Following another dicussion at work......

[Oneeyedvic]

And also loosely following the posting below regarding Obama's associates......

What is a legitimate target in war?

Was the attack on the Twin towers a legitimate attack if carried out by Al Qaeda. After all, their 'aim' is to bankrupt the USA and the attacks did send the stockmarket plunging.

Was Dresden a legitimate target in the second world war?

Please note, I am not condoning any of the above attacks, just querying what are legitimate targets that it is acceptable to attack?

[Octavius]

Geneva Conventions of 1977: �Those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.�

International humanitarian law, specifies that only targets that make �an effective contribution to military action� may be attacked.

The term is loose enough to let any mad man (or woman) justify their actions. You gave two examples above, another was the bombing of an Iraqi news station by the US who declared that the targets were �part of the military command and control structures,� and that they were treated �as other parts of the communications system that allows the military to operate in and around Baghdad are similarly dealt with.� Some say that propaganda is not generally regarded as a contribution to military action, some say it is. Especially if the commander of the time is calling for their nation to rise up and 'slit the throats' of their adversaries.

[brionon]

I don't think either was a legitimate Target, nor were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All Terrorist actions carried out against Civillians.

[34years]

were london ,coventry , manchester, liverpool legitimate targets . because of very brave people brionon can state his/her answer

[naomi24]

Depending upon the mentality of the aggressor, pretty much anything can be perceived as a legitimate target if war has been declared - but I don't recall Al Qaeda declaring war before the attack on the Twin Towers - although I may be wrong.

[jake-the-peg]

People don't decalare war any more.

We didn't declare war in 1982 against Argentina.

The days of Neville Chamberlain-esque speeches are well gone

[R1Geezer]

Pretty much anything can be attacked or justified. I notice Brionon doesn't mention the flip sides to his cherry pickings.

Targetting civilians has always been done!

All war criminals are on the losing side!

If muslims are ar at war with the infidel then they would see thier atrocities as valid action, we the recipients of course would not, we then take action ourselves in response and so it continues.

Brionon, Nagasaki and Hiroshima save millions of lives, try doing some paradoxical thinking.

Dresden etc where the flip side of London, Coventry, etc try some balance in your life, try and temper your hatred of your home nation, what part of Germany are you from?

[Oneeyedvic]

r1Geezer - Nagasaki and Hiroshima save millions of lives - why do you think that?

[jake-the-peg]

I can see Hiroshima Geezer

How do you justify Nagasaki?

[R1Geezer]

Well vic you have to get into the mind set of the Japanese at the time. They preferred death to surrender and losses where huge on both sides with convetional action, fighting on pacific Islands for example. They would never have surrendered, in fact the mainland population where getting daily propaganda from their leaders and where being encouraged to fight with whatever means they could. An invasion would have meant fighting for every inch, a huge loss for both sides, estimated to be in Millions. Even one atomic bomb was not enough to convince them, the US had to convince them that they had a new weapon and could destroy an entire city at a time. Only after the 2nd bomb did even they realise that further resistance is futile and surrender. Even then it was on orders from the Emperor and many Samuria committed Hari Kari rather than live with the "dishonour". Without the Bomb they would have fought on indefinately.

[Octavius]

I doubt it can ever be justified, but it did bring about the surrender of Japan. Had that not hapened, the yanks had a further 6 nukes lined up for attacks, 3 later in August and 3 in October.

So in effect, it probably did save millions from the same fate.

[R1Geezer]

They thought it was a one off jake, Nagasaki corrected that thought. They didn't then know that the US had no more,

The Japanese where fearsome, fanatical fighters, they would never have surrendered.

[Oneeyedvic]

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey

[R1Geezer]

fair enough vic, but they didn't surrender did they?

How long should the US have waited for them to surrender?

[Oneeyedvic]

I am not saying that they did the wrong thing - just pointing out that I don't believe that they saved many lives.

That said, it could be argued that they dropped the bombs to stop the Japanese surrendering to the Russians - and to ensure that Russia saw the might of the USA (Russia could probably have crushed Europe).

So lives could have been saved in Europe!

[keyplus90]

Vic you are trying to convince some one who would never be convinced. It is American propaganda that Japanese wouldn�t have surrendered. For argument sake even if we agree that they wouldn�t have surrendered then that gives American the right to nuke anyone who does not surrender to them. By the look of the world now around us, I feel the Americans still have the same frame of mind.

Secondly, Americans want to test their weapons on real people, the same sort of weapons which they do not want other countries to posses.

[Oneeyedvic]

It's quite interesting (to me anyway) that the leaders of the forces thought it unnecessary, but the politicians thought it was needed.

History shows us that the politicians not only won, but also managed to rewrite history to suit.

[brionon]

34years
Wed 04/06/08
22:11 were london ,coventry , manchester, liverpool legitimate targets . because of very brave people brionon can state his/her answer

Of course not. The only legitimate targets are Millitary.
Why are you angry with me 34 ?

[brionon]

R1Geezer
They had to destroy TWO Cities to show they could do it?
But where you are Wrong is that these were Terrorist actions -meant to Terrorise the Japanese to surrender ! The right and wrong of it doesn't alter the Facts of the case.