Article: the American use of the atomic bombs

[Traitorfish]

But Total War can not be treated only as strategy. It can't be justified. Never. The Code of War, whether this is international law, traditions or warrior codes, forbids it. But it is used as justification. Thus it is more than only a strategy.

Adler

Firstly, whether or not it can be justified is utterly irrelevant. The point is that it in itself is not a justification.
Secondly, the "Code of War" is not some eternal, absolute principal, it's merely an inconsistent set of rules decided upon before hand. Whether it forbids total war or not is irrelevant to idea of total war being used as a justification.
Thirdly, no political entity has ever used total war as a justification of anything. They've attempted to justify acts by saying "it was necessary to achieve blank", but that carries the additional requirement that "blank" itself be justified. In WW2, for example, the Nazis justified various war-crimes by saying that they were necessary to win the war, but they justified the need to win the war using Nazism, they didn't simply pick and arbitrary goal and declare that it justified itself.

 

[Adler17]

@ Onejayhawk:

This is by far no "religious" position but a position of human rights law. As with war being the strongest political means and the most dangerous political situation for civilians it must be restricted.

Also remember Berlin was before Dresden. And to see civilians as legimate targets you are near to argumenting like the Nazis.

@ traitorfish:

You see in that example that total war is used as justification. Although we agree that it can't be one.
This "code of war" term was used only to find a term for a conglomerate of international laws and rules to protect civilians and soldiers (shooting PoW, sinking hospital ships,...). They forbid total war.
Thus even if the reason to go for war is a good one, like the Allies against the Nazis, it is in no way a justification for using total war. Or they are at one level. And then there is no reason why to grant that the Nazis, too. Thus even the Holocaust is justified because of the "tu quoque"!
That way is unacceptable.

Adler

 

[onejayhawk]

@ warpus: Tell that a man from an Anatolian village. He would answer it would be morally okay! (okay, not all of these people...)

@onejayhawk: In the eyes of the Nazis the Jews helped to lose WW1 for Germany and so were a danger for the war again and thus had to be eliminated. As this is BS, it is in the light of total war a justification. Total war allows everything. If you want to limit that it is no total war.

Adler

It always comes down to definitions. In practice, "total war" has never meant that. In practice it means attacking civil populations to impact the ability to sustain the army. The "total" refers to taking the entire population as combatant. Because of this, the limitations involving area effect weapons cease to have the same weight. Direct attacks on civil populations are acceptable. Many find this morally repugnant.

That does not mean that "anything goes." It is more the taking off of safety settings. The objective is still the same: defeating the enemy's army. Anything which does not contribute to that goal is, and should not be, considered acceptable. Hence the term "total war" is a misnomer. There are limits.

In the current case, there was a clear military objective in the use of nuclear weapons in Japan. Further, the use of the atomic bomb fulfilled that objective brilliantly. It is as justifiable as the entire war is justifiable. War itself constitutes breaking societal values. Once that line is crossed, there is not logical place to put the new limit.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

@ Onejayhawk:

This is by far no "religious" position but a position of human rights law. As with war being the strongest political means and the most dangerous political situation for civilians it must be restricted.

Also remember Berlin was before Dresden. And to see civilians as legimate targets you are near to argumenting like the Nazis.

@ traitorfish:

You see in that example that total war is used as justification. Although we agree that it can't be one.
This "code of war" term was used only to find a term for a conglomerate of international laws and rules to protect civilians and soldiers (shooting PoW, sinking hospital ships,...). They forbid total war.
Thus even if the reason to go for war is a good one, like the Allies against the Nazis, it is in no way a justification for using total war. Or they are at one level. And then there is no reason why to grant that the Nazis, too. Thus even the Holocaust is justified because of the "tu quoque"!
That way is unacceptable.

Adler

I mentioned that Coventry was before Dresden. I mentioned that there is a principle of reciprosity. So I fail to see your point here.

You mention "code of war" repeatedly, referring to things such as the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners. There was an agreement not to use chemical weapons. And so on. What this fails to take into account is when one side is using the hospital ships to transport troops, or stationing troops in civil populations, or using religious buildings as lookout points, etc.

A code is an agreement. When one side willingly abuses the agreement, the agreement fails. So with the "code of war." This is where the reciprocity comes in. When the Luftwaffe bombed London, the reciprical bombing of Berlin becomes a part of the working code. As always in human endeavor, excesses are found to be so after the fact, and rarely at the time.

J

 

[Traitorfish]

You see in that example that total war is used as justification. Although we agree that it can't be one.

