Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mannahnin wrote:I still disagree that a city can't be a military target, particularly in the context of city bombings in WW2.

What makes a city a military target? Is it what the city holds in terms of factories or garrison? Or is it the same context as Dresden?

1. It's well-established that no one in the world knew just how terrible it was. Your assessment of the risks involved (IMO) cannot be better than the assessment made at the time, and most likely is inferior. You lack the training and experience of those people.

There's no evidence to suggest that a demonstration was ever suggested, let alone considered and assessed.

2. They couldn't know that for sure.

That's just as much an arguement against bombing a city as it is any other target. Besides, there's no 100% certainty regarding anything in war.

Ahtman wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:To say that nuclear bombs are precise weapons is a very silly arguement.

You'll also find just becuase a weapon isn't indiscriminate doesn't also make it precise. Indiscriminate in the context of military means something specific. Words in specific use often mean something different the laymens version. Just look at the law. If you don't know who a weapon is going to kill makes it indiscriminate. Firing a machine gun up into the air is indiscriminate. A roadside IED is indiscriminate. They knew fairly well who it was going to kill. It could be indiscriminate in that they didn't understand fully the impact the fallout would have, but it wasn't designed that way.

Okay, so the Nuclear is not an indiscriminate weapon...I guess.

So they dropped the bomb in the full knowledge that it was going to kill those civilians. In fact, the civilians were the target. The bomb was not dropped over the military target, but over a bank.

There's no evidence to suggest that a demonstration was ever suggested, let alone considered and assessed.

Upon which historical texts are you basing this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franck_Report

The city full of civilians was a military target.

Emperors Faithful wrote:So they dropped the bomb in the full knowledge that it was going to kill those civilians. In fact, the civilians were the target. The bomb was not dropped over the military target, but over a bank.

It was targeted at the bank so that it would hit multiple military targets. We knew civilians would die, yes, but they weren't they end all be all of the operation. As stated before collateral damage when attacking military targets is not against the GC. You act like you would have been happier if the war were more drawn out and more people died, just not from nuclear weapons.

Considering we all know the dirty secret of conflict, I think the fact we hold back show how much we strive to be just in conflict. Considering the nature of war there will be awful things, but generally we don't do nearly the horrible things we could. The bombs killed a lot of people, but they saved so many more than they took. It is grim, but true, and given any other viable option it would have been preferable, but there weren't any other viable options.

Mannahnin wrote:

There's no evidence to suggest that a demonstration was ever suggested, let alone considered and assessed.

Upon which historical texts are you basing this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franck_Report

Interesting, but this report does not address a demonstration to Japan. It recommends a demonstration before the members of the UN, not Japan. This was more concerned with revealing the Nuclear weaponry rather than the civilian casualties its use would inflict.

The city full of civilians was a military target.

Becuase it was full of civilians? Or becuase there were military targets in the city?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:So they dropped the bomb in the full knowledge that it was going to kill those civilians. In fact, the civilians were the target. The bomb was not dropped over the military target, but over a bank.

It was targeted at the bank so that it would hit multiple military targets.

I would disagree. That looks like smack bang in the centre of the city, leaving the port relatively untouched.

We knew civilians would die, yes, but they weren't they end all be all of the operation. As stated before collateral damage when attacking military targets is not against the GC.

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[7] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage

Incidentally, collateral damage is a term that originated from the US military (alledgedly during Vietnam).

You act like you would have been happier if the war were more drawn out and more people died, just not from nuclear weapons.

I'm not even going to bother addressing this. I've done it too many times.

It is grim, but true, and given any other viable option it would have been preferable, but there weren't any other viable options.

Not true. There were alternatives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Same goes for Nagasaki, which supposedly had the port as its main target.

Ahtman wrote:It was targeted at the bank so that it would hit multiple military targets. We knew civilians would die, yes, but they weren't they end all be all of the operation. As stated before collateral damage when attacking military targets is not against the GC. You act like you would have been happier if the war were more drawn out and more people died, just not from nuclear weapons.

