Hiroshima

[Letum]

So....you think that morality is irrelevant when trying to win a war?

Surely you don't mean that!

That would justify the killing of a million innocents for a inch of land if it was
strategically sound.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

So....you think that morality is irrelevant when trying to win a war?

Surely you don't mean that!

That would justify the killing of a million innocents for a inch of land if it was
strategically sound.

No, not if it was "strategically sound", but if it was part of realising the original definition of victory in that war.

So be careful concerning your definitions of victory, and reasons for going to war.

Edit. Thinking on it, your one million=1 inch comparison: if that inch translates into the enemy giving up, like the terror message being send to europe in my example from the crusades was emant to keep further attackers away in fear, then this may evntually be an acceptable rpice - accoprding to war logic. Better their million dead than our ten thousand or so dead.

Hiroshima also took the life of ver many, and made people suffering until today. It did save american soldier's life, nevertheless. And that si where the American responsibility was: to reduce the risk to their own people, and break the Japanese' will to continue the war.

That's war. no morals there. Only the hope to win in the name of a peace afterwards that hopefully keeps the promise of morals better than the last time.

[Letum]

Just to be clear, am I right in thinking that you consider that:

1) reduceing the risk to their own people
and
2) breaking the enemy's will to continue the war

are the only factors that should be considerd when considering how to act in war?

[Skybird]

Absolutely. It is the shortest way to win a war at the smallest cost to your own side. In other words: an end with terror, instead of terror without end.

but I can already hear you brain ticking to come to probably wrong conclusions regarding exaples that are meant to show how diabolic I am.

So let me reitrerate this: I am not arguing for making civilians a target worth itself. I just reject to withhold military actions that help to derstroy the enemies active assets and combat units and to win a war and minimise the risk to my own troops, becasue civilians are around. As a commander I better accept a dead civilian, than a dead trooper in my group.

This does not exclude assitance for civilians, as long as this assistance is not coming at a price to the combat poetnial of my forces. Iraq is a good example. First a war wages in a way that makes it a textbook example for incompetent handling of asymmetrical war. Then Patreus, who understood years in advance that you cannot leave it in that scenraio just to race for the enemy and chafsing him around. you need to hold your ground once you got control over it, which means sufficent forces being available, and you need to be aware of the local residents and their view of things, and you need to adress that. On the other hand oyu shall not accept these cilvian effort compromising your mjilitary options. Patreus has too little troops to control all critical areas of Iraq, but where his force stay now, he managed to decrease violence drastically. priority however, he said himself, has the military readiness. It's needs and options surpass everything else. If you need to choose, let got tzhe civlian assiatnce, but do not comprimose your forces' abilities. the Germans in Afghanistan violate that rule of reason, with the bonly result that now they are sitting in their heavy fortification, camp warehouse, and do neither fight the Talebena nor support reconstruction anymore. they cannot enforce the freedom and stability for rconstgruction, nor can they effectoively fight. In fact their camp is in the crosshairs of artiellery that is hiding in the moutains. Verdammt blöde situation! Being at bthe mercy and good will of unknown factions and power constellation. My main argument why I would get them out immediately. they are not allowed to fi9ght, nor do they do anything more than protecting themselves. This is what makes them moving taregts, and nothing more.

problem is that in Iraq the difference between combatant and civlian is fluent. I probably would take a much harsher stand than Patreus, regarding some things. I also need to ignore certain ideological implications I see due to my hostile position towards islam and it's ongoing aggression in general. But that is another story.

If civilians can manage to stay away, and not interfering in any way with my military going, they are not my problem. If on my way to destroy the enemy and secure victory I must pass through their sleeping room , then I may be sorry or not, but I will. and if the enemy is hiding behind innocent civilians and shoots me from there, I will intentionally shoot at the hostage and hope he survives, and when he falls down, kill the exposed enemy.

I think i leave you in no doubt now. Before declaring me Satan himself again my reminder: keep in mind that this my grim view of war is the reason why I am far more hesitant to call for war than some other people. Maybe I should also add that although I never was a soldier and fought no battles, I saw the face of war in Algeria and Eastern turkey and walked in places were battle took place just two days before, turning a village into ruins. The dead always stink, no matter if being klilled in a moral way or not, and the eyes of local villagers who lost closed ones or received wounds and buried their loved ones offer you the same glimps into the abyss, no matter if their fate is a just one or not. It doesn't matter.

I would make it obligatory for all school classes (especially American school classes, because america is more easy on accepting war than any other Western nation) to have at least one travel like this and see war themsleves, and see how it affects people in location with their very own eyes, so that they see it at least just one time in their life. It makes all the difference, really. If you never have seen war, you cannpot really appreciate peace and freedom - the great disease that europe is suffering from these days. This is probbaly also the reason why the post-WWII generation of politicians often acted more responsibly than today'S political "managers" who do not know what they are talking of when demanding a war. ne more time, especially helmut Schmidt is on my mind. He refers to WWII in only these words: "die große Scheiße des Krieges". Right he is.

