We used strategic, i.e. terror, bombing, against both Germany and Japan, with two justifications: first, the ruthlessness of the enemy would break our morale and encourage more bad behavior if it went unpunished. Thus, their atrocities begat a "tit for tat" strategy. Second, that terror bombing would break their will faster and therefore hasten the end of the war. The Strategic Bombing Survey in Europe cast doubt on that effect, although there was some evidence that it might have affected the Japanese.
My position is that civilians are either complicit in the war, or are in the position of hostages. Assuming they are hostages, we try to conserve their lives. However, we cannot allow the enemy to win by hiding behind human shields, and therefore we accept that battle may result in "collateral damage". By extension, if it is likely we will lose if we are too scrupulous about civilian casualties, the tit for tat strategy is acceptable. I would still prefer the primary target to be a legitimate military target. As for shortening the war, only if it seems to be the more merciful thing over all, conserving many more human lives. On that basis, I support the atomic bombings, but am dubious about some of the strategic bombing. I think the bombing of Tokyo was probably justified, but the bombing of Dresden was probably a war crime, for example (though mitigated by the tenor of the war)....... |