This line of argument strikes me as a little dodgy. I mean, yes there were military targets in the city, but there's military targets in every city during war time. Ultimately, the bomb wasn't dropped to make the Japanese realise the US could take out a port and regimental hq with a single bomb. It was to make the Japanese realise the US could blow up a city with a single bomb.

I think that it was right anyway, it sucks to have killed those civilians, but it certainly saved more lives by forcing an early Japanese surrender. But let's not pretend the point of the bomb was to take out a port.

Considering we all know the dirty secret of conflict, I think the fact we hold back show how much we strive to be just in conflict. Considering the nature of war there will be awful things, but generally we don't do nearly the horrible things we could. The bombs killed a lot of people, but they saved so many more than they took. It is grim, but true, and given any other viable option it would have been preferable, but there weren't any other viable options.

We certainly do strive, and the US record in war is something to be proud of. Same with the British. But that doesn't mean individual instances can't be events to be ashamed of.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:It was targeted at the bank so that it would hit multiple military targets. We knew civilians would die, yes, but they weren't they end all be all of the operation. As stated before collateral damage when attacking military targets is not against the GC. You act like you would have been happier if the war were more drawn out and more people died, just not from nuclear weapons.

This line of argument strikes me as a little dodgy. I mean, yes there were military targets in the city, but there's military targets in every city during war time. Ultimately, the bomb wasn't dropped to make the Japanese realise the US could take out a port and regimental hq with a single bomb. It was to make the Japanese realise the US could blow up a city with a single bomb.

I'm not trying to say that the damage inflicted on the civilians wasn't understood or even part of it, I'm jut refuting EF's 'hur dur they just wanted to kill civilians and didn't care about the military" argument.

Sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Considering we all know the dirty secret of conflict, I think the fact we hold back show how much we strive to be just in conflict. Considering the nature of war there will be awful things, but generally we don't do nearly the horrible things we could. The bombs killed a lot of people, but they saved so many more than they took. It is grim, but true, and given any other viable option it would have been preferable, but there weren't any other viable options.

We certainly do strive, and the US record in war is something to be proud of. Same with the British. But that doesn't mean individual instances can't be events to be ashamed of.

Ahtman wrote:I'm not trying to say that the damage inflicted on the civilians wasn't understood or even part of it, I'm jut refuting EF's 'hur dur they just wanted to kill civilians and didn't care about the military" argument.

I don't agree with EF's conclusion, but I believe the purpose really was to blow up a city full of people, to say 'look we can do it again as well if you don't surrender'.

I mean seriously, do you think the Japanese surrendered because the American's blew up a port and regimental hq with a single bomb, or because they blew up a city with a single bomb?

I don't believe I said or implied that record was perfect, just that all things being equal I believe we try hard not to just mindlessly kill people.

I probably wasn't very clear there. I was commenting there to try and point out that I agree with your argument for the most part. I probably should have just left off the second sentence, my bad.

I suppose I should have added that the dirty sirty secret is that the military.civilian distinction is purely arbitrary. Armies don't form out of the nether void, it's funding doesn't come from some hidden underwater kingdom, the food isn't
from the Mage's Create Food spell. Attacking one is tantamount to attacking the other. That is why Al Queda saw the Twin Towers as a legitimate target. Real wars are not waged on a board, it's tricky, both strategically and ethically.

I don't believe the distinction is arbitrary, though it is by no means a perfect measure of judging the rightness or wrongness of a target. I believe killing enemy troops that pose no threat and that does not advance your cause, simply for the sake of killing enemy troops, is just as immoral. Nor is an attack that kills purely civilians necessarily wrong, if it sufficiently advances your goals (such as blowing up a munitions factory).

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I'm not trying to say that the damage inflicted on the civilians wasn't understood or even part of it, I'm jut refuting EF's 'hur dur they just wanted to kill civilians and didn't care about the military" argument.

