in positions where they would be secondary casualties or outright murdered them to make it appear U.S., ISAF or indigenous forces were responsible.

    It is useful to study history and learn the deep lessons of the past, but in some ways the battlefield doctrine of the early 20th century is about as applicable as studying the Romans or Greeks.
    If by not striking civilians it leads to increased cost in blood and treasure do you consider that moral ?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Rowe View Post
    It is useful to study history and learn the deep lessons of the past, but in some ways the battlefield doctrine of the early 20th century is about as applicable as studying the Romans or Greeks.
    Your statement means that studying 20th century battlefield doctrine is incredibly applicable.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Chicago Burbs, IL
    Posts
    769

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JJdd View Post
    Do you support the Geneva Convention? What about traditional rules of war and gentleman's agreements? Those worked for a long time. And the point is the US nuking Japan was punitive, not militarily necessary. They were ready to surrender. That is evil regardless of your thoughts on total war.



    The reason the allied civilian death counts are so high is not because of the axis targeting them en masse but because the Russian and Chinese leaderships were incompetent and evil. Mass starvation and soldiers being sent to the front without weapons are not the fault of the axis. It was never the axis intentions to conquer the planet and it wasn't realistic to expect them to do so.
    World War 2 Casual
    World War II casualties - Wikipedia

    China
    Civilian Deaths due to Military Activity and Crimes Against Humanity
    7,357,000 to 8,191,000

    Civilian Deaths due to war related Famine and Disease
    5,000,000 to 10,000,000

    Russia was led with brutal stupidity, and China wasn't actually any more than a collection of states.
    None of that excuses the country attacking from inflicting millions of civilian casualties.

    Consider for a moment... what were the options, what were the costs and benefits of action and inaction.

    Japan was expanding and creating a "co-prosperity sphere" (aka empire). So murdering almost 20M civilians is not a good look.

    We dropped atomic bombs on lesser targets, when we could have just as easily hit BIG CITIES. We were determined to stop the murdering and conquest.
    We were not "all knowing". All strategies involved risks. One could argue that we took a risk by not bombing Tokyo with one of our few and precious atomic bombs.
    If we wanted to be punitive... we could have been considerably more punitive.
    We did as little damage as we could, while still winning. That was not true of our adversaries.

    GENEVA CONVENTION?
    Ironic that you invoke the Geneva Convention which Japan openly disregarded, they never signed it.

    READY TO SURRENDER?
    Yet they declined when asked.

    What were our options?
    What were the costs of action and inaction?

    In retrospect, what was done was reasonable and necessary.
    We demonstrated that "we could kill everybody" without killing everybody.
    It ran some danger not being enough, but it did, in fact, work.

    BTW, our massive casualty estimates for the invasion were flawed because were were unaware of the massive number of "suicide boats" prepared for the invasion.
    Inspired by the Kamikaze plane successes, these boat-bombs were to crash into landing craft. This, unaccounted for weapon system/defense plan could have wreaked havoc on our invasion plans.
    We could not succeed if we lost a lot of landing craft. It is unknown how much damage they would have done before being countered by carrier aircraft.

    Massive fire bombing campaigns were suggested using the newly available bombers stationed in Europe, coupled with closer islands captured with air strips.
    In my opinion, had initial landings "struggled", the fire bombing would have begun in earnest. This counter-factual scenario is speculation on my part.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    279

    Default

    There’s a reason it’s called War instead of Club Med.

    Interestingly, Operation Meetinghouse (firebombing Tokyo) was the single deadliest air raid of the war – greater than Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki (as single events)

    Have never quite understood the hand-wringing over Hiroshima and Nagasaki – as has been mentioned already, a lot of us wouldnÂ’t have been born if they hadnÂ’t. Doubt if any survivors of the Bataan Death March or Pearl Harbor ever shed a tear – suspect the same for any other survivor of the Pacific campaign. My dad and all my uncles fought in the war – none ever expressed any guilt, remorse, or reluctance to send the Enola Gay if there was a do-over. They would be incapable of understanding today's apology tour.

    Always a bit suspicious of surveys and polls, but this one seems fairly accurate:
    In 1945, a Gallup poll immediately after the bombing found that 85% of Americans approved of using the new atomic weapon on Japanese cities. In 1991, according to a Detroit Free Press survey conducted in both Japan and the U.S., 63% of Americans said the atomic bomb attacks on Japan were a justified means of ending the war, while only 29% thought the action was unjustified. At the same time, only 29% of Japanese said the bombing was justified, while 64% thought it was unwarranted.

    But a 2015 Pew Research Center survey finds that the share of Americans who believe the use of nuclear weapons was justified is now 56%, with 34% saying it was not. In Japan, only 14% say the bombing was justified, versus 79% who say it was not.