No, in that example total war requires justification. As I said, "we have to win the war by any means necessary" doesn't provide justification for any actions unless justifications have already been made for winning the war, with further justifications for why it must be won "by any means necessary".
I mean, "we have to win the war" is an assertion which requires justification, yes? So how does adding an additional assertion- "by any means necessary" remove the need for justification? Surely, that requires additional justification, as I said?
Put simply, war in itself is not used as a justification of anything, so is total war- war and then some- become a justification?

(And, again, I'm aware that you don't actually consider war as self-justifying, but I'm just highlighting the fact that this is not merely because it is morally insufficient, but because it is logically absurd.)

This "code of war" term was used only to find a term for a conglomerate of international laws and rules to protect civilians and soldiers (shooting PoW, sinking hospital ships,...). They forbid total war.

True, but irrelevant. Whether or not total war is legal does not effect the issue.

Thus even if the reason to go for war is a good one, like the Allies against the Nazis, it is in no way a justification for using total war. Or they are at one level. And then there is no reason why to grant that the Nazis, too. Thus even the Holocaust is justified because of the "tu quoque"!
That way is unacceptable.

Irrelevant- my point was that even the Nazis attempted to justify their warfare, they didn't simply assume that violence was self-justifying. Whether their justifications was valid is not the issue. Even if this justification is something as ridiculous as "two wrongs make a right" (in whatever language you want to put it), that's still an attempt to justify war, meaning that the war was not considered self-justifying.

 

[Adler17]

@onejayhawk:
International law is binding and much more than an agreement only. Thus it remains forbidden even both parties violate that. BTW London was an accident and was objectively seen as such. Thus the attack on Berlin was not justified.

@ Traitorfish:
To win a war, even if it is justified to lead the war, does not mean it is allowed everything to do so. Indeed all have to keep the rules. Thus Total war can not be justified by any means. "We have to win the war" is no justification for total war.

Adler

 

[Traitorfish]

To win a war, even if it is justified to lead the war, does not mean it is allowed everything to do so. Indeed all have to keep the rules. Thus Total war can not be justified by any means.

You have that totally backasswards. Total was is not accepted by most Rules of War systems because it is percieved that the results of total war cannot be justified. Whether or not some arbitrary system deems total war legal or not has nothing to do with whether or not they are justified.

"We have to win the war" is no justification for total war.

I know, that's what I've been saying for three days.
Look, my point was that your objection to total war- that, if accepted, it could be used as a justification for any action- was logically absurd, not that total war is justifiable, or that it serves as a justification.

You seem to think that total war is some form of ideology, one which can be used to justify war-crimes, and so you consider it inherently wrong. I am debating this, saying that total war is merely a tool, and does not serve as a justification anymore than any other tool of war, and so cannot possess any more inherent "rightness" or "wrongness" than any other tool.
That is the issue. Whether or not total war is justifiable is irrelevant, as I've said several times already.

 

[C~G]

Look, my point was that your objection to total war- that, if accepted, it could be used as a justification for any action- was logically absurd, not that total war is justifiable, or that it serves as a justification.

Why it's logically absurd?

That's what people do:
They seek some kind of justication for the war but not for the individual actions that follow total war strategy and then when asked about justification for these acts, they say "because war is like this and we must win by any means necessary".

In other words, they already assume that "right is on their side" on the war so therefore using total war as strategy doesn't required justification and they can escape this need for justification.

You seem to think that total war is some form of ideology, one which can be used to justify war-crimes, and so you consider it inherently wrong. I am debating this, saying that total war is merely a tool, and does not serve as a justification anymore than any other tool of war, and so cannot possess any more inherent "rightness" or "wrongness" than any other tool.
That is the issue. Whether or not total war is justifiable is irrelevant, as I've said several times already.

Total war can turn into ideology and it seems some people hold it as ideology.

Even though you think it only as strategy doesn't mean it cannot be ideology.
People already think that it is "right" when they describe why it was used. And if some person dares to say it's "wrong", then it's usually said that "war is like that, blah blah".

I cannot speak for Adler, but I would think he sees the issue the same way as I do, that total war as strategy shouldn't be turned into ideology and like I already mentioned earlier (maybe even numerous times) it creates vicious circle where it is the motive, the alibi and the murder weapon for any acts people do. Question is do we just allow this to happen or do we actually consider the consequences of these individual acts without going into excuse-mode of what kind of reality war is.

It's true that "total war as strategy is neutral and amoral". And just like spirit of profit in capitalism people use it as ideology for justication for itself. But it can lead into dire results, but people just think it as "forces of nature" that cannot be handled by the people themselves but instead the justification is seek from some kind of total war principle where everything is on the table even when it might be not so.