I don't agree with EF's conclusion, but I believe the purpose really was to blow up a city full of people, to say 'look we can do it again as well if you don't surrender'.

I mean seriously, do you think the Japanese surrendered because the American's blew up a port and regimental hq with a single bomb, or because they blew up a city with a single bomb?

As I said I believe it was part of the plan. They choose their targets becuase they were good cities for which to demonstrate the domestic and military damage that was capable. It was supposed to show strength, but if that didn't convince them, as the first bomb didn't, they also at least needed to weaken them beyond killing non-combatants. Just killing civilians wasn't the point. It was the total package.

sebster wrote:I don't believe the distinction is arbitrary

Yet that doesn't make it so. If anything, it makes it more important that we try to respect the difference becuase we could spiral out at any point. It is one of the reasons we dislike terrorists so much. While not as edgy and cool as some like, there is truth to what the Joker said in the Dark Knight. These rules give us a sense of order, but terrorists (and others in the past) ignore them, in fact they flaunt them. It is one of the things that separates us, just as Batman will drop someone off a ledge, but won't murder them. As many Geneva Conventions as we make or UN resolutions we pass or treaties will sign won't keep people from ignoring them. Just being arbitrary doesn't mean that a thing isn't useful. A 'tree' isn't actually a tree, but we all agree that thing over there with the leaves and branches shall be called a tree so we all know what we are talking about. You don't even have to attack civilians to attack civilians. The NVA and VC died in droves but knew that they were demoralizing the civilians which would erode armed support which would eventually lead to them pulling out, which is what happened. The civilian/military connection is far more complex that we tend to act. They are two sides of the same coin, not 2 separate coins.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Aside from the Soviets you are mistaken. Britian (and her colonies) declared war on Japan immediately after Pearl Harbour on December the 8th.

Guess again.

wikipedia wrote:The Battle of Malaya began when the 25th Army invaded Malaya on 8 December 1941. Japanese troops launched an amphibious assault on the northern coast of Malaya at Kota Bharu and started advancing down the eastern coast of Malaya. This was made in conjunction with landings at Pattani and Songkhla in Thailand, where they then proceeded south overland across the Thailand-Malayan border to attack the western portion of Malaya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Campaign

sebster wrote:I don't agree with EF's conclusion, but I believe the purpose really was to blow up a city full of people, to say 'look we can do it again as well if you don't surrender'.

I mean seriously, do you think the Japanese surrendered because the American's blew up a port and regimental hq with a single bomb, or because they blew up a city with a single bomb?

I agree with this conclusion 100%. Further it should be noted that the Japanese did not believe that a single bomb had been used for the first attack. By the time the investigating team got there the second one had been dropped.

Sir,

On the evening of December 7th His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom learned that Japanese forces without previous warning either in the form of a declaration of war or of an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war had attempted a landing on the coast of Malaya and bombed Singapore and Hong Kong.

In view of these wanton acts of unprovoked aggression committed in flagrant violation of International Law and particularly of Article I of the Third Hague Convention relative to the opening of hostilities, to which both Japan and the United Kingdom are parties, His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has been instructed to inform the Imperial Japanese Government in the name of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that a state of war exists between our two countries.

I have the honour to be, with high consideration,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

Winston S. Churchill

Emperors Faithful wrote:I would disagree. That looks like smack bang in the centre of the city, leaving the port relatively untouched.

Anyone who's played Sim City knows that if you knock out the power and water supply to a place it isn't going to be doing much.

Monster Rain wrote:Anyone who's played Sim City knows that if you knock out the power and water supply to a place it isn't going to be doing much.

Or that has had its population reduced by 70,000. It's terror bombing of a major population centre. Maybe you fell bad about that so you don't want to admit it but that is what it is. You must understand that in certain circles and in the public mind terror bombing was seen as acceptable in 1945. It isn't now, perhaps because we have all advanced as human beings.

I honestly feel that the ends justified the means in these cases.

