The Nuclear Bomb & wartime morality

The fear of the nuclear bomb has come to dominate world consciousness. Wars are fought over whether countries will be allowed to develop it or not. Inspections are conducted. Negotiations take place to make sure we can only blow other nations up as many times as they can do the same to us and vice versa.

A lot of that goes back to a national angst that developed over the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I would argue that angst is misplaced.

Now, do not mistake what I am saying. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are watershed events in the history of the U.S., warfare in general, and even in the overall history of mankind itself. They were horrifically violent and destructive and, perhaps most importantly, were a new level of devastation from just one weapon. It was another in a long line of such.

For example, earlier in WWII we had the advent of USEFUL tanks. Rommel and the 7th Panzer Division for example used this new, deadly weapon so well that fewer than 10K casualties were taken in capturing over 100K French and British soldiers and completing a sweep that began in Germany and ended at the English Channel. This new, formidable weapon assisted in an unprecedented capture of men and territory for comparatively insignificant losses. I hesitate to agree with the term "acceptable losses" but at some point that phrase must come into play.

World War I built on the lessons not learned in Europe from the Civil War in finding out just how devastating the new machine guns were. The losses incurred at the Somme, for example, or on the Eastern Front were so heavy in comparison to "normal" warfare that even people with only the most minimal sense of history are often at least vaguely aware of the toll in human life...and, truth be told, on the human psyche...of the Somme. Masses of men huddled together for protection and instead provided excellent targets for the rapid fire of machine guns leading to rivers running red and unprecedented casualty rates.

Jump back a couple centuries to Crecy for an example as the development of the English Long Bow led to casualty rates, particularly among the knights, made up almost exclusively of the nobility, that put France at the mercy of England for a century.

In other words, the developments of new weapons often leads to the development of unprecedented casualty rates. And that, in turn, leads to fear and shifts in tactics.

Several factors were in play during World War II. One tactic was the nature of combat in the Pacific area of operations. Captives were few and far between. The traditional teaching has been the Japanese soldiers were fanatical and would not surrender. A few recent authors have tried to present an alternative view that the kill, not capture, motivation was not their resistance so much as racism but it has not yet become creditable and one suspects it will never be more than a fringe argument.

Be that as it may the fighting in the Pacific Islands was ferocious. Every foot of ground was heavily contested. Casualty rates were high. The feeling of the men doing the fighting was overwhelmingly that the Japanese were, indeed, fanatical and would fight to the death and few would surrender. This attitude would only be more in play as the island of Japan itself became the goal. Somehow the morale of the Japanese must be shattered.

Here is where the new moralities of warfare begun in World War I began to come into play. Civilians were justifiable targets if they could be linked even loosely with the war effort. Bombs don't discriminate...they kill warrior and civilian alike who are within the blast radius. And bombing was huge in WWII. No army was innocent of the indiscriminate bombings of enemy cities. Sometimes the results were unbelievably horrific.

And at times things got out of hand. Google the phrase "fire bombing of Dresden" and read about the events that went on there. It is a powerful argument about the horrors of war, particularly in an era where civilians are legitimate targets.

It is scary to note that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT the most deadly bombing attacks of World War II. They were not even the most deadly bombings of Japan. That honor...?...goes to Tokyo which was all but razed to the ground when it was subject to its own firebombing.

How deadly was Tokyo? 90K people reputedly died at Hiroshima and another 37K from Nagasaki. I have seen long-term estimates that bring the combined tolls to 200K for the deaths that later resulted from those 2 bombs...or about as many as died in Tokyo alone during the firebombing. Now, to be sure the bombs that fell on Tokyo numbered more than just 2. But the results were more devastating.

Which of those bombings was justified? Which one(s) was/were not? All were done in context of war, all were performed with an enemy that had not surrendered...some latter day scholars argue they were extending feelers towards surrendering but to put too much emphasis on that ignores the numerous examples of nations "extending feelers towards peace" in an effort to buy time. The method of dealing with Germany of demanding unconditional surrender and continuing the pressure until they capitulated was the model that HAD to be followed. Talking about surrender is not the same as surrendering.

The next stage of the debate typically goes to how many U.S. soldiers would have died trying to take Japan on the ground through infantry operations. I would argue that is the wrong question.

In war there is the concept I referred to earlier of "acceptable losses". Consider this; according to History.com "Only 243 American airmen were lost-considered acceptable losses."

I disagree with that statement. If 1 or 2 bombs can accomplish what 7000 tons of bombs cannot then those 1 or 2 bombs with the attendant risk of fewer than a dozen lives, those are the "acceptable losses"...the fewest of "our boys" possible. "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." is a quote attributed to Patton and the idea behind it is exactly correct. If you can bring the enemy to the peace table at the loss of zero of your own men, whatever means is necessary to accomplish that is the best means available regardless of how many of the enemy must die.

If by killing 10,000 enemy at a loss of 2000 of your own people brings them to the table, that is an option. But if by killing 100,000 of them to the loss of 100 of your own will ALSO work, that is the correct option. And if killing a million of them with the loss of none of your own will work...well, that is the best one yet.

Does that mean I am for the indiscriminate killing of the enemy in war? Nope. But fewer friendly casualties is better. If you are going to war, do it right.

Unfortunately, that means war is going to be a horrific thing because events like Hiroshima which, objectively considered, pale in comparison to events like Tokyo, are necessary to warping the will of the opponent to continue fighting.

Now, my opinion that "justified" war is something that happens so seldom as to be unique in the annals of modern history. However, people being people they will generate reasons for war and then execute the war to the best of their ability. Events like Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, and yes...even Iwo Jima, Taraka, and so forth...are going to occur and people need to be ready for that and consider whether they can do those things in clean conscience.

Perhaps just as important, people need to be AWARE of the effects of war and take that into consideration before entering it. It is very easy for people to complain about Chechoslovakia, Poland, the Sudetenland, and Austria being thrown under the bus by European powers in trying to pacify Hitler...but the people making those concessions still had the Great War fresh in their memory banks. They knew some of the costs of war that would come. They tried to avoid it. They failed. There were consequences. Horrible consequences. And not all the lessons have been learned.