4 ms·

Under this classification what makes the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima different from any other terrorist attack? I mean, who is to decide under which circums

Under this classification what makes the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima different from any other terrorist attack? I mean, who is to decide under which circumstances unarmed civilians are a legitimate military target?

mtgx 11y ago
What's interesting is that there are louder voices about the US's need to be "more ruthless" towards ISIS. Obviously they don't mean "killing ISIS less nicely" or anything like that. What they mean is the US shouldn't care if it kills say 10 civilians for every known ISIS member. If that's what brings them the win (maybe) then they should do it.
cwyers 11y ago
Technically, there was a military target for both of those. The firebombing of Dresden was designed to deprive the German army of materiel by bombing strategically important industrial factories. With Hiroshima, there was several Army headquarters and key logistic facilities. (Hiroshima probably fails to be justified on the grounds of proportionality; the military objectives there probably could've been achieved with conventional bombings.)
- kuschku 11y ago
  Dresden was not done for industrial reasons – in fact, Dresden was chosen because it had next to no industry. The concept was "morale bombing": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive
  - cwyers 11y ago
    The Wikipedia article you cite there mentions that Essen, which is on the other side of the country from Dresden, was the primary target of that campaign, and that it ended in 1943, when the firebombing of Dresden didn't begin until 1945.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      Well, that is annoying. The German article mentions a larger timespan. I had hoped the english one would be equivalent, but it seems that’s rarely the case anymore :/
      - cwyers 11y ago
        Link the German one; my German is incredibly rusty, but I can see if I can muddle through.
        kuschku 11y ago
        https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Bombing https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Bombing It has stuff like "the monthly bombing rate in 1944 was 90'000 tons", etc. In general, the German article focuses more on the concept in general than about the specific directive. Read more on the actual article that I wanted to link, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsm%C3%BCdigkeit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsm%C3%BCdigkeit
- CWuestefeld 11y ago
  I just finished a biography of Harry Truman. If I recall that part correctly, he actually vetoed one city (maybe Yokohama, iirc) because it wasn't clearly enough a military target.
  - acqq 11y ago
    No, it's Henry Stimson saving Kyoto, not because not being a military target but because of its special cultural meaning. I've got that reading Grove's "Now it can be told." Grove's biggest fear, as he writes, was for a war to end before he can detonate a few bombs. I haven't read the full article here, but it seems it agrees: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182
    - CWuestefeld 11y ago
      Thanks for the correction.

mtgx 11y ago

What's interesting is that there are louder voices about the US's need to be "more ruthless" towards ISIS. Obviously they don't mean "killing ISIS less nicely" or anything like that. What they mean is the US shouldn't care if it kills say 10 civilians for every known ISIS member. If that's what brings them the win (maybe) then they should do it.

cwyers 11y ago

Technically, there was a military target for both of those. The firebombing of Dresden was designed to deprive the German army of materiel by bombing strategically important industrial factories. With Hiroshima, there was several Army headquarters and key logistic facilities. (Hiroshima probably fails to be justified on the grounds of proportionality; the military objectives there probably could've been achieved with conventional bombings.)

kuschku 11y ago
Dresden was not done for industrial reasons – in fact, Dresden was chosen because it had next to no industry. The concept was "morale bombing": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive
- cwyers 11y ago
  The Wikipedia article you cite there mentions that Essen, which is on the other side of the country from Dresden, was the primary target of that campaign, and that it ended in 1943, when the firebombing of Dresden didn't begin until 1945.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Well, that is annoying. The German article mentions a larger timespan. I had hoped the english one would be equivalent, but it seems that’s rarely the case anymore :/
    - cwyers 11y ago
      Link the German one; my German is incredibly rusty, but I can see if I can muddle through.
      - kuschku 11y ago
        https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Bombing https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Bombing It has stuff like "the monthly bombing rate in 1944 was 90'000 tons", etc. In general, the German article focuses more on the concept in general than about the specific directive. Read more on the actual article that I wanted to link, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsm%C3%BCdigkeit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsm%C3%BCdigkeit
CWuestefeld 11y ago
I just finished a biography of Harry Truman. If I recall that part correctly, he actually vetoed one city (maybe Yokohama, iirc) because it wasn't clearly enough a military target.
- acqq 11y ago
  No, it's Henry Stimson saving Kyoto, not because not being a military target but because of its special cultural meaning. I've got that reading Grove's "Now it can be told." Grove's biggest fear, as he writes, was for a war to end before he can detonate a few bombs. I haven't read the full article here, but it seems it agrees: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182
  - CWuestefeld 11y ago
    Thanks for the correction.