    Not surprisingly, there is a large generation gap among Americans in attitudes toward the bombings of Hiroshima. Seven-in-ten Americans ages 65 and older say the use of atomic weapons was justified, but only 47% of 18- to 29-year-olds agree. There is a similar partisan divide: 74% of Republicans but only 52% of Democrats see the use of nuclear weapons at the end of World War II as warranted.

    Am hardly a war monger, but think if Truman had listened to Patton and, later, MacArthur, we wouldnÂ’t have near the geopolitical problems we have today.

    LeMay later said "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." But since there is no real morality to any war, arguing over it is a foolÂ’s errand. Might as well be discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    Came across an interesting website that gives a sense of the reality of firebombing 67 Japanese cities - it provides the Name of Japanese city firebombed, the Percentage of the city destroyed and how Equivalent in size to the an American city - the remarkable take away is that even after this, the Japanese did not want to surrender (it's also worth noting that about 50% of Japanese wartime manufacturing was in located in residential neighborhoods, so the theory of surgical airstrikes doesn't really apply)
    ===================
    Yokohama 58 Cleveland
    Tokyo 51 New York
    Toyama 99 Chattanooga
    Nagoya 40 Los Angeles
    Osaka 35.1 Chicago
    Nishinomiya 11.9 Cambridge
    Siumonoseki 37.6 San Diego
    Kure 41.9 Toledo
    Kobe 55.7 Baltimore
    Omuta 35.8 Miami
    Wakayama 50 Salt Lake City
    Kawasaki 36.2 Portland
    Okayama 68.9 Long Beach
    Yawata 21.2 San Antonio
    Kagoshima 63.4 Richmond
    Amagasaki 18.9 Jacksonville
    Sasebo 41.4 Nashville
    Moh 23.3 Spokane
    Miyakonoio 26.5 Greensboro
    Nobeoka 25.2 Augusta
    Miyazaki 26.1 Davenport
    Hbe 20.7 Utica
    Saga 44.2 Waterloo
    Imabari 63.9 Stockton
    Matsuyama 64 Duluth
    Fukui 86 Evansville
    Tokushima 85.2 Ft. Wayne
    Sakai 48.2 Forth Worth
    Hachioji 65 Galveston
    Kumamoto 31.2 Grand Rapids
    Isezaki 56.7 Sioux Falls
    Takamatsu 67.5 Knoxville
    Akashi 50.2 Lexington
    Fukuyama 80.9 Macon
    Aomori 30 Montgomery
    Okazaki 32.2 Lincoln
    Oita 28.2 Saint Joseph
    Hiratsuka 48.4 Battle Creek
    Tokuyama 48.3 Butte
    Yokkichi 33.6 Charlotte
    Uhyamada 41.3 Columbus
    Ogaki 39.5 Corpus Christi
    Gifu 63.6 Des Moines
    Shizuoka 66.1 Oklahoma City
    Himeji 49.4 Peoria
    Fukuoka 24.1 Rochester
    Kochi 55.2 Sacramento
    Shimizu 42 San Jose
    Omura 33.1 Sante Fe
    Chiba 41 Savannah
    Ichinomiya 56.3 Sprinfield
    Nara 69.3 Boston
    Tsu 69.3 Topeka
    Kuwana 75 Tucson
    Toyohashi 61.9 Tulsa
    Numazu 42.3 Waco
    Chosi 44.2 Wheeling
    Kofu 78.6 South Bend
    Utsunomiya 43.7 Sioux City
    Mito 68.9 Pontiac
    Sendai 21.9 Omaha
    Tsuruga 65.1 Middleton
    Nagaoka 64.9 Madison
    Hitachi 72 Little Rock
    Kumagaya 55.1 Kenosha
    Hamamatsu 60.3 Hartford
    Maebashi 64.2 Wheeling

  10. #70
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    525

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Nockian View Post
    If by not striking civilians it leads to increased cost in blood and treasure do you consider that moral ?
    Two points of order: striking and targeting are two entirely different things, and yes - it would be moral. Also, what is moral and what is necessary are not always the same. We've clearly learned nothing from WWI, WWII, Korea or Vietnam with regards to moral intervention early and thoroughly. Reference the rise and continued presence of ISIS while the world clutched their pearls or demanded isolationism. It wasn't until Mattis, channeling Sherman and Pershing (and in my opinion the correct doctrine - if too late to still claim morality), waged a campaign of annihilation against our enemies that we were successful. How much better would it have been for everyone if we had annihilated them back before they slaughtered and raped the Yazidis?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yngvi View Post
    Your statement means that studying 20th century battlefield doctrine is incredibly applicable.
    No it doesn't. It means precisely what I said. I even put the reasoning in the answer. Hint: how many phalanxes do you think were employed by the time the Marian reforms were enacted? What do you suppose a 61mm mortar team would do to a Roman line? What do you suppose CAS with precision strike capabilities, electronic warfare, and night strike capabilities would have done when trying to take Iwo Jima? How about drones that can fly, and deliver strikes, globally?

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •