Has killing civilians ever been justified during wartime? (e.g. Hiroshima/Nagasaki WW2)

[an anarchist]

Note: I have this in historical debates, not political debates.

We all know that civilians are presently being killed en masse in Palestine.

Some proponents of this are seemingly pointing to history as justification. “What did the USA do after pearl harbor?” The Americans ultimately used atomic bombs on Japanese civilians. So let’s start there.

Was the slaughter of Japanese civilians via atomic bomb justified?

It brought an end to the literal deadliest conflict that mankind has ever seen. The alternative of a full fledged invasion would have been deadlier, many say.

It‘s like the Trolley Problem in a way.

Do you pull the lever (nuke Japan)?

What I am trying to ask is, has it ever been right to kill civilians during wartime? If so, then don’t the proponents of the present slaughter have a point?

Personally, I think civilians should never be killed in war. “What are we supposed to do then?” Not have wars by not having governments, duh. But this thread isn’t about anarchism, it’s about whether killing civilians has been justified historically.

 

[sun rise]

There's two things that occur to me. The first is easier to deal with "has it ever been right to target civilians during wartime"? That's the WWII A-bomb issue. "Second, it must be a city primarily devoted to military production. " so it's not just the soldiers but the capability to continue the war with worse loss of life. Harry Truman’s Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (U.S. National Park Service) is where I got the quote from.

The second question involves the horrible expression"collateral damage" and hostage taking. If an army starts a war and then hides among civilians to avoid a response, what should the response be? There is no simple, obvious answer to me. Of course the first question is whether or not the army that started the war can be dealt with avoiding or minimizing deaths. If the answer is yes, then that is the correct course of action. But if the answer is no or the expected cost in human life overall is worse then the consequences of killing civilians, then the ugly hard choice is to take action. The WWII Japan article went in to other options that were considered.

So my answer is that it was necessary in that case to prevent worse suffering over time.

 

[We Never Know]

Note: I have this in historical debates, not political debates.

We all know that civilians are presently being killed en masse in Palestine.

Some proponents of this are seemingly pointing to history as justification. “What did the USA do after pearl harbor?” The Americans ultimately used atomic bombs on Japanese civilians. So let’s start there.

Was the slaughter of Japanese civilians via atomic bomb justified?

It brought an end to the literal deadliest conflict that mankind has ever seen. The alternative of a full fledged invasion would have been deadlier, many say.

It‘s like the Trolley Problem in a way.

View attachment 85329
Do you pull the lever (nuke Japan)?

What I am trying to ask is, has it ever been right to kill civilians during wartime? If so, then don’t the proponents of the present slaughter have a point?

Personally, I think civilians should never be killed in war. “What are we supposed to do then?” Not have wars by not having governments, duh. But this thread isn’t about anarchism, it’s about whether killing civilians has been justified historically.

Not justifiable but inevitable

 

[Eddi]

OK, I've been doing some thinking and this is what I've come up with:

That is not a decision anyone would ever make in their capacity as a human

Only states can set off nukes or wage wars

When you lead a nation state you put your humanity to one side and become the brain of the state

You become the office you occupy and stop being yourself

The state is inhuman and amoral

Any person who is in charge of a state becomes inhuman and amoral

So the way you've framed this question is flawed

But this doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute world leaders who commit war crimes

It means that the dilemma you posit is not one anyone would face in their capacity as a human being

It would not be a moral choice made by a human, it would be a calculation made by a state

Edit: And I've made a moral choice never to assume leadership of the state. Which is just as well, as that's never going to happen! So for me this is a total non-issue

 

[Stevicus]

Note: I have this in historical debates, not political debates.

We all know that civilians are presently being killed en masse in Palestine.

Some proponents of this are seemingly pointing to history as justification. “What did the USA do after pearl harbor?” The Americans ultimately used atomic bombs on Japanese civilians. So let’s start there.

Was the slaughter of Japanese civilians via atomic bomb justified?

It brought an end to the literal deadliest conflict that mankind has ever seen. The alternative of a full fledged invasion would have been deadlier, many say.

It‘s like the Trolley Problem in a way.

View attachment 85329
Do you pull the lever (nuke Japan)?

What I am trying to ask is, has it ever been right to kill civilians during wartime? If so, then don’t the proponents of the present slaughter have a point?

Personally, I think civilians should never be killed in war. “What are we supposed to do then?” Not have wars by not having governments, duh. But this thread isn’t about anarchism, it’s about whether killing civilians has been justified historically.

The idea behind terror bombing of civilians was ostensibly to break their will to fight, although I don't know how truly effective it is, as far as military strategies go. It obviously didn't work to break the British resolve when the Luftwaffe bombed London and killed civilians. It took years of massive bombings of German cities, and even then, the Germans didn't surrender until Allied ground forces occupied most of their country. And then, in Japan, there were still some Japanese military leaders who were willing to go on fighting even despite the dropping of the atomic bombs.

I don't think there's any actual justification for targeting civilians. It has happened historically, in past wars, although it depends on the time period and nations involved. In past eras, armies might have typically fought battles outside of populated areas, minimizing civilian involvement, although once the battle was over, there might be looting, pillaging, and even worse victimization of civilians by the invading armies.

On the other hand, if a town is fortified and walled in, with an army ready to defend and civilians inside, an attacking army might use weapons which could entail civilian casualties. That's where it can get dicey. If two sides are at war, and one side is dug in and fortified inside an area where civilians live, then the other side is not likely to retreat. They'll have to attack a fortified position in order to destroy the enemy army or cause them to retreat from the objective. In situations like that, there have been times when the sieging army might offer a temporary cease fire to evacuate the civilian population so they can reach safety before the battle.

Or in the case of France in 1940, the French declared Paris an open city, which spared the city and its population a destructive urban battle which devastated so many cities in that war.

Once it seems clear that an army has lost the war, shouldn't they surrender as soon as possible, in order to minimize loss of life? Or should they fight on to the bitter end, taking as many of the enemy down with them as possible, leaving them with nothing but scorched earth?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Note: I have this in historical debates, not political debates.

We all know that civilians are presently being killed en masse in Palestine.

Some proponents of this are seemingly pointing to history as justification. “What did the USA do after pearl harbor?” The Americans ultimately used atomic bombs on Japanese civilians. So let’s start there.

Was the slaughter of Japanese civilians via atomic bomb justified?

It brought an end to the literal deadliest conflict that mankind has ever seen. The alternative of a full fledged invasion would have been deadlier, many say.

It‘s like the Trolley Problem in a way.

View attachment 85329
Do you pull the lever (nuke Japan)?

What I am trying to ask is, has it ever been right to kill civilians during wartime? If so, then don’t the proponents of the present slaughter have a point?

Personally, I think civilians should never be killed in war. “What are we supposed to do then?” Not have wars by not having governments, duh. But this thread isn’t about anarchism, it’s about whether killing civilians has been justified historically.

I think it's unavoidable unfortunately.

Maybe with advanced technology, war can become more surgical and less collateral.

 

[F1fan]

Frankly I think the only civilized wars were between groups of armed soldiers on a remote field of battle. Wars have often been waged against a people or nation of people, and not a professional opponent. I think the ethics of war is wage and often self-justifed. Even WW1 tried to wage a war between armies, but by WW2 it became expanded to nations of people.

Or in the case of France in 1940, the French declared Paris an open city, which spared the city and its population a destructive urban battle which devastated so many cities in that war.

An interesting foornote is that Hitler had ordered for many paris landmarks to be destroyed as Germans withdrew from the city and the German officers in charge refused to carry out the order.

Once it seems clear that an army has lost the war, shouldn't they surrender as soon as possible, in order to minimize loss of life? Or should they fight on to the bitter end, taking as many of the enemy down with them as possible, leaving them with nothing but scorched earth?

There's a documentary on YouTube that covers wh Germany did not surrender and I intend to watch it at some point. From what I understand may German officers wanted to negotiate a surrender but Hitler was determined the fight till the end. Hitler survived 44 assassination attempts, some from his own officers.

 

[Stevicus]

Frankly I think the only civilized wars were between groups of armed soldiers on a remote field of battle. Wars have often been waged against a people or nation of people, and not a professional opponent. I think the ethics of war is wage and often self-justifed. Even WW1 tried to wage a war between armies, but by WW2 it became expanded to nations of people.

Even those which were fought on remote fields of battle, the civilians could still be victimized. A town might have had to pay some sort of tribute to an invading army to avoid being looted and/or burned out. Technology changed war immensely, not just in terms of weapons, but also transportation. Airplanes, motorized vehicles, tanks, faster ships/subs, railroads, etc. We can move armies much faster and deliver bombs, artillery, and bullets farther and faster.

I think WW1 was humanity's first real taste of industrialized warfare, which took the glamor and glory out of war which might have been heralded in times past. And after 20 years of industrial and technological progress, WW2 was even more devastating.

I think the Allies justified most of their position based on the view that the Axis enemy was just so much worse and couldn't be dealt with any other way.

An interesting foornote is that Hitler had ordered for many paris landmarks to be destroyed as Germans withdrew from the city and the German officers in charge refused to carry out the order.

There's a documentary on YouTube that covers wh Germany did not surrender and I intend to watch it at some point. From what I understand may German officers wanted to negotiate a surrender but Hitler was determined the fight till the end. Hitler survived 44 assassination attempts, some from his own officers.

I think Hitler knew after the demand for unconditional surrender that he was fighting for his life. I think Germany's only real hope would have been to play the Western Allies and the USSR off against each other and hope for some kind of rift that could have broken the alliance. But that was not going to happen.

 

[Estro Felino]

What disgusts me is double standards.

Because I have seen that those who are against Israel's war strategies against Gaza civilians are the same people who say that the Allies did good in bombing Nazi Germany, killing the civilians of Dresden and Berlin.
Or they think Oppenheimer is a hero and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.

Evidently they think that Gazans are all saints whereas Germans are all dirty and bad. And deserve to die a priori.

 

[Estro Felino]

Let's say the truth.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two experiments.

Japan was already on its knees. America had already won WW2.
They just tested the two kinds of bombs on civilians.

This is monstrous.

Are they still alive those who dropped the bombs? I tell them: what you did was monstrous.

 

[Revoltingest]

What disgusts me is double standards.

Because I have seen that those who are against Israel's war strategies against Gaza civilians are the same people who say that the Allies did good in bombing Nazi Germany, killing the civilians of Dresden and Berlin.
Or they think Oppenheimer is a hero and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.

Evidently they think that Gazans are all saints whereas Germans are all dirty and bad. And deserve to die a priori.

Perhaps you find it a double standard because you
don't know the views of others. It's not a simple
as the binary choice: Acceptable / Not acceptable.
I can think of other factors....
- Is a country defending against an existential threat?
- Would the attack that kills civilians achieve a military
objective that would result in fewer overall deaths?
- Does the country try to minimize civilian deaths?

 

[McBell]

Note: I have this in historical debates, not political debates.

We all know that civilians are presently being killed en masse in Palestine.

Some proponents of this are seemingly pointing to history as justification. “What did the USA do after pearl harbor?” The Americans ultimately used atomic bombs on Japanese civilians. So let’s start there.

Was the slaughter of Japanese civilians via atomic bomb justified?

It brought an end to the literal deadliest conflict that mankind has ever seen. The alternative of a full fledged invasion would have been deadlier, many say.

It‘s like the Trolley Problem in a way.

View attachment 85329
Do you pull the lever (nuke Japan)?

What I am trying to ask is, has it ever been right to kill civilians during wartime? If so, then don’t the proponents of the present slaughter have a point?

Personally, I think civilians should never be killed in war. “What are we supposed to do then?” Not have wars by not having governments, duh. But this thread isn’t about anarchism, it’s about whether killing civilians has been justified historically.

Wow.
You are all over the place.

Has killing civilians ever been justified during wartime? (thread title)​

Yes
The killing of civilians has always been justified by someone...

Has the murder of civilians ever been justified? (poll question)​

Yes
The murder of civilians is also justified by someone...
Especially during wartime.

What I am trying to ask is, has it ever been right to kill civilians during wartime? (Opening Post)​

IMO, no.

 

[libre]

It was entirely unnecessary so it was unjustified.

If it were somehow necessary, it would be another conversation.

From US admiral William Leathy: "“that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender …. In being the first to use it we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”"

Dwight Eisenhower said "the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

I don't think there is much more that needs to be said.

 

[Estro Felino]

Perhaps you find it a double standard because you
don't know the views of others. It's not a simple
as the binary choice: Acceptable / Not acceptable.
I can think of other factors....
- Is a country defending against an existential threat?
- Would the attack that kills civilians achieve a military
objective that would result in fewer overall deaths?
- Does the country try to minimize civilian deaths?

Explain me, then.

Why was the bombing of Dresden justified?
And why the bombing of Gaza isn't.

 

[Eddi]

From US admiral William Leathy: "“that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender …. In being the first to use it we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”"

They spent billions and billions of dollars developing nuclear weapons, tens of thousands of scientists and technicians working in huge facilities

If they hadn't used the nukes as they did I think the US government may have thought that all that would have been a huge and pointless waste

And maybe they wanted the Soviets to know what they'd got?

Who knows what was going through their minds!

 

[Estro Felino]

They spent billions and billions of dollars developing nuclear weapons, tens of thousands of scientists and technicians working in huge facilities

If they hadn't used the nukes as they did I think the US government may have thought that all that would have been a huge and pointless waste

And maybe they wanted the Soviets to know what they'd got?

Who knows what was going through their minds!

They needed some lab rats to test the effects of the two kinds of nuclear bombs on humans.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Note: I have this in historical debates, not political debates.

We all know that civilians are presently being killed en masse in Palestine.

Some proponents of this are seemingly pointing to history as justification. “What did the USA do after pearl harbor?” The Americans ultimately used atomic bombs on Japanese civilians. So let’s start there.

Was the slaughter of Japanese civilians via atomic bomb justified?

It brought an end to the literal deadliest conflict that mankind has ever seen. The alternative of a full fledged invasion would have been deadlier, many say.

It‘s like the Trolley Problem in a way.

View attachment 85329
Do you pull the lever (nuke Japan)?

What I am trying to ask is, has it ever been right to kill civilians during wartime? If so, then don’t the proponents of the present slaughter have a point?

Personally, I think civilians should never be killed in war. “What are we supposed to do then?” Not have wars by not having governments, duh. But this thread isn’t about anarchism, it’s about whether killing civilians has been justified historically.

The only reason to deliberately civilians in a war is to prevent more deaths in the future. So if you think killing 10 civilians will save the lives of one hundred others in the future, you can justify the act. But it is still a war crime and should be prosecuted.

As for whether the atom bombs on Japan were justified. I think the first bomb did save future lives by making the Japanese surrender sooner instead of fighting till the bitter end, but the second bomb was unnecessary and not justified at all.

The killing of so many Palestinian civilians is currently not justified, because the IDF should be going after Hamas inside tunnels by entering the tunnels, not by dropping 2000 pound bombs on a thousand civilians on the surface hoping to catch one Hamas terrorist hidden among them. This tactic of targeting entire populations probably saves some IDF lives but causes far more civilian deaths.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Explain me, then.

Why was the bombing of Dresden justified?
And why the bombing of Gaza isn't.

Because in Dresden the allies were fighting professional well equipped, well trained armies who could turn out to be very lethal to hundreds of thousands of allied forces as well as allied civilians.

In Gaza, the IDF is fighting a ragtag bunch of terrorists neither that well armed nor well trained. The IDF should be going after Hamas by entering their hiding places, their tunnels and taking them on headon. Instead, the IDF is dropping huge bombs on civilians hoping to get a few Hamas in their midst. Frankly I think the IDF are being cowardly - if you are so brave - go into the tunnels after Hamas, don't shoot up and bomb the surface population.

 

[Stevicus]

Let's say the truth.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two experiments.

Japan was already on its knees. America had already won WW2.
They just tested the two kinds of bombs on civilians.

This is monstrous.

Are they still alive those who dropped the bombs? I tell them: what you did was monstrous.

It was monstrous, just as many bombings and war offensives have been. The atomic bombs and other terror bombings are/were a demonstration of power. Except it wasn't just a demonstration for the Japanese.

It's basically a way of saying "We can hit you where it hurts, so you'd better think twice before messing with us again." Whether or not the message is actually received that way is another matter.

 

[Estro Felino]

It was monstrous, just as many bombings and war offensives have been. The atomic bombs and other terror bombings are/were a demonstration of power. Except it wasn't just a demonstration for the Japanese.

It's basically a way of saying "We can hit you where it hurts, so you'd better think twice before messing with us again." Whether or not the message is actually received that way is another matter.

...and in two cities which are very, very, very far from the Imperial Palace of Tokyo.
So it's clear that they were two experiments. Not warnings to the emperor.