Kill 200,000 to save 1,000,000. It was a terrible decision to have to make and I hope I never have to make one like it.

Monster Rain wrote:I honestly feel that the ends justified the means in these cases.

Kill 200,000 to save 1,000,000. It was a terrible decision to have to make and I hope I never have to make one like it.

I didn't ask you that, I asked you to accept what it was.

George Spiggott wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Anyone who's played Sim City knows that if you knock out the power and water supply to a place it isn't going to be doing much.

Or that has had its population reduced by 70,000. It's terror bombing of a major population centre. Maybe you fell bad about that so you don't want to admit it but that is what it is. You must understand that in certain circles and in the public mind terror bombing was seen as acceptable in 1945. It isn't now, perhaps because we have all advanced as human beings.

Why are so many people keen on nuclear weapons today?

George Spiggott wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I honestly feel that the ends justified the means in these cases.

Kill 200,000 to save 1,000,000. It was a terrible decision to have to make and I hope I never have to make one like it.

I didn't ask you that, I asked you to accept what it was.

I do.

I pointed out that I think it was as much a "terror tactic" (if you want to call it that) as a strategic military strike much earlier in the thread. It was obviously supposed to have a psychological impact. I just don't have a problem with it for the reasons I outlined earlier.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Now thats beautiful.

Kilkrazy wrote:Why are so many people keen on nuclear weapons today?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, could you please clarify?

Monster Rain wrote:I pointed out that I think it was as much a "terror tactic" (if you want to call it that) as a strategic military strike much earlier in the thread. It was obviously supposed to have a psychological impact. I just don't have a problem with it for the reasons I outlined earlier.

That's not what I would call it it is what they are called. I'm implying no moral element when I call them terror raids nor am I interested in drawing parallels with modern or past terror(ist) groups.

The direct destruction of the enemy military was not a goal or major consequence of the atomic bomb attacks. Almost every city of every major industrialised nation has locations of military nature within it. Bombing said city does not make an attack the intention or consequence of bombing that city.

The goal of the atomic bomb attacks was, through fear of further similar attacks, to force Japan to surrender. That makes it a terror attack. There's no catch or secret agenda here.

George Spiggott wrote:The goal of the atomic bomb attacks was, through fear of further similar attacks, to force Japan to surrender. That makes it a terror attack. There's no catch or secret agenda here.

I guess I don't understand the point you're trying to make then.

It seems like a lot of what you're talking about has already been covered.

Ahtman wrote:As I said I believe it was part of the plan. They choose their targets becuase they were good cities for which to demonstrate the domestic and military damage that was capable. It was supposed to show strength, but if that didn't convince them, as the first bomb didn't, they also at least needed to weaken them beyond killing non-combatants. Just killing civilians wasn't the point. It was the total package.

Possibly, fair point.

Yet that doesn't make it so. I think we're working on different sides of If anything, it makes it more important that we try to respect the difference becuase we could spiral out at any point. It is one of the reasons we dislike terrorists so much. While not as edgy and cool as some like, there is truth to what the Joker said in the Dark Knight. These rules give us a sense of order, but terrorists (and others in the past) ignore them, in fact they flaunt them. It is one of the things that separates us, just as Batman will drop someone off a ledge, but won't murder them. As many Geneva Conventions as we make or UN resolutions we pass or treaties will sign won't keep people from ignoring them. Just being arbitrary doesn't mean that a thing isn't useful. A 'tree' isn't actually a tree, but we all agree that thing over there with the leaves and branches shall be called a tree so we all know what we are talking about. You don't even have to attack civilians to attack civilians. The NVA and VC died in droves but knew that they were demoralizing the civilians which would erode armed support which would eventually lead to them pulling out, which is what happened. The civilian/military connection is far more complex that we tend to act. They are two sides of the same coin, not 2 separate coins.

I agree with all of this, and had no idea that's what you were getting at with your previous post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I honestly feel that the ends justified the means in these cases.