It can turn into murderous political tool especially when linked to propaganda very closely being an ideology that gives meaning to the things are being done.

That has been my point since from my second message on this thread.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why it's logically absurd?

Simple- war is a means to an end, therefore any strategies used within a war, such as the adoption of total war, are also a means to an end. To be a means requires an end, and an end requires a justification, therefore all means require justification in the form of a justified end. Therefore, the notion of self-justifying means is logically absurd.

They seek some kind of justication for the war but not for the individual actions that follow total war strategy and then when asked about justification for these acts, they say "because war is like this and we must win by any means necessary".

Justifying individual actions as "necessary" to the war effort is still justification, assuming that both the war itself and the necessity to go to such methods have also been justified.

In other words, they already assume that "right is on their side" on the war so therefore using total war as strategy doesn't required justification and they can escape this need for justification.

That's not the same thing- if "right is on their side", then that is the justification given.

Even though you think it only as strategy doesn't mean it cannot be ideology.

Yes, it does. A strategy is a means to an end, an ideology is an end. Therefore, strategy can be used to fulfill an ideology, but it may not be one in itself.

People already think that it is "right" when they describe why it was used. And if some person dares to say it's "wrong", then it's usually said that "war is like that, blah blah".

As I've said, the war itself requires justification. If the war is used to justify further actions, that is a form of justification.

...like I already mentioned earlier (maybe even numerous times) it creates vicious circle where it is the motive, the alibi and the murder weapon for any acts people do.

But even then, the justification given is revenge, war is simply the means of attaining that. It is never the aim in itself; no-one wages war for the sake of war.

And just like spirit of profit in capitalism people use it as ideology for justication for itself.

Who? Name one political or military entity that has ever viewed war as self-justifying.

It can turn into murderous political tool especially when linked to propaganda very closely being an ideology that gives meaning to the things are being done.

So can a gun. But a gun cannot be an ideology. A gun is merely a tool, as is war.

 

[Adler17]

Traitorfish, even if a war is justified, not all means are justified to use. Indeed for total war you need itself as justification as itself can't be justified in another way.

Justifying individual actions as "necessary" to the war effort is still justification, assuming that both the war itself and the necessity to go to such methods have also been justified.

Even if an individual action is necessary in a justified war, they might be not justified if the rules of war are violated.

That's not the same thing- if "right is on their side", then that is the justification given.

Even then there is no justification to do everything. And it is never so easy to say they were right or wrong.

But even then, the justification given is revenge, war is simply the means of attaining that. It is never the aim in itself; no-one wages war for the sake of war.

Do you really think revenge is a justification for everything?!? A crime is not justifying another one. If you destroy my car I am not allowed to rape your sister.

Who? Name one political or military entity that has ever viewed war as self-justifying.

The parties using total war. IOW Germany at the Eastern front, Soviets, British Air Force, US Air Force in the last days.

So can a gun. But a gun cannot be an ideology. A gun is merely a tool, as is war.

To use guns to shoot "enemies of the state", linked with propaganda, and soon the gun is symbol for the ideology. Thus the strategy of total war becomes an ideology or at least something very near to it.

Adler

 

[Traitorfish]

Traitorfish, even if a war is justified, not all means are justified to use.

I know. I never said otherwise.

Indeed for total war you need itself as justification as itself can't be justified in another way.

Firstly, how do you justify the assertion that total war is unjustifiable?
Secondly, if a mean truly could not be justified by an end, then it would be justifiable, not self-justifying.

Even if an individual action is necessary in a justified war, they might be not justified if the rules of war are violated.

The "rules of war" have nothing to do with it. As I said, the rules of war are merely an arbitrary code derived from perceptions of what is justified and not, it does not and cannot provide justification in itself.

Even then there is no justification to do everything. And it is never so easy to say they were right or wrong.

Well, obviously. I didn't say that anyone declaring "right" to be on their side was instantly justified, I merely said that the claim "right is on our side" is an attempt to offer justification for an act, i.e. the act is not seen as self-justifying.

Do you really think revenge is a justification for everything?!? A crime is not justifying another one. If you destroy my car I am not allowed to rape your sister.

No, I don't. I said that revenge is the justification given for an action; whether or not the action is truly justified is irrelevant. The point was the action is not seen as self-justifying.

The parties using total war. IOW Germany at the Eastern front, Soviets, British Air Force, US Air Force in the last days.

None of those organisations ever saw total war as self-justifying; in every case it was a means to an end.

To use guns to shoot "enemies of the state", linked with propaganda, and soon the gun is symbol for the ideology. Thus the strategy of total war becomes an ideology or at least something very near to it.

