Were the atomic bombs necessary

[Numdydar]

About the only innocent civilian these days is a newborn [:(] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/27/world/middleeast/syria-isis-recruits-teenagers-as-suicide-bombers.html?_r=0

Civilians are not 'innocent'. Regardless if they hold a gun or not, they have to take responsibility for their society. If that society does not reflect the majority, then they need to take actions to change it. Even if it causes harm and upheaval. If they do not take actions to correct their society, then the only assumption that can be made is the majority of the civilians of that nation support their actions. Which means they have responsibility for their nation's actions. Ignorance of these actions is not a defense to avoid consequences just like ignorance of the law does not protect you from prosecution.

Just like the driver of a car of criminals that commit the actual act of the crime, knowingly or unknowingly, is still responsible for those actions, just like they directly participated in the deed. So to me, Japan was not full of 'innocent' civilians, just people that were not holding guns. After all did they not go to work to produce those guns, and planes, etc. that would kill American lives? Even those in the fields were responsible for feeding the people with the guns.

Total war, which WWII was, has to consider civilians as 'targets' regardless if we of today like it or not. As I cannot imagine a single occupation by a civilian that would not support a nations ability to wage war, if the entire nation's efforts are directed to war. Which the combatants of WWII were.

What happened with Nanking and in Europe were atrocities and were morally wrong, war crimes, etc. Because these did not impact any nation's war efforts. So in that regard, these civilians WERE innocent. But there seems to be some confusion between civilians behind enemy front lines (killing these is BAD) and those that are still helping with the war effort of their nation (killing these is part of total war). These two are NOT equal and should not be considered so.

Just some other points to consider [:)]

I agree with Warspite's comment above that this has been a very interesting and well reasoned thread for the most part which I'm sure is why it has not been locked yet. But we still have time [:D]

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

About the only innocent civilian these days is a newborn [:(] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/27/world/middleeast/syria-isis-recruits-teenagers-as-suicide-bombers.html?_r=0

Civilians are not 'innocent'. Regardless if they hold a gun or not, they have to take responsibility for their society. If that society does not reflect the majority, then they need to take actions to change it. Even if it causes harm and upheaval. If they do not take actions to correct their society, then the only assumption that can be made is the majority of the civilians of that nation support their actions. Which means they have responsibility for their nation's actions. Ignorance of these actions is not a defense to avoid consequences just like ignorance of the law does not protect you from prosecution.

No.

It's quite a clear line - if you're not in the military and not actively engaging in combat, then you're a civilian. The distinction is quite clear.

Yes, civilians can contribute to a war effort, but at the end of the day, combat is conducted by combatants, not by someone working in a factory far away from the frontline.

Lawyers who are much smarter than you or I have cleared up this issue long ago.

Just like the driver of a car of criminals that commit the actual act of the crime, knowingly or unknowingly, is still responsible for those actions, just like they directly participated in the deed. So to me, Japan was not full of 'innocent' civilians, just people that were not holding guns. After all did they not go to work to produce those guns, and planes, etc. that would kill American lives? Even those in the fields were responsible for feeding the people with the guns.

To use your example of a car, is the gas station attendant who filled the car with fuel then responsible?

[BattleMoose]

ORIGINAL: Ormbane

When we talk about "murdering innocent" people is there something behind those words other than manipulative emotional slogans? For me to benefit from a discussion like this we have to get past the stage of waving placards with manipulative slogans.

Ignore the manipulative emotional slogan as you put it, those words are technical. Murder, to distinguish from a lawful killing, it is an unlawful killing, and that is the correct word to be using. Innocent, to distinguish form a lawful target, perhaps innocent isn't quite correct but is much easier to say than, "lawful target".

Regardless if they hold a gun or not, they have to take responsibility for their society.

You are only ever responsible for your own actions. Any individual is not responsible for the actions of their government. While I certainly agree on a general level that the people are responsible for the actions of their government, this does not extend to the individual. That is, you cannot target a specific individual and hold him or her responsible and punish or murder them. Its essentially a form of collective punishment and is very much a violation of the Geneva conventions.

[Numdydar]

This distinction about civilians was made AFTER the war simply due to what happened during total war. So during WWII civilians were legitimate targets by all combatants. Whether we of today like it or not. Civilians had to be targets at some point because after you have bombed/destroyed pretty much all production and the nation still refuses to quit, what else is there to bomb? The US did not start bombing civilians right away either. They bombed everything else first.

The gas station attendant is not guilty. But the law is pretty clear that people associated with a crime, even if they did not take direct action of that crime can be charged and convicted just as if they were directly involved. The legal term is 'accessory'. So in WWII, since the entire civilian population of the nations at war were involved in supporting the war effort, they were 'accessories' in the propagation of that war.