[Letum]

So if you could win a war a hour faster by inflicting multiplue genocides, you would
have no quams in doing that if it ment a shorter war (by a hour) and less or equal of
your own forces lost (in this case equal) ?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

So if you could win a war a hour faster by inflicting multiplue genocides, you would
have no quams in doing that if it ment a shorter war (by a hour) and less or equal of
your own forces lost (in this case equal) ?

Haisplitting. If you need to construct such an excessicve example trying to find a weak spot in my argument, then I think you have lost your cause out of sight.

However, to answer your question I refer to the more reasonable example of america using the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It speeded up victory. It drastically reduced losses of US forces. It killed plenty of civilians. It saved even more civilians in the long run, probably. I consider it to have been the right decision.

and you probabaly misunderstood me when saying "or equal of your forces lost". I am no fan of suicide attacks. However, in principle there are many situations in a war where the success of a given mission or operation is mandatory and must be achieved, while the survival of the single soldier or unit is secondary to that only. However, I had something different on my mind, and maybe shoul,d refer to the mental attitude of Samurai who neither evaded nor sought for their own death, but fought when their lord demanded it, or when they were demanded to do so by their code of honour. Considerations that this action maybe could mean their death, often did not have any space, it would have hampered theior combat skills and impuriefied their needed mental balance and attitude towards death, that was that death is part of life and there is no reason in wishing for it, or hating it. their honour code and their obligation towards their lord made it more obligatory that they would fight and win - even if they only could acchieve that by loosing their own life. If you fear for your life, you cannot totally concentrate on killing the enemy. If the latter is not the priority anyway, you eventually find yourself with having problems: being hesitant, fearsome, undecided. Bad way to launch a fight.

When the British sailors in the Gulf were captured by the Iranians some time ago, there were some voice accusing the British soldiers that they did not fight back. They replied, that they were not in a position to fight, sitting like lame ducks in rubber boats, with the Iranians approaching fast attack bolats and heavy machine guns. I certainly do not tell the sailors they should have sacrificed themselves , but nevertheless the normality today that western people take it as granted that the survival of their society's "warriors" is more impotant than not to fall back to a challenge by an detemrined enemy, is striking. It reminds of the disgust for death by which Muslim armies fought against crusaders, who were regarding armour and weapons superior. But Christian armies since then fight in order to live, while muslim armies back then and today's suicide attckers fight with not being hindred at all by the perpsective of themselves being killed. that'S why they strike in so daring ways. the Gulf incident I do not consider to have the immediate importance to justify the British sailors getting killed , but in the long run - who knows. Some unpleasant mental weakness was illustrated here: we fear for our life, and if you threaten our life, we will fall back. Seen that way, our culture suffered a clear defeat on that day, and it encouraged islamic fighters. concenring the incident i have another qurstion: what devil was sitting on the captain's shoulder to make him have highly fragile rubber boats operating in potentially hostile waters outside the engagement range of the frigate's (or was it a destroyer) weapons systems? the proper way of action would have been to warn the iranians once, and then blow them out of the water. Hell, this has not been a bathing trip of some tourists, but official representatives of the armed service of her royal majesty the queen of england. Obviously that means nothing anymore. So why not deleting the title and bring in the flag?

Now compare that to the Spartans while their king decided to head for the Themopyles!

I think you know perfectly now were I stand, and I have a dinner in kitchen waiting to be prepared. So I am out here now.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

However, to answer your question

but you didn't answer it!
You just waffled for another few thousand words.

Either you would have qualms or you wouldn't. I can conceive of no other possible
answer and yet, you give neither.
Instead you talk about suicide attacks, the Iranian Gulf and other such things which
have no bearing whatsoever.

Thus, I ask again:
If you have two options, namely:
1) Win the war at 5pm by killing several billion civilians, without loss of your own troops or material.
Or
2) win the war at 6pm by waiting a hour, without loss of your own troops or material.

Would you have any qualms about choosing option 1?
If you do have problems with option 1, then why is this; given that you believe
that morality has no place in making wartime decisions.

Once again: either you would have qualms or you wouldn't. I can conceive of no
other possible answer.


To save my time and yours, please try to limit your reply to 200 words if you can.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Letum

So if you could win a war a hour faster by inflicting multiplue genocides, you would
have no quams in doing that if it ment a shorter war (by a hour) and less or equal of
your own forces lost (in this case equal) ?

Do it. If America had invaded Japan, about 6 MILLION casualties (Japanese and American) would have been sustained. Now, take in Hiroshima and Nagasaki which only killed a few hundred thousand, and you've got a big difference there.

