The horror of war justified it, because although the civilian and the soldier distinction is very clearly perceived during relative peace, remeber, all soldeirs were once civilians, and they were sons of civilians. The distinction fades quickly, when anger produces civilian armies, who are roaring to fight.
“Great things require that one be silent about them or talk about them on a grand scale: on a grand scale means cynically and with innocence.”
-N
I don’t think I am wrong.
I was going to say something to that extent. Then I figured how war has become more privatized and technological and came up with that fiction about robots. It’s not entirely fictional, as corporations seem to behave robotically.
They are both important factors, I agree, but you are correcting they did not answer my question.
I would agree causing fear in the opposition is the main factor in all wars (gun powder or no gunpowder).
Civilians have especially become the targets of bombs in recent years.
The carpet bombing of Dresden in Germany was another horrific example. Even the press at the time recognized this as terror bombing where 1300 allied plains dropped around 4000 tones of explosives killing around 25,000 people. Dresden was a cultural town with very little military targets being taken down. It was essentially used as refugee camp. This occurred on 13/14 February 1945.
The question remains: Is it justifiable to intentionally target civilians as method of psychological warfare.
Jr,
I do not know whether you realized it or not but you are asking the same question; Whether killing of those journalists were justified or not?
But, as i said there; Confrontation knows no rules.
If one person slaps the other, is it justified for the second person to come up with two slaps, or even a punch?
Or, his reaction would be justified only when he slaps the first one on the same cheek with same force?
If one stabs other with the knife, is it justified to for the stabbed person to shoot the attacker right in head?
Or, one should shoot precisely where he was stabbed to justify his action?
[b]It is not justified even to find justifications in the confrontation/war. The limit of justification ends when either party breeches the mutually justified limit. After that, no rules applies. Both will do whatever they have to do to get the upper hand. Justifications are meant only for justified circumstances.
Otherwise, as we all know it that everything is justified in love and war. Thus, this burden is on both the parties not to let the situation escalate to the limit where no justifications would be neither required nor asked. They must overlook and ignore the breeches coming from the other side, as far as possible, or as far as they can bear it. But, all do not have the same bearing capacity, and both parties should take each other’s bearing capacity in the mind too.
This is wisdom, if anyone can understand that.
Otherwise, that would lead to confrontation, sooner or later, if not checked. And, when that would have been happened, it would be useless to find justifications. That time would have been gone by then.[/b]
Yes, we can certainly debate on whether nuking Japan was justified or not. And, It is also not the case that his question is unansweable. But, it is useless. The more important question is whether that war was justified or not, and which party initiated the confrontation.
With love,
sanjay
I do not feel that either party initiate confrontation. There are historical circumstances that progressively escalate tensions and it is not so important who fired the first bullet. It takes a lot of awareness to look at war when it is still in the womb.
To answer your question, yes it can be justified to attack civilians.
What is the justification?
Edit: My question was regarding psychological warfare against civilians. Not just about civilians.
To end or prevent future wars. You are presuming civilians are innocent, only children may claim that. And yet, children grow up.
I do not think I ever used the word innocent. I did not presume (you presumed that I presumed)
I asked if psychological war could be justified when used on civilian targets.
Obviously dropping the bombs on Japan did not end any war (as it was almost over) and it has failed to prevent future wars.
Even if we assume it did end WWII, was dropping the second bomb 3 days later justified?
If they are not considered innocent by you then why the qualms? WWII might have been but, WWIII was in the works and would happen unless the shit was scared out of all. Those bombs scared the makers and all others. The photos and films are reminders of what will happen on a greater scale.
Justified to save future millions or life on this mudball. Civilians in large part control their government. If just the government was attacked, it has little positive effect on the entire. Vulnerable fearful citizens will turn on their government in order to stop its actions. Or in many cases they will. North Korea may be an extreme exception.
There are no qualms from my side. I am just asking questions without attacking either side.
Many people disagree with the death penalty for the guilty. The questions of innocence or guilt is irrelevant to this discussion as far as I am concerned. I did not raise the topic of innocence/guilt.
I like the remainder of your post but I think you are wrong on one point. Carefully examine what hase been going on in the world for the last few years. We are experiencing WWIII now. Could it be called anything else but a World War? Politicians are clever with their political speak… This is not a WoT it is a WW.
There are a few nefarious governmental things going on , which are you refering to?
Yeah, I know you don’t think you’re wrong. I just pointed out what I’ve noticed has become a pattern in modern thought. I’ve read your response on your forum and it’s clear that you don’t live on Balkan at all and that you’re completely ignorant of its history and the internal reasons that actually contributed to the conflict. Aside from reducing the cogency of your argument, I think people on this thread should also consider it as a good example of how one should be cautious in judging other nations and people for their actions because most of us are ignorant as to what is actually going on, especially in foreign countries. There is a lot of misinformation going on in this internet era. It’s optimal to try and see the issue from more than one side.
What is your view on the Balkan situation. Was it avoidable? Ironically the allied forces supported Islam in the Balkan war.
Atheris, pethaps you will at one point provide something of an argument for what I am led to suspect is a specific conviction, idea or belief that you have. I still take you seriously to the extent of believing that you actually think you have a point (though trolls have misleadingly convinced me of such before, I remain naively hopeful about people) even though it is too weak, apparently, to be made public.
Take your time. I may bite but you will live.
I just don’t wanna go offtopic, but I think it’s related to this thread in ways I explained above.
I’ll probably come to your forum when I have some more time and give you my opinion, or make a separate thread here.
I look forward to it.
No one knows better than I do that I am imperfectly informed about most any political situation in history and that truth is always layered and complex. But I have been studying and speaking to Balkan born friends the past years and the narrative as I have been fed intensively during those crucial years in the 90’s appears to me now to be downright fictional.
Loosely related, just for “fun” look up the video where Karremans is interrogated by Mladic. The role of my own nation in this conflict is less than honorable.
In any case, you also challenged my assertion about Japan and the end of the war; the Sovjet factor. This is not off topic. I suggest you explain why you think I am wrong in that respect. If you know a bit about me you know I never spit in the face of a learning opportunity. But I am relatively well informed on martial matters these days. One result of that is knowing I can never be exactly certain. To paraphrase the still relevant Sun Tzu, war is firstly the art of creating illusions.
An obvious seeming truth is bound to be a well chosen fiction.
Fixed Cross wrote:
I saw this also.
It makes you wonder about 9/11 and why osama bin laden was ‘silenced’?
9/11 was with the same motivation but with far less casualties.
Why is one justifiable and the other not?
Without a doubt, the nukes on Japan were part of the Cold War’s first massacre.
In a similar manner to 9/11 being part of the War on Islam’s first massacre.
If Hitler had dropped them [and we still somehow won] we would have no doubt it was an evil act ~ the most evil act in human history.
It may have cost more lives another way, but the human race would and did continue to grow quickly getting back to the same and greater population. A nuclear war could mean there are no survivors, ergo dropping the A-bomb was evil*.
*where ‘evil’ is simply a reference to a more catastrophic event or series of events.