6 ms·

It's strange though, because nobody got executed for dropping atomic bombs, which was also intentional mass murder.

moheeb 13y ago
This is an excellent point. I think there is an argument in there somewhere for actions starting a war versus actions ending a war. Also doing it Charlie Sheen style helps (winning!)
Spooky23 13y ago
Winning the war is obviously the biggest factor in terms of who goes to the gallows. But there's a difference between loss of life in combat versus deliberate murder of noncombatants outside of a combat situation or of prisoners who are in your care. It's not about who has the highest scorecard of death and depravity. Ask the same question about incendiary bombing, which happened throughout the war. The B-29s dropping incendiaries on Tokyo killed more people than the atomic attacks. Are those pilots war criminals? Are the artillerymen who leveled towns and villages full of people war criminals? Based on the "total war" approach embraced in WW2, they were not.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Yeah, I only meant the atomic bombs, which was quite clearly "deliberate murder of noncombatants outside of a combat situation" as far as I can tell. I mean, it was essentially, "We have unlimited capacity to randomly murder 100,000 of your civilians at once, we've demonstrated it twice now, so submit to our authority." Well, they did.
  - brazzy 13y ago
    Well, what you can tell is wrong. The atomic bombs were horrific in their destructions and death toll, but not really any more than the conventional bombings. Even the Japanese didn't think much of Hiroshima based on that alone (they had gotten used to cities getting wiped out) and it took Nagasaki to make clear that this was really a game-changer.
    - acjacobson 13y ago
      Here's an interesting article that stipulates Nagasaki really didn't add anything to the equation (and to your original point the Japanese were already used to this) - http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_didnt_beat_japan_nuclear_world_war_ii http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_di...
  - joyeuse6701 13y ago
    Dresden Bombings, Bombing of London, Tokyo Fire Bombings, Rape of Nanjing, take your pick, WWII was Total War in the closest sense of the Clausewitzian term, it was about breaking the will of a government (sometimes) and definitely it's people. The practice of protecting civilians of a foreign nation is really a western one rooted in chivalric code of conduct and to be fair, wasn't expected practice until fairly recently.
  - Spooky23 13y ago
    Under the military doctrine of the day, the enemy's means of production were legitimate targets. That included industry, transit points, and other things associated with urban areas. The Japanese adopted a similar strategy, especially in China. FYI I'm not personally advocating that obliterating cities is ok. I find it morally repugnant. I'm Just recounting the generally accepted standard of the time.
cynicalkane 13y ago
What a bunch of pedantic garbage. The Japanese were willing to commit to total war to defend their right to conquer and massacre Chinese people and Pacific islanders and surprise-bomb the USA while they were at it. The only significant debate about the A-Bomb is whether it was more or less deadly than an invasion of mainland Japan. Any fourth grade history student would understand this. When people talk about the decline of HN, I think it's this sort of information-free, pointlessly contrary posts that they talk about.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  > What a bunch of pedantic garbage. [ ] Any fourth grade history student would understand this. [ ] When people talk about the decline of HN, I think it's this sort of information-free, pointlessly contrary posts that they talk about. If you have a valid point, why do you need to resort to incivility? > The Japanese were willing to commit to total war to defend their right to massacre Chinese people; the USA took them up on the offer. The only significant debate about the A-Bomb is whether it was more or less deadly than an invasion of mainland Japan. So you actually think that intentionally killing civilians to win a war is morally okay? I just don't hold that view.
  - bernawil 13y ago
    > So you actually think that intentionally killing civilians to win a war is morally okay? I just don't hold that view. Even if the civilian deaths attributed to the A-bomb where less than that of a supposed land invasion?. WW2 saw lots of that. Think of the bombing of Dresden when the Allies whipped out the city with incendiary bombs because it was a mayor city factory (ammo, etc.).
    - samastur 13y ago
      Yes, even then. Even if you could be sure that there would be more civilian deaths (which you really can't be), there is a big ethical difference between choosing to kill someone and being forced to do it.
jlgreco 13y ago
Nothing but a textbook example of Victor's Justice. Had the Japanese won, those trials would have taken place (well, executions at least, perhaps not trials).
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Yeah, this was kind of my point about Manning, namely that justice is rather arbitrary and is transparently hypocritical at best. Nothing seriously bad happened to the people in the Collateral Murder video, for instance.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Quite right, and there is no shortage of more modern examples of it too.
rayiner 13y ago
"Murder" is unlawful killing. Even if you believe in the existence of international law, it's not unlawful to kill civilians in the course of a bombing campaign in a declared war.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Oh, I was using "murder" in the moral sense. I need to be more clear about these things. I believe that capital punishment is murder, for instance.

