Atomic bombs and humanitarian war
Matthew Yglesias writes up one of the most interesting and honest pieces on the decision to use the atomic bombs to end World War II, and their context in today's world. Go check it out.
It's very hard to see what moral principle could condemn the means by which Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed that wouldn't also condemn earlier actions (Dresden, Tokyo) that had the same object -- wholesale devastation of civilian populations -- albeit accomplished by cruder methods. Ultimately, the question of whether we should condemn the strategic bombing writ large or not strikes me as an issue that's almost too momentous to resolve. Truman, FDR, and Churchill lived in what was, despite Grand Theft Auto, an almost unimaginably more brutal era than our own. A time when the "good" side in a war could be composed of a global empire and a apartheid quasi-democracy working in alliance with Joseph Stalin. And they really were the good side, because the enemy was just that bad. And not just almost absolutely malign, but (unlike, say, your latter-day sub-Saharan genocidaires) genuinely threatening and capable. So what to say about it all?
It's very hard to see what moral principle could condemn the means by which Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed that wouldn't also condemn earlier actions (Dresden, Tokyo) that had the same object -- wholesale devastation of civilian populations -- albeit accomplished by cruder methods. Ultimately, the question of whether we should condemn the strategic bombing writ large or not strikes me as an issue that's almost too momentous to resolve. Truman, FDR, and Churchill lived in what was, despite Grand Theft Auto, an almost unimaginably more brutal era than our own. A time when the "good" side in a war could be composed of a global empire and a apartheid quasi-democracy working in alliance with Joseph Stalin. And they really were the good side, because the enemy was just that bad. And not just almost absolutely malign, but (unlike, say, your latter-day sub-Saharan genocidaires) genuinely threatening and capable. So what to say about it all?
posted by Jmac at 11:39 AM
6 Comments:
Hmm. I kind of call bullshit on this though: "it is instructive that those who criticize the atomic bombings most severely have never gone on to condemn all the bombing." I mean really? If anything, it's more that people of our and our parents' generation don't know enough about those firebombings to condemn them.
I don't follow Hillary.
Perhaps our parents' generation - though I don't really buy that one either - but there is a considerable amount of evidence detailing the destruction of the firebombings as well as the stated intent of those bombings to inflict damage on the civilian populations of those cities.
The method of carpet bombing, and the use of 'firebombs' on civilian populations, was (for all practical purposes) done away with after World War II. Perhaps the damage from the atomic bomb hammered this home, but the primary focus for most countries, with regard to bombing targets, turned to specific military and governmental sites.
What I mean is that if people condemn the atomic bombings but not the firebombings, it's likely because they're idiots of one sort or another. Either 1) because they don't know their history (not exactly shocking) or 2) they see some kind of difference between incinerating civilians with one type of weapon versus another.
for eponymous ...
I think you, and Hillary, perhaps may have missed the intended point in Yglesias' commentary. My take on it was that much of the uproar is over the use of the atomic weapons to end World War II. How we have anniversaries to honor those who lost their lives on that terrible day(s), but we rarely hear any mention of honoring the fallen from Dresden or Tokyo. I think that was his primary point (in addition to his discussion about the evolution of warfare and its targeting), and that he wasn't meaning to call out the anti-nuclear-weapons-crowd (rather, he is quite sympathetic to their side). He was just saying that just because the weapon isn't nuclear, doesn't mean it isn't capable of being targeted at and killing thousands of innocents.
As far as the carpet bombings and targeting of civilians in Vietnam ... fair enough. You did fairly accurately predict what my response would be, and I still think it is a valid response (hear me out!).
What we saw in Korea and Vietnam was a different type of response. That is, as Yglesias pointed out, one of the primary purposes of the firebombings and carpet bombing campaigns of World War II was to wear down, demoralize and humiliate the civilian population. To inflict such horrific damage on the enemy that it's government would have no other choice but to abandon the war.
We have seen a dramatic reduction in this type of warfare since World War II, though this does not mean civilians have not been killed by the U.S. or other nations. In Vietnam, for instance, the use of napalm was done to eliminate an advancing platoon of Viet-Cong, and seeing how these battles were often waged in or near villages and towns, innocents were killed. I'm not excusing this by any means - napalm, though an effective weapons capable of eliminating large units of troops, was too broad of a sword to be deployed in combat in such close quarters to civilians.