[Symon]

@Numdydar - +1000

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
No.
It's quite a clear line - if you're not in the military and not actively engaging in combat, then you're a civilian. The distinction is quite clear.

Yes, civilians can contribute to a war effort, but at the end of the day, combat is conducted by combatants, not by someone working in a factory far away from the frontline.

No, it’s not clear at all.. “Civilian” is a matter of status. “Innocence” is a matter of condition. Even the Third Geneva Convention recognizes the distinction. A “civilian” who contributes to national sectors that are military in nature or purpose is considered a quasi-combatant (lawyer crap) under the terms of the Convention. “Civilians” that contribute to the “Needs of the Military”, particularly its “strategic or tactical requirements” are considered legitimate combatants under the terms of the Convention.

Lawyers who are much smarter than you or I have cleared up this issue long ago.

The lawyers have no clue. They are lawyers and have no experience with any of the things they attempt to adjudicate. Being a lawyer, I can categorically state they are no smarter than anyone else, and dumber than most. Those that become politicians and write the words of these treaties are so far divorced from reality that they can’t do a hard boiled egg if their life depended on it.

This particular issue is still being argued around the SW, 2nd Floor, like a radioactive potato, thanks to Norm Schwarzkopf’s general order 17-001 regarding land warfare rules and proper treatment of prisoners; something that got him a commendation from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

No. “Condition” is a very real and valid concern. Especially in this day and age. Nothing is dispositive.

Ciao. JWE

[Ormbane]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

No.

It's quite a clear line - if you're not in the military and not actively engaging in combat, then you're a civilian. The distinction is quite clear.

So in my example (real life) of the barber who was not in uniform and not a member of any recognized national military force, was he a civilian? Or was he only a combatant at the point in time(s) when he was sneaking through the concertina wires attempting to slit throats? Would it have been ok to shoot him in his village, or only when he was caught in the wires?

Lawyers who are much smarter than you or I have cleared up this issue long ago.

Actually they haven't. The best lawyers seem to be the ones that can take something that seems clear-cut and obfuscate issues in order to benefit their clients. IN any case, on what factual evidence do you assert that lawyers are any smarter than us? Are you speaking for yourself or is this just another emotional and manipulative slogan?

[Ormbane]

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

Murder, to distinguish from a lawful killing, it is an unlawful killing, and that is the correct word to be using. Innocent, to distinguish form a lawful target, perhaps innocent isn't quite correct but is much easier to say than, "lawful target".

Whose laws? Laws are political statements (ignoring the question of religious laws) and can be changed at will by governments. Simply changing a law can change the act from "legal" to "illegal". Do we have something more substantial to base our arguments on?

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: Ormbane
Whose laws? Laws are political statements (ignoring the question of religious laws) and can be changed at will by governments. Simply changing a law can change the act from "legal" to "illegal". Do we have something more substantial to base our arguments on?

Whose laws indeed. Many, if not most, Western Governments have a constitutional/legal/legislative provision that allows militarization of 'civilians'. Australian coastwatchers were civilians who were militarized in 1942 (for all the good it did them). Laws are indeed Political statements. And Political statements are what makes wars happen. To paraphrase the Bard: You don't want war, you kill all the politicians.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Ormbane

So in my example (real life) of the barber who was not in uniform and not a member of any recognized national military force, was he a civilian? Or was he only a combatant at the point in time(s) when he was sneaking through the concertina wires attempting to slit throats? Would it have been ok to shoot him in his village, or only when he was caught in the wires?

Why ask me when you can read the treaty for yourself?

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf ... 1e0052b079

No, it’s not clear at all.. “Civilian” is a matter of status. “Innocence” is a matter of condition. Even the Third Geneva Convention recognizes the distinction. A “civilian” who contributes to national sectors that are military in nature or purpose is considered a quasi-combatant (lawyer crap) under the terms of the Convention. “Civilians” that contribute to the “Needs of the Military”, particularly its “strategic or tactical requirements” are considered legitimate combatants under the terms of the Convention.

Numdydar was making the point that all civilians are combatants as all could work in some capacity to the war effort. My point was that the Gevena Convention disagrees, and that indescriminate attacks on civilians was not allowed.

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

This distinction about civilians was made AFTER the war simply due to what happened during total war. So during WWII civilians were legitimate targets by all combatants. Whether we of today like it or not. Civilians had to be targets at some point because after you have bombed/destroyed pretty much all production and the nation still refuses to quit, what else is there to bomb? The US did not start bombing civilians right away either. They bombed everything else first.