This is an excellent point. I think there is an argument in there somewhere for actions starting a war versus actions ending a war. Also doing it Charlie Sheen style helps (winning!)

Spooky23 13y ago

Winning the war is obviously the biggest factor in terms of who goes to the gallows. But there's a difference between loss of life in combat versus deliberate murder of noncombatants outside of a combat situation or of prisoners who are in your care. It's not about who has the highest scorecard of death and depravity. Ask the same question about incendiary bombing, which happened throughout the war. The B-29s dropping incendiaries on Tokyo killed more people than the atomic attacks. Are those pilots war criminals? Are the artillerymen who leveled towns and villages full of people war criminals? Based on the "total war" approach embraced in WW2, they were not.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Yeah, I only meant the atomic bombs, which was quite clearly "deliberate murder of noncombatants outside of a combat situation" as far as I can tell. I mean, it was essentially, "We have unlimited capacity to randomly murder 100,000 of your civilians at once, we've demonstrated it twice now, so submit to our authority." Well, they did.
- brazzy 13y ago
  Well, what you can tell is wrong. The atomic bombs were horrific in their destructions and death toll, but not really any more than the conventional bombings. Even the Japanese didn't think much of Hiroshima based on that alone (they had gotten used to cities getting wiped out) and it took Nagasaki to make clear that this was really a game-changer.
  - acjacobson 13y ago
    Here's an interesting article that stipulates Nagasaki really didn't add anything to the equation (and to your original point the Japanese were already used to this) - http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_didnt_beat_japan_nuclear_world_war_ii http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_di...
- joyeuse6701 13y ago
  Dresden Bombings, Bombing of London, Tokyo Fire Bombings, Rape of Nanjing, take your pick, WWII was Total War in the closest sense of the Clausewitzian term, it was about breaking the will of a government (sometimes) and definitely it's people. The practice of protecting civilians of a foreign nation is really a western one rooted in chivalric code of conduct and to be fair, wasn't expected practice until fairly recently.
- Spooky23 13y ago
  Under the military doctrine of the day, the enemy's means of production were legitimate targets. That included industry, transit points, and other things associated with urban areas. The Japanese adopted a similar strategy, especially in China. FYI I'm not personally advocating that obliterating cities is ok. I find it morally repugnant. I'm Just recounting the generally accepted standard of the time.

cynicalkane 13y ago

What a bunch of pedantic garbage. The Japanese were willing to commit to total war to defend their right to conquer and massacre Chinese people and Pacific islanders and surprise-bomb the USA while they were at it. The only significant debate about the A-Bomb is whether it was more or less deadly than an invasion of mainland Japan. Any fourth grade history student would understand this. When people talk about the decline of HN, I think it's this sort of information-free, pointlessly contrary posts that they talk about.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
> What a bunch of pedantic garbage. [ ] Any fourth grade history student would understand this. [ ] When people talk about the decline of HN, I think it's this sort of information-free, pointlessly contrary posts that they talk about. If you have a valid point, why do you need to resort to incivility? > The Japanese were willing to commit to total war to defend their right to massacre Chinese people; the USA took them up on the offer. The only significant debate about the A-Bomb is whether it was more or less deadly than an invasion of mainland Japan. So you actually think that intentionally killing civilians to win a war is morally okay? I just don't hold that view.
- bernawil 13y ago
  > So you actually think that intentionally killing civilians to win a war is morally okay? I just don't hold that view. Even if the civilian deaths attributed to the A-bomb where less than that of a supposed land invasion?. WW2 saw lots of that. Think of the bombing of Dresden when the Allies whipped out the city with incendiary bombs because it was a mayor city factory (ammo, etc.).
  - samastur 13y ago
    Yes, even then. Even if you could be sure that there would be more civilian deaths (which you really can't be), there is a big ethical difference between choosing to kill someone and being forced to do it.

jlgreco 13y ago

Nothing but a textbook example of Victor's Justice. Had the Japanese won, those trials would have taken place (well, executions at least, perhaps not trials).

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Yeah, this was kind of my point about Manning, namely that justice is rather arbitrary and is transparently hypocritical at best. Nothing seriously bad happened to the people in the Collateral Murder video, for instance.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Quite right, and there is no shortage of more modern examples of it too.

rayiner 13y ago

"Murder" is unlawful killing. Even if you believe in the existence of international law, it's not unlawful to kill civilians in the course of a bombing campaign in a declared war.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Oh, I was using "murder" in the moral sense. I need to be more clear about these things. I believe that capital punishment is murder, for instance.