Kill 200,000 to save 1,000,000. It was a terrible decision to have to make and I hope I never have to make one like it.

I agree with that entirely, though your numbers are probably a bit low.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Why are so many people keen on nuclear weapons today?

Because it's the cheapest way to get yourself a seat on big people's table. Do you think anyone would give a gak about Pakistan if they didn't have the bomb?

Bookwrack wrote:Neither. It's an intellectually flaccid statement made either to demonstrate how utterly ignorant the poster is on the topic, or simple trolling because they're just trying to make trouble and have no interest at all in engaging in any intellectual honesty in the discussion.

Wait thats my Schtick! I'm king of that hill baby. Everyone else OFF!!!

George Spiggott wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Why are so many people keen on nuclear weapons today?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, could you please clarify?

We've got them. The French have got them, so have the Russians, US and Chinese. North Koreans have probably got a couple tucked away. The Israelis have an unacknowledged stockpile. The Indians and Pakistanis have them. Iran wants them.

It's good that the US and Russians are agreeing to reduce their stocks, but they will still have thousands left.

Overall it is not the picture of a world that strongly wants to get rid of them.

Monster Rain wrote:I guess I don't understand the point you're trying to make then.

It seems like a lot of what you're talking about has already been covered.

This: The direct destruction of the enemy military was not a goal or major consequence of the atomic bomb attacks.

Killkrazy wrote:Overall it is not the picture of a world that strongly wants to get rid of them.

It is a world that hasn't used them in the last 65 years. Having nuclear weapons seems to be an end in itself rather than a means to an end.

George Spiggott wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I guess I don't understand the point you're trying to make then.

It seems like a lot of what you're talking about has already been covered.

This: The direct destruction of the enemy military was not a goal or major consequence of the atomic bomb attacks.

The consensus view is that the cities were strategic targets due to their industrial nature and that their destruction would directly impact Japan's military in a negative way.

What evidence can you cite to the contrary?

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Now thats beautiful.

If you happen to be insane, maybe.

You have to be insane to appreciate good cartography? Hardly any distortion to scale at all on that beauty. And the use of color? Just perfect.

Consensus with who? This thread? Given that I'm already repeating what I've already written, what would the point be?

George Spiggott wrote:Consensus with who? This thread?

No, with people who know what they're talking about.

http://www.japaneselifestyle.com.au/travel/hiroshima_bombing.htm

There's a link. When you inevitably say it is unreliable, I have several more ready to go.

japaneselifestyle.com wrote:During World War II, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, were destroyed by atomic bombs dropped by the United States military on August 6 and August 9, 1945, respectively, killing at least 100,000 civilians outright and many more over time. One of the primary reasons given for the use of the bomb was that it would force Japan to surrender unconditionally. Japan presented its formal document of surrender to the Allied powers on August 15. The survivors of the bombings are called hibakusha (被爆者), a Japanese word that translates literally to "bomb affected people."

japaneselifestyle.com wrote:At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable military significance. It contained the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defence of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications centre, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was chosen as a target because it had not suffered damage from previous bombing raids, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. The city was mobilized for "all-out" war, with thousands of conscripted women, children and Koreans working in military offices, military factories and building demolition and with women and children training to resist any invading force.

The centre of the city contained a number of reinforced concrete buildings as well as lighter structures. Outside the centre, the area was congested by a dense collection of small wooden workshops set among Japanese houses; a few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city. The houses were of wooden construction with tile roofs. Many of the industrial buildings also were of wood frame construction. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.

The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 380,000 earlier in the war but prior to the atomic bombing the population had steadily decreased because of a systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. At the time of the attack the population was approximately 255,000. This figure is based on the registered population, used by the Japanese in computing ration quantities, and the estimates of additional workers and troops who were brought into the city may not be highly accurate.

This ones fine even if it is a Japanese tourist guide. I'm happy to look at some more.

Right.

There were a lot of reasons for bombing the place. I'm glad we agree.