It's a dilemma. "Do we take the quick and easy solution to kill many which would in so doing would save many more, or do we invade and lose many more than the easy solution offers?"

In short, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were what kept America the way it is today. We've never come close to losing 2.5 million soldiers, and if we did, then who knows the drastic effects it could have caused in the future. America might have fallen into financial ruin, and who knows... we might have even surrendered...

Completely justified and needed for the sake of human life in general. Would you trade a few hundred thousand for 6 million lives? I don't think so... take the way that gives Earth the fewest casualties.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Do it. If America had invaded Japan, about 6 MILLION casualties[...]

You don't seam to have understood the hypothetical question. It wasn't about Japan.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

but you didn't answer it!
You just waffled for another few thousand words.

Either you would have qualms or you wouldn't. I can conceive of no other possible
answer and yet, you give neither.
Instead you talk about suicide attacks, the Iranian Gulf and other such things which
have no bearing whatsoever.

Thus, I ask again:
If you have two options, namely:
1) Win the war at 5pm by killing several billion civilians, without loss of your own troops or material.
Or
2) win the war at 6pm by waiting a hour, without loss of your own troops or material.

Would you have any qualms about choosing option 1?
If you do have problems with option 1, then why is this; given that you believe
that morality has no place in making wartime decisions.

Once again: either you would have qualms or you wouldn't. I can conceive of no
other possible answer.


To save my time and yours, please try to limit your reply to 200 words if you can.

Your question is idiotic, to put it polite. I answered it as close as possible, on the basis on the realistic example of the atomic bombs in Japan. I couild also refer at 56 million killed in WWII - there you alraedy have your answer as well. Or the decision of the commanders on D-day to form the first attack waves of new, unexpereinced recruits not knowing what is waiting for them, to have them suffering the main losses, make the first wave landing without hesitation coming from knowledge and experience, and save the more combat-efficient veterans for later landing waves and take benefit from their higher combat profiency once the landing beach is left behind. was that moral? Immoral? Wrong question. It was the clever thing to do in that situation. that is bitter, but true.

your question is too abstract and too theoretical. Give it a real face. an example from history, if you want, or a realistic projection of a possible future scenario. Such situation where you want to sentence millions for gaining one hour, as you say, it nice for books and hollywood movies, but as long as you do not talk about allout-nulcear war, it is "gegenstandslos" (=irrelevant, without object). Refer to a realistic example. as long as you cant, you have to live with my answer as given. you are constructing it too such extremes that only an irresponsibole fool would give the ultimate answer to it. If millions are at stake, I prefer to insist knowing all the situation's details before making tactical decisions.

[Happy Times]

If everyone has only morality towards their own cause then Finland should have cut the Murmansk railway, invaded Leningrad and relieved the troops for Moscow.
This was all possible but was left done.
We would be living in a different world, from a totally selfless wiew it could be better than the present, for Finland.
The dilemmas are endless..

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

your question is too abstract and too theoretical. Give it a real face. .

260 words....getting better.

Can you really not understand a hypothetical without me painting you a picture?

Very well, here is a picture to fit the hypothetical above:

The year is 2039 and Germany is at war with the UK again, fortunately the UK has
almost won. Almost all fighting has stopped and it has been weeks since the last
casualty.
The leader of the German forces, Angela Merkel, has announced she will
surrender at 6pm, however, the deputy leader of German forces, Mr P. Oppermann,
who is imprisoned by the British, has told the British forces that if Angela Merkel is
killed he will become leader and announce the Germansurrender one hour earlier at 5pm.

MI5, British intelligence, is totally confident of the following:
1) Angela Merkel would never announce surrender before 6am.
2) If Angela Merkel is killed then German forces will respect Mr P. Oppermann's
authority as the new leader.
3) Angela Merkel is currently in a unsecured building in any one of 150 major cities or
towns in Germany.

At 3.45am the British Primeminister sits down and prepares to wait the two hours and
a quarter until German surrender. Just then the Primeminister's advisor, Mr S. Vogel
rushes in to the PM's office. He says the following:

"Primeminister, I have a plan to end the war a hour earlier! All we need to do is
drop 150 nukes on the 150 cities that Angela Merkel could be in, then she will be
dead and Mr P. Oppermann can declare the surrender a hour early!"

The priminister replies:
"but Mr Vogel! this will result in the killing of millions, the pollution of land for years to
come and the total destruction of thousands of years of heritage!"

"don't worry about that" replies Mr Vogel "the only reason to be worried by that would
be a sense of morality, but as I persuaded you earlier, morality is irrelevant in a
time of war"

Again, the priminister replies:
"but what would we gain? our troops are not dieing in combat anymore and Germany
is no longer a threat, they will surrender in a hour anyway"

To which Mr Vogel says:
"speeding up the war is a good thing, it is the objective of war, and there is no
down side because we don't need the nukes anyway and it will cost far more to
de-arm them then it will to launch them. All other considerations are moral ones
and as I explained, moral considerations are unimportant when we have our eyes
on military success."

