Kevin's Watch

... in trying to survive US air raids during the Korean War? Because in North Korea, the US Far East Air Force (or w/e it was called) applied again the firebombing tactics used against Japan at the close of WWII. So really, this argumentative question generalizes: are enemy civilians justified in trying to survive air raids?

Think of it this way. Imagine you're a ten-year-old in Hiroshima during the atom bombing. Are you, during the raid, justified in preventing your sister (suppose you had one) from getting killed, if there's some way for you to do this? But if it's right for you to be fired upon intentionally by the US military, burned alive in a flash of light even (to try to terrorize Japan into surrendering), don't you have an obligation to let yourself and your sister die? What if, in the limit, all the civilians in Hiroshima had found a way to survive the raid: by nullifying the demonstrative terror of the weapon's power, would those civilians have been doing something wrong (since this would've led, in theory, to a prolonged war)? What do you do when you're a civilian faced with dilemmas like these? What kind of honor is there in you sacrificing yourself and your love and your children and your friends to excruciation and destruction like this?

Mighara Sovmadhi wrote:...the US Far East Air Force (or w/e it was called)

Not that it contributes to the questions you ask, but at the beginning of the Korean conflict (never was a declared war...), the proper name of that unit was the US Army Air Corps. It was not until later made a separate service, the US Air Force.

Why do I know this? My father was an USAAC air traffic controller at Kimpo Air Base (김포국제공항) back then. My earliest exposure to other languages (long before I learned Hebrew, Russian, German or any of the other languages I retain a smattering of) was the Korean and Japanese that Dad learned during his duty rotations in the Far East. If it were not incredibly disrespectful to do so, I could still reel off the complex oaths he would direct toward the Korean "houseboys" that served in the housing complexes.

Mighara Sovmadhi wrote:... in trying to survive US air raids during the Korean War? Because in North Korea, the US Far East Air Force (or w/e it was called) applied again the firebombing tactics used against Japan at the close of WWII. So really, this argumentative question generalizes: are enemy civilians justified in trying to survive air raids?

Think of it this way. Imagine you're a ten-year-old in Hiroshima during the atom bombing. Are you, during the raid, justified in preventing your sister (suppose you had one) from getting killed, if there's some way for you to do this? But if it's right for you to be fired upon intentionally by the US military, burned alive in a flash of light even (to try to terrorize Japan into surrendering), don't you have an obligation to let yourself and your sister die? What if, in the limit, all the civilians in Hiroshima had found a way to survive the raid: by nullifying the demonstrative terror of the weapon's power, would those civilians have been doing something wrong (since this would've led, in theory, to a prolonged war)? What do you do when you're a civilian faced with dilemmas like these? What kind of honor is there in you sacrificing yourself and your love and your children and your friends to excruciation and destruction like this?

Keeping in mind that this is just my opinion, and it may (or may not) be shared by anyone else. I don't believe that the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki was justified.I believe it to be a dishonourable move whose roots lie in desperation.

Civilians (again, in my opinion) should never be involved in conflicts like this. To intentionally involve non-combatants is, to me, roughly equivalent to outright murder.

To use your N. Korean examples, why should they be fired upon by anyone if they had nothing to do with the decisions or acts that are being stopped or avenged? It had nothing to do with them aside from a quirk of geography.

So no, I don't think they should be honour bound to lay down and die for some kind of fire-bombing or nuclear strike. They have as much right to try to survive as anyone else does. If they can manage it in the face of some military strike, then good for them.

A strange question, and perhaps a round-about way of suggesting attacks were not legitimate?

Everybody has the "right" to protect or save themselves, whether or not an attack is justified. Everybody has the right to do anything they want. That doesn't make what they do "right," but the only things that cannot be done are those that the laws of physics prevent.

Everything else is just arguing over the details.

--A

I think the idea that civilians are innocent of a country's actions are a little naive as well. Even if it's a matter of status quo, or too much effort to change things, they still allow it. Japan's citizens in particular are a hard one to defend as innocent. They actively supported the war and fighting to the end.