The gas station attendant is not guilty. But the law is pretty clear that people associated with a crime, even if they did not take direct action of that crime can be charged and convicted just as if they were directly involved. The legal term is 'accessory'. So in WWII, since the entire civilian population of the nations at war were involved in supporting the war effort, they were 'accessories' in the propagation of that war.

There is a reason there were treaties outlawing this sort of thing after the war. When you start talking about civilian populations in that sort of tone, it very quickly turns from a "total war" into a "war of extermination".

[Capt. Harlock]

We have no idea how much longer Japan would have held out had the bomb not been dropped. We don't know how many civilians were spared as a result of the war ending sooner. We cannot know that. And using that unquantifiable number to justify the bombing of cities is, not particularly strong.

While it is true that we can never know a precise number of deaths, it is entirely possible to work out a Worst Case scenario, Best Case scenario, and a Most Probable scenario. Incidentally, the Worst Case scenario is that the Japanese home islands could have been reduced to barely inhabitable condition. Both sides had chemical weapons and were seriously contemplating using them, and the Japanese had developed biological weapons.

For the very little that it's worth, my estimate of the Best Case scenario is 150,000 Allied battle deaths, 1.5 million Japanese battle deaths, and a further 1 million civilian deaths from various causes. (The Japanese High Command would almost certainly have ordered the extermination of all prisoners being held in their camps so as to free the guards for combat duty.) Note that this scenario involves the cancellation of Operation Olympic and doing something else. The Japanese had correctly guessed that Kyushu would be the first target.

[Numdydar]

Correct. Which is why AFTER the war was over the concept that civilians were not to be military targets. Again we are using this concept that killing civilians in today's conflicts is 'bad' no matter what. In WWII this concept was not that defined.

You still have not answered any of my questions that I posed and I am interested how you would resolve them.
a) you have a nation that is killing/abusing civilian populations wherever they have troops, regardless if they are cut off from supplies or not
b) A blockade will prolong these civilians in their suffering yet spare Japanese civilians and allow Japan to continue to be a threat, not to mention Russian antics.
c) An invasion of Japan would expend more Allied lives. Along with civilians that would attack alongside military personal

Or you can drop two bombs and end the war in a few weeks.

You say killing Japanese civilians by dropping the bomb is unacceptable. Fine. How do you reconcile Japan's continued killing of non-Japanese civilians for months while other solutions are considered? I know you are not saying that Japanese civilians matter more that other civilians. But I just do not see how allowing Japan to continue its occupation activities is 'better' than dropping the bomb so other countries civilians can stop being killed and abused a lot sooner.

[Orm]

Even if someone wanted to pursue this in court I do not think that there is any court that has jurisdiction to do so.

Only the Axis countries could be persecuted for war crimes during WWII. I also suspect that US has not agreed to give any international court jurisdiction on this matter since then.

I would be pleased to know if anyone has information if it could be legally tried in a court somewhere? Anywhere?

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Correct. Which is why AFTER the war was over the concept that civilians were not to be military targets. Again we are using this concept that killing civilians in today's conflicts is 'bad' no matter what. In WWII this concept was not that defined.

You still have not answered any of my questions that I posed and I am interested how you would resolve them.
a) you have a nation that is killing/abusing civilian populations wherever they have troops, regardless if they are cut off from supplies or not
b) A blockade will prolong these civilians in their suffering yet spare Japanese civilians and allow Japan to continue to be a threat, not to mention Russian antics.
c) An invasion of Japan would expend more Allied lives. Along with civilians that would attack alongside military personal

You say killing Japanese civilians by dropping the bomb is unacceptable. Fine. How do you reconcile Japan's continued killing of non-Japanese civilians for months while other solutions are considered? I know you are not saying that Japanese civilians matter more that other civilians. But I just do not see how allowing Japan to continue its occupation activities is 'better' than dropping the bomb so other countries civilians can stop being killed and abused a lot sooner.

My view is that the bombs were unneeded. The Japanese will to fight went after the news of the Soviet invasion.

Looking at your questions from a strictly utilitarian view:

A) It depends on the scale. What option kills less?
B) How? A blockade would only apply the pressure to Japanese civilians - China and the rest of the Empire were food exporters. Russian involvement is a bonus, as it gives the Japanese the shock needed to realize that it's the end of the line.
C) I've said again and again that a invasion wouldn't be needed, and the same would go for a blockade. The circles of power within Japan had been hanging their hopes on the Soviets serving as middle-men in a negotated settlement. Russian entry in to the war wrecked the last hope of the Japanese leadership at getting any sort of reasonable terms.

At the end of the day, you want the war to end with as few casualties as possible. If you don't drop the bombs, there's between 129,000 to a quarter million off the death toll. That might mean the war lasts another two to three months. If, at the wars end, you've "saved" (for want of better word) more from the bombings than die over the following three months, then you made the right call.