So SB, the question remains exactly the same, but with a picture painted for you.

Surely you can not condone such a plan as Mr Vogel proposes, but if you consider
morality to be absent from warfare, on what grounds do you discredit his plan?

[Skybird]

Letum, all that is academical finger exercise that maybe is intersting in a philospher's course, but you reached a degree of abstractness with your original question and later scenario that you leave any sense for reality behind, and then you wonder that you do not get any better answer than I already gave. We know both very well what you want: to construct an artificial thought experiment by which you hope to make me admit that I am wrong and that there is morality in warand yoiuz do not care at all how abstract and surreal it is. but the example you set up is so absurd, so artificial, so off-reality, so unrealistic, that it simply is not of this world at all. such academic exercise maybe is intersting for you, but it does not tell you anything about realistic scenarios - no matter what answers you get.

So my answer is most precisely: no, it will not go accoridng to the plan by Mr. Vogel, because in 2039, Angela Merkel would be of age 84, and almost surely would not be in office anymore from the very beginning of your story.

Whats wrong with you guy that so often you need to reach to such absurd levels of abstractness in order to construct examples that support your views? Where there is a rule, you insist on going for the exception from it. Were there is immediate reality on debate, you transform it into a debate of some surreal abstractness. Its a habit that I noticed repeatedly. But the world is no abstract laboratory, and reality bites much more painful - and for real! - than abstract fantasy: I think this is what you often are missing.

Changing one million dead for saving one hour until cease-fire." - if that is all you are concerned with, then have fun with your hypothetical scenarios. Militarily, your construction does not make any sense.

Feel free to disagree with me, but still your abstractness gives me no convincing reason to think different from like I already do, and thus I will live and think on unaltered by your brain experiment. Because I live in this world for sure - not in your strange fantasy.

To bed now, good night.

[NEON DEON]

Skybirds version of acceptable behaviour in war:

"On June 10, 1944, a Nazi SS Division (Das Reich) surrounded the village of Oradour-sur-Glane in France then ordered everyone in the town, 652 persons, to assemble in the town square.
Once there, they were told by the Nazi commandant they were suspected of hiding explosives and as a result there would be a search and a check of identity papers. The entire population was then locked up, the men in barns, women and children in the church.
The Nazis then set fire to the entire village and began shooting the villagers with machine guns, then set the barns and the church on fire, burning the men, women and children alive, and shooting anyone who survived. A total of 642 townspeople -- 245 women, 207 children, and 190 men were massacred.
Three days after the massacre, a Catholic Bishop found the charred bodies of fifteen children in a heap behind the burned out altar inside the church.
The village of Oradour-sur-Glane was never rebuilt, forever standing as a silent monument to Nazi atrocities."

Then there was the SS masacare at malmedy where 81 GI s were masacred by Pieper's Blowtorch battalion. A number of them were tried and convicted, many to death by the Allies for this. However this never came to pass.

"On July 11, 1946, the Judges returned a verdict after two and a half hours of deliberation. All of the SS were found guilty as charged. Forty three, including Peiper, were sentenced to death, and 22, including Dietrich, were sentenced to life imprisonment. The others got long prison terms."


"By the early 1950s, following years of accusations, denials, investigations, controversy, and political turmoil, the final remaining death sentences were commuted and release of all of the convicted SS men began.
In December of 1956, the last prisoner, Peiper, was released from Landsberg. He eventually settled in eastern France. On July 14, 1976, Bastille Day in France, Peiper was killed when a fire of mysterious origin destroyed his home. Firefighters responding to the blaze found their water hoses had been cut."






http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/malmedy.htm

[Letum]

All ideas and are abstract and so are all events not directly experienced.

The bombing of Hiroshima is totally abstract. The event has no longer has any
existence in the universe. the only way we can talk about it at all is by creating a
set of concepts about it through abstractions of the information we have.

There is nothing in my hypothetical that could not possibly happen.

I put it to you that the reason you can not answer the hypothetical is because it
shows the flaws in your logic and you are resistant to change your thinking, even
when shown that it is ridiculous.

In short:
I have shown that totally abandoning morality in war means that even the most
abhorrent acts could be justified for minimal strategic gain. Can you refute this flaw
in your reasoning?

As for:

Where there is a rule, you insist on going for the exception from it.

We have a saying in English: "Exceptions prove the rule".
Perhaps better read as "Exceptions test the rule" as "prove" isn't often used in that
way in English that way anymore.

In this case, the exception has tested the rule and found it lacking.