I know we like to look at victors now a days and make them the bad guys, and look at the other side as being angels. Naive.

That's a bit of a misrepresentation there, too, Cyberweez.

Anyhow, you talk of how the Japanese were all in favour of the war, but so too did Americans buy up the propaganda and buy in to the extreme racism and persecution of those of Japanese descent that occured at that time.

That's the problem with lumping entire nations into a war, of course. Firstly, that one's usually grossly generalising by saying that everyone had one or another position; and secondly, that the public at large is often easily swayed by the propaganda and rhetoric of those in power, and not always given the tools to enable them to question it.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:You make it sound as if the United States military invented the idea of attacking civilians on purpose and somehow derives pleasure from it. You also make it sound as if the people being attacked somehow deserve it, from the U. S. military point of view. This is clearly illogical and borders on insane.

I've talked with plenty of the "they deserved it" crowd, and I don't doubt some of 'em were among the US high command back in the day. But at any rate, don't say things like, "You make it sound as if..." because I didn't do that at all. My point can generalize beyond air raid survival, of course; it's just that one of the most argued-about cases of civilian slaughter involves air raids, which many people in my country seem to absurdly think are morally superior to on-the-ground massacres even when no effort is made to limit bombing damage to non-military structures.

I can see value in the line of reasoning that allows for civilians to have a fighting chance against an enemy military force. Although you might not survive, at least if you pick up a gun and start shooting back you might take a few soldiers with you; however, when a plane drops this type of explosive device you have no chance to fight back.

I don't mean this kind of "try to survive." My example would be more like, if a shockwave knocks a plank on to your sister, ought you to let her slowly die from being crushed by the plank, or ought you to help her? But if it's better for her to die (to add to the war-ending terror of the death toll or something), well...

Mighara Sovmadhi wrote:I've talked with plenty of the "they deserved it" crowd

I have never met anyone, either in offline life on on the Internet, who believes that any civilian casualty has "deserved it".

Mighara Sovmadhi wrote:it's just that one of the most argued-about cases of civilian slaughter involves air raids, which many people in my country seem to absurdly think are morally superior to on-the-ground massacres even when no effort is made to limit bombing damage to non-military structures.

There is no "morally superior" way to wage war, especially when civilians get targeted. When at war the presumed goal is "kill as many people from the opposing army as possible" but this seems to have warped into "kill as many of the opposing citizens as possible".

Mighara Sovmadhi wrote:I don't mean this kind of "try to survive." My example would be more like, if a shockwave knocks a plank on to your sister, ought you to let her slowly die from being crushed by the plank, or ought you to help her? But if it's better for her to die (to add to the war-ending terror of the death toll or something), well...

If we follow that logic, then because grandmother is old and she fell down, well, she is going to die anyway some day so we might as well put her out of her misery now. In the situation you describe, though, it isn't better to let your sister die--you try to get her out from under the plank if at all possible. If you are unable to do so then there is simply nothing you can do. Should you "put her out of her misery", though? I cannot answer that question for anyone else.

Anytime you start to feel ashamed of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, read up on the rape of Nanking. It'll ease your pain.

Fuck that noise. No. Crimes don't justify crimes. Atrocities don't justify atrocities.

Except to the people committing them.

--A

I'm Murrin wrote:Fuck that noise. No. Crimes don't justify crimes. Atrocities don't justify atrocities.

"Crimes" -- now that's a joke. What magistrate has the jurisdiction and standing to make that ruling? And I don't mean theoretical pie in the sky Hague window dressing jurisdiction, I mean actual enforceable jurisdiction without exception or reprieve.

Anyway, the point wasn't retribution. The point was this was the mentality and the expectation of the people who would have been fought house to house in a world where the bombs didn't fall. No quarter given or expected to or from anyone, civilian or otherwise. The Japanese high command fully planned and expected to successfully bleed any attempted invasion to the point of capitulation, and they intended to send countless civilians to fanatical, needless deaths to make it happen. Those two bombs supposedly saved 20 million Japanese lives. I believe it. If you listen to the tale told by the cliffs of Okinawa, you will believe it too.

