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

[Koldo]

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,

How did you reach this conclusion?

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.

That would however make Israel incur a bigger number of israeli casualties. It is the same rationale behind dropping the atomic bombs in Japan: US soldier's are much more valuable to the USA than japanese civilians.

 

[soulsurvivor]

How did you reach this conclusion?

It seems to be the consensus that without the atom bombs Japan would have fought for much longer and I agree.

That would however make Israel incur a bigger number of israeli casualties. It is the same rationale behind dropping the atomic bombs in Japan: US soldier's are much more valuable to the USA than Japanese civilians.

This is true. Israeli forces would suffer maybe several hundred casualties instead of the 80 they have lost up to now. But 10,000 or more Palestinian lives might have been saved. Naturally your own soldiers are more valuable, but armies need to analyze your own loss vs civilian cost. The US army has been making this analysis in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Israel does not seem to care at all about the civilian cost. Even worse, it is starving civilians and depriving them of water and fuel - definitely all war crimes.

 

[Koldo]

It seems to be the consensus that without the atom bombs Japan would have fought for much longer and I agree.

How many civilian casualties have the been avoided by nuking Japan though? Give me an estimate and your source.

This is true. Israeli forces would suffer maybe several hundred casualties instead of the 80 they have lost up to now. But 10,000 or more Palestinian lives might have been saved. Naturally your own soldiers are more valuable, but armies need to analyze your own loss vs civilian cost. The US army has been making this analysis in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Israel does not seem to care at all about the civilian cost. Even worse, it is starving civilians and depriving them of water and fuel - definitely all war crimes.

How many US civilians were killed by Japan in WW2 before it decided to drop the atomic bomb?

 

[Mock Turtle]

...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.

I think even Kyoto, the old capital, was considered a target, as was Tokyo, but the latter perhaps understandably might have been a step too far.

The man who saved Kyoto from the atomic bomb

One American official spared Kyoto the horrific fate that the atomic bomb inflicted on Nagasaki and Hiroshima: the question is why he did so.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[wellwisher]

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.

If you do the math, the military does not start or leads wars, since even the highest level Generals are usually subordinate to civilian leaders. Putin is in charge of one war, but he outside the formal military rules.

The result is the antagonist; civilian leaders, will drag civilians into the war, since the leaders, although civilians, will start wars and then buffer each other; international law, so someone else from team civilian will have to pay. The scapegoat becomes the little civilian guy and gal.

I do not agree with that math. It would make more sense to cut off the head of the snake, so you can avoid war and save both military and civilian life; pawns of war. I was only using Putin as an example, since the same type of civilians in charge applies in all the current wars; political civilians who are leading from inside the safety of a secure bunker.

In the US, the Democrat party is the party that is pushing for funding to have war in Ukraine go on forever. The Ukrainian civilians are taking the hit for the international civilian teams, who collectively make this and all wars possible.

What I would like to see are those who have the power to make war; civilian leaders, duke it out among themselves, in an arena, so the rest of us get to watch and not become pawns of their bad decisions. If only the leaders who want war had to fight, in the arena, each country would pick a different type of leadership, that either will avoid war or be better prepare to personally fight in the arena, until there is no war; just reality TV.

 

[soulsurvivor]

How many civilian casualties have the been avoided by nuking Japan though? Give me an estimate and your source.
How many US civilians were killed by Japan in WW2 before it decided to drop the atomic bomb?

The civilians killed by Japan were in other countries not the US. The casualties that were avoided by dropping bombs in Japan were mainly military ones, difficult to say how many were saved - all the allied armies were pretty exhausted by that time, but Japan did not seem willing to give up. You could argue that the bombs were unnecessary and Japan would have given up without them, but the fact is that the day the Japanese surrendered, there were serious attempts by some Japanese generals to prevent surrender and stage a coup. It could have gone on for several years.

 

[RestlessSoul]

There are only really two possible answers to this question; a simple 'No' requires no qualification, whereas a 'Yes' demands of the respondent considerable efforts at justifying the seemingly unconscionable. So Ockham's razor points to No.

 

[Stevicus]

...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.

That may have been part of it. They had other reasons for dropping the bombs, not just as experiments - although the data they have obtained from the reports after the bombings has been studied and considered useful.

As it turned out, sparing the Emperor and allowing him to remain on his throne proved to be the right choice. The Japanese populace was compliant and cooperative because the Emperor told them to be. They obeyed their Emperor. It was actually the smart move for the Japanese, too. If the Japanese had fought on to the bitter end, they likely would have had to deal with multiple countries occupying their country and possibly dividing it, such as what happened with Germany.