For what it's worth, my back-of-an-evenlope caluculations with unclear stats show that the bombs killed less than would have died over 3 months by a very significant margin.

As a side note, there are some in this thread that seem to think the Japanese leadership was this homogenous body that was populated by completely soul-less individuals was universally determined to fight to the last. Yes, there were elements like that within the Japanese leadership, but we seem to be forgetting that they represented one end of the spectrum.

[Bo Rearguard]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Even if someone wanted to pursue this in court I do not think that there is any court that has jurisdiction to do so.

Only the Axis countries could be persecuted for war crimes during WWII. I also suspect that US has not agreed to give any international court jurisdiction on this matter since then.

I would be pleased to know if anyone has information if it could be legally tried in a court somewhere? Anywhere?

Who would be tried in court? Pretty much everyone connected with the Truman administration and the Manhattan Project is long dead and gone. Would simply we try the U.S. as a bad-boy political entity that unleashed a horrible weapon on the world? Not hard to see this as just a cynical ploy for attention from a Duma politician.

Speaking of horrible weapons unleashed on the world, I would be curious to know if Russia would be willing to tried for the invention and cheap dissemination of the AK-47. It's the most effective killing machine in human history. A weapon that almost seventy years on is still killing as many as a quarter of a million people every year, in every corner of the globe. The death totals from Hiroshima and Nagasaki pale in comparison.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard

ORIGINAL: Orm

Even if someone wanted to pursue this in court I do not think that there is any court that has jurisdiction to do so.

Only the Axis countries could be persecuted for war crimes during WWII. I also suspect that US has not agreed to give any international court jurisdiction on this matter since then.

I would be pleased to know if anyone has information if it could be legally tried in a court somewhere? Anywhere?

Who would be tried in court? Pretty much everyone connected with the Truman administration and the Manhattan Project is long dead and gone. Would simply we try the U.S. as a bad-boy political entity that unleashed a horrible weapon on the world? Not hard to see this as just a cynical ploy for attention from a Duma politician.

Speaking of horrible weapons unleashed on the world

warspite1

So when does Canada get hauled before the courts? They unleashed Justin Bieber on an unsuspecting world......

[Bo Rearguard]

ORIGINAL: warspite1


So when does Canada get hauled before the courts? They unleashed Justin Bieber on an unsuspecting world......

I'm still not over blaming them for William Shatner, the Mackenzie Brothers, Ed the Sock, and Rush! [:D]

(Seriously, I can't find it my heart to blame Canada for much. In my experience, the Eagle Scout of nations.) [8D]

[witpqs]

Can't get them on anything! [:D]

[warspite1]

We love ya really - er Canada that is.. NOT Justin Bieber.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard

ORIGINAL: Orm

Even if someone wanted to pursue this in court I do not think that there is any court that has jurisdiction to do so.

Only the Axis countries could be persecuted for war crimes during WWII. I also suspect that US has not agreed to give any international court jurisdiction on this matter since then.

I would be pleased to know if anyone has information if it could be legally tried in a court somewhere? Anywhere?

Who would be tried in court? Pretty much everyone connected with the Truman administration and the Manhattan Project is long dead and gone. Would simply we try the U.S. as a bad-boy political entity that unleashed a horrible weapon on the world? Not hard to see this as just a cynical ploy for attention from a Duma politician.

Speaking of horrible weapons unleashed on the world, I would be curious to know if Russia would be willing to tried for the invention and cheap dissemination of the AK-47. It's the most effective killing machine in human history. A weapon that almost seventy years on is still killing as many as a quarter of a million people every year, in every corner of the globe. The death totals from Hiroshima and Nagasaki pale in comparison.

Maybe I should have bolded the word "could".

Personally I do not think it could, nor should, be tried today. But I am interested in what the law and treaties say on the matter.

I think it would have made an interesting case if a court without bias would have handled it. With that said I think a court without bias is (and was) a impossibility in this matter.

I also want to make clear that I do understand why Russia brings this up now. It has nothing to do with WWII and it has all to do with current events. But that cannot be discussed here because of the forum rules.

This thread has made me revaluate my position somewhat, or even more than that, so I want to tank you all for this spirited and polite debate. [:)]

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard

ORIGINAL: warspite1


So when does Canada get hauled before the courts? They unleashed Justin Bieber on an unsuspecting world......

I'm still not over blaming them for William Shatner, the Mackenzie Brothers, Ed the Sock, and Rush! [:D]

(Seriously, I can't find it my heart to blame Canada for much. In my experience, the Eagle Scout of nations.) [8D]

And Celine Dion!