That said, no moral justification is possible, necessary, or relevant when the contest is a mortal one.

But we can easily show that such reasoning can be derogated because it leads to absurdity. Now suppose that the following is true:

(1) Hiroshima and Nagasaki ought to have been attacked with nuclear weapons because the form of their devastation would so horrify Japan that the Hirohito empire would finally surrender. Moreover, it was not enough that the Japanese military be hit with this weapon, or even a deserted area, to prove its awful might. No, it was necessary that completely helpless and politically incapacitated minors, the elderly, and the extremely sick and so on be among those annihilated. They did not "deserve" to die as punishment for what Japanese troops had done. Instead, burning them into shadows en masse was simply expedient to the cause of inducing Japanese surrender and avoiding hypothetical death on an even greater scale.

(2) Certainly one death is required, then, one noncombatant death. So for anyone in the bombed area, there is a sense in which they decrease the likelihood of the war ending if they survive the bombing. Since, by the consequentialist lights of the above balance of death in two small cities against a rampage through the entire country, the good involves these civilians dying, and what ought to be done is whatever promotes the greatest net balance of good in the world, then by sort of sorites logic the maximum number of people who can be killed by the air raid are obligated to allow it to kill them, and even if anyone they care about is in danger, if that person also ought to die, then the one must not help the other survive the air raid.

A modest proposal, much?

The only obligation in war is victory.

Or, to shine the true light of reality upon it: justification is but one more prize that is contingent upon victory.

The idea in war is to 'incapacitate' the other side from being able to fight back... or at least until they decide not to fight anymore.

So, when bombing civilian targets, the idea is to:

1)Increase Terror. Death is not necessary in this case.
2)Deplete reserves of able-fighting persons. Death is only necessary for a portion of the population.
3)Decrease production capabilities. Death is not necessary or is very specialized since all you need to destroy is infrastructure.

As a result, I think the premise of this topic is flawed. A person surviving is not necessarily contributing to the continuation or termination of war. They could actually do both. Whereas a mass murder of civilians could actually rally the people to push harder and continue the war (consider 9/11).

Don Exnihilote wrote:The only obligation in war is victory.

Or, to shine the true light of reality upon it: justification is but one more prize that is contingent upon victory.

This.

To paraphrase Orlion, in war, the point is to kill everyone you can until:

- There's no one left to fight.

- The survivors lose the will to fight.

I will stop short of saying that civilians deserve death during wartime (though a strong case against that can be made in WWII's Pacific Theater), but civilian targets should never be off-limits during wartime.

No, it's not a warm & fuzzy way of looking at things, but it's how you end a war quickly.

Sun Tzu wrote:He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.

To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

Military tactics are like unto water; for water in its natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards... Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing. Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions. He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain.

There is one thing that most people do not consider when thinking about the bombs Truman dropped--he could have ordered them dropped on Tokyo, a much larger city with a denser population, but this would have resulted in even more death and destruction than what actually happened.

I have heard it argued that the bombing of Nagasaki was to demonstrate to the Russians that the US had more than one nuclear bomb. AFAIK, they only had enough fissile material for two bombs at the time, but the Russians could only know that if they had enough for two they could just as well have enough for ten.

When geopolitical concerns intrude on a conflict all bets are off and even the psychological impact of the deaths of large numbers of civilians becomes irrelevant. The US may have bombed Nagasaki for no other reason than to send a message to the Russians.

u.

Don Exnihilote wrote:The only obligation in war is victory.

Or, to shine the true light of reality upon it: justification is but one more prize that is contingent upon victory.

People say things like this all the time, but I have yet to see sufficient evidence for these propositions. Is it okay for me to kill my fellow troops during war, on a whim, as long as it doesn't get me killed? (Let us suppose we are all out on a mission deep in the jungle, and the fancy takes me to murder my squadmates, seeing as I'll be able to get away with it in this instance.)