It should also be noted that the US helped both West Germany and Japan to rebuild after the war, and their post-war recovery was phenomenal. Part of this was fueled by the Red Scare and Cold War geopolitics, since we wanted to turn Germany and Japan into strong allies against the Communist Bloc (which is what they became).

 

[Koldo]

The civilians killed by Japan were in other countries not the US. The casualties that were avoided by dropping bombs in Japan were mainly military ones, difficult to say how many were saved - all the allied armies were pretty exhausted by that time, but Japan did not seem willing to give up. You could argue that the bombs were unnecessary and Japan would have given up without them, but the fact is that the day the Japanese surrendered, there were serious attempts by some Japanese generals to prevent surrender and stage a coup. It could have gone on for several years.

If you see it as justified to drop an atomic bomb to avoid military casualties in your side, how is it not justified to launch regular nukes to avoid civilian casualties in your side?

 

[Twilight Hue]

If you see it as justified to drop an atomic bomb to avoid military casualties in your side, how is it not justified to launch regular nukes to avoid civilian casualties in your side?

I think the mentality at the time would be if we don't do it to them first, they will do it to us.

It's no secret that it was a race to develop the atomic bomb. The US wasn't the only one working on it.

 

[Koldo]

I think the mentality at the time would be if we don't do it to them first, they will do it to us.

It's no secret that it was a race to develop the atomic bomb. The US wasn't the only one working on it.

I don't think they had this mentality. After all, was there any hint of an atomic bomb being developed in Hiroshima or Nagasaki? I haven't heard of that. As I see it, it was something a lot simpler: why care about japanese civilians? Just nuke everything until we win the war.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't think they had this mentality. After all, was there any hint of an atomic bomb being developed in Hiroshima or Nagasaki? I haven't heard of that. As I see it, it was something a lot simpler: why care about japanese civilians? Just nuke everything until we win the war.

Scary part is that could still happen.

 

[Revoltingest]

Explain me, then.

Why was the bombing of Dresden justified?

I don't say that it was.

And why the bombing of Gaza isn't.

1) Hamas doesn't pose an existential threat to Israel.
2) Israel was intentionally bombing civilians.
3) Israel has been the aggressor against Palestinians
since the founding of Israel.

 

[metis]

About 40 years ago, friend of mine asked me if I were president could I launch a nuclear counterattack on the Soviets if they launched nukes our way, and I said that I probably would. He pounded the door of a locker [we had just finished playing racquetball] and said "How could you as a Christian do that?".

The next day I visited him where we worked and told him that after thinking about it that he was right-- I couldn't.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't say that it was.

1) Hamas doesn't pose an existential threat to Israel.
2) Israel was intentionally bombing civilians.
3) Israel has been the aggressor against Palestinians
since the founding of Israel.

Thank your for answering.

 

[soulsurvivor]

If you see it as justified to drop an atomic bomb to avoid military casualties in your side, how is it not justified to launch regular nukes to avoid civilian casualties in your side?

It is no longer justifiable to use atomic weapons because all sides have atomic weapons. It would be the end of the world.

I think (maybe I am wrong), that the number of German civilian casualties are comparable to Japanese civilian casualties, so non-atomic bombs can also create the same kind of human catastrophe.

 

[Koldo]

It is no longer justifiable to use atomic weapons because all sides have atomic weapons. It would be the end of the world.

I think (maybe I am wrong), that the number of German civilian casualties are comparable to Japanese civilian casualties, so non-atomic bombs can also create the same kind of human catastrophe.

Surely they can create the same kind of catastrophe. But that means that Israel can still kill over a hundred thousand palestines before someone that supports the bombing of Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki can start criticizing Israel.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Surely they can create the same kind of catastrophe. But that means that Israel can still kill over a hundred thousand palestines before someone that supports the bombing of Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki can start criticizing Israel.

Israel could, but many in the US (including in Congress) are already criticizing Israel. The US would intervene at least diplomatically before that number is reached - I don't know at what point. We should really live in a world where the UN had some teeth.

 

[libre]

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

That may be true. In my view it's better to be a pointless waste of money than a pointless waste of human life. However I guess the US state likely doesn't agree as long as it's enemy civilian life.

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

I don't see the strategic benefit of this, as they had shared the intelligence with Britain but had chosen to keep it secret from the Soviets.
I do think it was to send a message to the world about challenging the US though.

Unbeknownst to Washington, the Soviets were already aware of the Nuclear program because American science journals mysteriously stopped publishing related material, as it had been secretly classified.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No civilian deaths in warfare are ever morally justifiable. The killing of an innocent person is always a tragedy, even moreso a defenseless person.