Nonsense. If a gun is used to kill an "enemy of the state", then it is a means to an end, the end being the supremacy of the state. The gun does not and cannot become an end in itself. The same applies to any tool, including total war. And even if it did become a symbolic representation of the ideology, it does not become an ideology in itself, any more than a crucifix could become a religion.

 

[Adler17]

Firstly, how do you justify the assertion that total war is unjustifiable?
Secondly, if a mean truly could not be justified by an end, then it would be justifiable, not self-justifying.

How can you justify a total war? A total war "justifies" everything up to a genocide. Thus it is out of all relativism. Only victory. It can not be justifíed. Indeed it is used as justification, although it isn't.

The "rules of war" have nothing to do with it. As I said, the rules of war are merely an arbitrary code derived from perceptions of what is justified and not, it does not and cannot provide justification in itself.

If that's true there is no justification for punishing war criminals as everything is allowed. That's the total war theory. It is a circle runner.

None of those organisations ever saw total war as self-justifying; in every case it was a means to an end.

But the end, or better the way to it, was justified with the total war theory.

Nonsense. If a gun is used to kill an "enemy of the state", then it is a means to an end, the end being the supremacy of the state. The gun does not and cannot become an end in itself. The same applies to any tool, including total war. And even if it did become a symbolic representation of the ideology, it does not become an ideology in itself, any more than a crucifix could become a religion.

But a crucifix is narrowly tied to christianity. It became a symbol of it. The same happens with total war. It is part of totalitarism. It became near to an ideology. BTW my example was not the best.

Adler

 

[Traitorfish]

How can you justify a total war?

If the positive end result of adopting total war outweighs the cost of adopting total war, then it can be considered justified (assuming you're willing to accept consequentialism).

A total war "justifies" everything up to a genocide.

No more than a gas chamber does- it's a tool, a means to an end. Without a justified end, it is not justified. It cannot justify itself.

It can not be justifíed.

Logically prove that assertion.

If that's true there is no justification for punishing war criminals as everything is allowed.

Not what I said. I said that the "rules of war" are arbitrary, as are all rules and laws. That's not to say they can be ignored, of course, but you have to remember why the rules exist- they are based on concepts of right and wrong, derived from principles that exist beyond the law itself. The rules merely acknowledge these principals, they do not dictate them.
Put simply, a crime is illegal because it's wrong, it's not wrong because it's illegal.

That's the total war theory.

No it's not. Total war "theory", if there is such a thing, is merely the implementation of total war as a strategy. It has nothing to do with whether total war is justified in any given situation.

But the end, or better the way to it, was justified with the total war theory.

No it wasn't. Every nation involved in WW2 had ideological motives and justified the war with the assertion that victory for their side would be prefferable to victory for the others. The Nazis justified total war with the belief that Nazism was a superior ideology, just as the Soviets did with communism and the Western Allies did with democracy.

But a crucifix is narrowly tied to christianity. It became a symbol of it. The same happens with total war. It is part of totalitarism. It became near to an ideology. BTW my example was not the best.

But you're missing the point- becoming a symbol of an ideology does not mean something is an ideology. No matter how closely tied a crucifix is to Christianity, it is not a religion; no matter how closely total war is tied to an ideology, it is not an ideology.

 

[SickCycle]

The United States doesn't need to justify anything, it's a weapon that's its purpose.

I'm sure you already know they are thinking of using tactical nukes in Iran to take out the bunkers/facilities under ground.

All I can say is, Glow baby glow.

 

[holy king]

The United States doesn't need to justify anything, it's a weapon that's its purpose.

I'm sure you already know they are thinking of using tactical nukes in Iran to take out the bunkers/facilities under ground.

All I can say is, Glow baby glow.

....
you're a cartoon...

 

[Adler17]

I don't take THAT serious, sickcycle. So what did you say if Japan nuked LA?

Adler

 

[SickCycle]

I'd say Japan wouldn't but if you said, China/Russia/Nkorea/Iran nuked LA, I'd say that is my hometown and I'd say.. and watch a continent disappear to ease my grief.

I'd prob still cry like a baby since my family would be gone but that is life and that is war, it's a weapon and that is its purpose.

I wouldnt be crying you murders.. I'd be crying this is war and then take great pleasure in joining up and genociding there people.

You know some people say for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, well I think that is almost right, except when your dealing with human emotion, I'd say everything you do good or bad will come back x10, and that would be a good example, the twin towers another.

 

[Traitorfish]

^

(10 chars)

 

[holy king]

sickcycle, go lose a fist fight, it may be just what you need now...

 

[Traitorfish]

Don't feed the troll, holy king. Just sit back and laugh while me makes an arse of himself.