So I suppose what I'm saying, and what Yglesias is arguing, is that the targeting of civilians as a effective means of winning war has been reduced to an almost non-existent level. This does not mean that civilians aren't killed in war, but I do think that after World War II nations began taking steps to wage war differently by not deliberately targeting civilians.
You did allude to soldiers putting on the guises of civilians in order to fight and posed the rhetorical question 'but who drops the bombs' ... and this one is very hard for me to reconcile. I say that because I ask my own questions - who is the 'worst' in this case?
On one hand, in Iraq, we have soldiers who dress in military uniforms and have limited rules of engagement. Fighting can not take place in a mosque for example, and troops are ordered to hold their fire in the presence of civilians.
On the other hand, we have individuals who disguise themselves as civilians, live with civilians and then kill civilians in order to kill soldiers as well.
Yes, our soldiers should exercise caution and yes, our soldiers should show restraint ... but when your enemy has such little regard for humanity that it hides amongst the innocent, indifferent to their safety or well-being, then this becomes an apple-and-oranges comparison.
To suggest that the overwhelming majority of not only our soldiers, but any trained soldier from any nation, would freely target and kill innocent civilians is wrong in my view. Rather those individuals who act in a cowardly fashion and hide behind the innocent are the ones who are creating this situation, not the soldiers.
As far as targeting military centers but wind up blowing up wedding parties, that is duly noted. But such are accidents - horrific ones to be sure - that stem from either human or computer error, and are not the part of a larger campaign designed to wipe out a civilian population or wear down a resistance.
If the U.S. military, or any other military, is specifically targeting weddings and mosques for no particular reason, then that is wrong and is something that should be fixed immediately and the perpetrators of those crimes should be dealt with. But I don't think that to be the case, and they are simply terrible accidents that are part of the larger tragedy that is war in general.
I didn't argue any of that hoo-ha. I think we could certainly be considerably more careful than we are. All I argued is that I think it's crap to say people who criticize the atomic bombings of Japan hold a double standard with regard to the firebombings of Japan.
I have trouble taking Yglesias' point as mildly as you are interpreting it, JMac. He sure seems to be making a more general point about the hypocrisy of opponents of the "nuclear option" to me. If all he is saying is that we do seem to give undo attention to the "atom bomb" question, but not to the other atrocities committed by the Allies in WWII, then he is of course correct. We don't have solemn remembrances and debates every year when the anniversary of Dresden comes around. But he seems to be saying something more to me, that people tend to only condemn the atomic bomb droppings and give a pass to everything else. (i.e., that the Allies did everything right until the a-bomb). I think there are people out there who think this way, but not very many. I'm with Dave and Hillary on this--you don't have to look very hard to find people condemning all the war crimes that the Allies committed (and have continued to commit). I myself have never read an article against the a-bombings of Japan that failed to make the larger point against all the earlier "stuff" too.
Re: distinguishing between WWII and more recent wars in terms of the purpose of the respective carpet bombings. I agree that there is such a thing as "collateral damage" which is acceptable if the overall cause of the war is already just. But the "collateral damage" must not be the result of a weapon or strategy which is by its very nature indiscriminate. If a bomb misses its target, then that kidn of stuff does happen in a war. But if we deliberately drop a bomb which we know will kill a whole bunch of people who are non-combatants because that is simply what such bombs do, then this is unacceptable.
I also agree that a lot of benefit of the doubt must be given to soldiers who are fighting an enemy that refuses to respect the rules of civilized warfare. If the enemy disguises themselves as civilians, or brings civilians unavoidably into combat, then the blood is not on the hands of our guys as long as our guys are not deliberately seeking to kill civilians. (This same principle would apply if you were walking down the street and a sadistic killer had forced an innocent man to run at you with a knife. You have every right to defend yourself againt the civilian, and to use lethal force if necessary. But your own intent was never to "kill an innocent.")
Where I disagree is with Yglesias' claim that we no longer target civlians for the express purpose of demoralizing them. This is technically true, we don't really do that any more, but only because of the kinds of wars we have fought since WWII. I have no doubt that if we were fighting another war in the style of WWII today--a war where we were fighting against the popular government of another nation and were fighting on that nation's own turf--we would not hesitate to consider the same policies we used before. The rubble would be made to dance once again. Break the will of the people, and all that. The exact opposite of how "just wars" are supposed to be conducted, and one sign among many of how far we've come (baby).
Post a Comment
<< Home