Wars and Conflicts permalink
Is indiscriminate bombing a crime?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by FrankFry (U1853098) on Friday, 12th August 2005
On one hand, many unarmed citizens including women and children suffer from urban indiscriminate bombing. Its atrocious is pointed out.
On the other hand, it is effective operations. Both the Allies and the Axis in reality did it during WWII. For instance, London, Dresden, Chongqing and Tokyo.
Is indiscriminate bombing in the world a crime against humanity? -
Message 2
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 12th August 2005
In short, 60 years ago no, it wasn't a war crime, today probably yes (although it hasn't been tested in a Court, where law is interpreted).
Under Article 6c of the Nuremberg Trials, "Crimes agianst Humanity: namely murder......and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war......." then it is a war crime, but it only applied to the European Axis Powers. Hey, it's one of the advantages of winning
.
As there have been so few trials for war crimes then this is a grey area of international law, there is so little precedence. (Except to note that the winners generally write the rules).
Today it is a crime, mainly for the following reasons. It is not effective operations. Public opinion today would be against it, and you're better off with todays technology finding more useful military targets.
Cheers AA. -
Message 3
Posted by JimdalftheTorquoise (U1823373) on Saturday, 13th August 2005
Indescriminate bombing doesn't really happen in today's military (unless you bring in the yanks, every thing they fire either misses horribly or lands on their own infantry)
But bombing against civilians in times of "peace" is a crime, as we can see with the tens of thousands imprisoned around the world, from Northern Ireland to Israel -
Message 4
Posted by Luis99 (U1688250) on Sunday, 14th August 2005
‘Is indiscriminate bombing in the world a crime against humanity?’
I think it is relative. If your enemy is bombing indiscriminately then you will do the same. If you don’t then you will lose. -
Message 5
Posted by Luis99 (U1688250) on Sunday, 14th August 2005
‘bombing against civilians in times of "peace" is a crime’
If it was a crime why aren’t there many thousands of US and British airmen in jail?
Bombing civilians is not a crime if you can get away with it. The numbers are immaterial, if you can limit the impact your bombing has on your support base and the international community then you can bomb away, as we can see with Iraq.
How do you limit the impact? You don’t count the amount of civilians you are killing. You can also present the news as if it is only the enemy that is doing the killing. You can show your enemy’s casualties relatives mourning the victims but avoid showing similar pictures of your own sides victims. -
Message 6
Posted by Rurfus (U1800117) on Sunday, 14th August 2005
“‘Bombing against civilians in times of "peace" is a crime’
If it was a crime why aren’t there many thousands of US and British airmen in jail?"
I don't know what peace time bombings you are referring to.
"If you can limit the impact your bombing has on your support base and the international community then you can bomb away, as we can see with Iraq."
They can get away with it in Iraq because they are not purposefully going out and killing civilians. Bombing has led to the death of civilians but only by accident. The targets they choose are of military significance. Alot of the targets in the bombing campaign would have been selected for them by military intelligence. If this information was incorrect and it led to the death of civilians the airmen wouldn’t be the ones held responsible. The military intelligence service would have had their reasons for picking the target at the time also. -
Message 7
Posted by Luis99 (U1688250) on Monday, 15th August 2005
‘I don't know what peace time bombings you are referring to’
You are making too much of the notion of ‘war time’ and ‘peace time’ R. who decides when it is a war and when it is peace. The IRA always regarded the conflict in NI as war and the British treated it as such most of the time.
Many people would regard the attacks on Iraq as happening in peace time. To say that it is excusable to use bombing against civilians at any time is wrong.
It is nonsense to say ‘Bombing has led to the death of civilians but only by accident’. The reality is that those using huge bombs against civilian areas know how many people they are likely to kill. They can probably tell you how many children, women and men will be killed when they level a tower block or two, so don’t be naive.
The British medical journal Lancet said that the bombings by US and UK killed at least 100,000 innocent civilians. You can fool yourself talking of military targets if you wish but the reality is a massive toll of innocent lives culled.
I don’t think you can blame one group or another for the mass murder, all involved are guilty and should go to jail for life. -
Message 8
Posted by FrankFry (U1853098) on Monday, 15th August 2005
Only winners have a right to judge losers.
Indiscriminate bombing is not only a legal problem but also a political one, isn't it? It is
the very proof of it that the movement for revaluation of indiscriminate bombing is activer in
defeated nations than in winning nations, I suppose.
Probably it is a similar taboo to the situation that we can't blame for bombing mistaken points
to kill inhabitants and their being mixed up in pinpoint bombing in a certain region.
Don't misunderstand me. (-_-) I don't hope to accuse the past Allies. I think it is important
to pursuit truth.
Thank you very much for your attention and answering. -
Message 9
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Monday, 15th August 2005
On one hand, many unarmed citizens including women and children suffer from urban indiscriminate bombing. Its atrocious is pointed out.
On the other hand, it is effective operations. Both the Allies and the Axis in reality did it during WWII. For instance, London, Dresden, Chongqing and Tokyo.
Is indiscriminate bombing in the world a crime against humanity?Â
FrankFry: I really don't know. IMO all the efforts (on both sides) that was placed into bombing cities in WWII was a horrible waste of time, energy, and lives. Once IMO it actually extended the War because it stiffened the resolve of the people being bombed.
I think that the equivalent bombing today would be considered a "War Crime." but only because it isn't a good strategy or tatic any more. -
Message 10
Posted by Rurfus (U1800117) on Monday, 15th August 2005
"The British medical journal Lancet said that the bombings by US and UK killed at least 100,000 innocent civilians"
You imply this is because of the bombings. Estimates have varied from 10,000-100,000 killed on all accounts, putting that all down to UK bombing and US is nonsense. The reports claiming the upper figure of 100,000 have been civilian deaths by other factors that are outlined in the Â鶹ԼÅÄ news report and the IBC website.
For one example, a survey done the by Iraqi body count group in combination with the Oxford research group put the figure at 26,000. They state "This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003" This is the when the bombing campaign took place in what ever period you would like to call it. They go on to say "This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation". If you want to criticise their research you can find their website at:
Detailed analysis of the figures can be found on the Â鶹ԼÅÄ website:
This of course is just one report; others have different research methods. You can't accept whichever one you want. -
Message 11
Posted by Luis99 (U1688250) on Tuesday, 16th August 2005
‘Estimates have varied from 10,000-100,000 killed on all accounts’
It is also true that neither of the attacking countries are keeping figures on the amount of civilians they are killing either by bombing or shooting. Why don’t the Â鶹ԼÅÄ figures include these vary salient facts? Could it be they are a support service for misinforming the public about exactly how many people their military is killing? How many children, women, etc, its all kept purposefully hazy.
I also find it ludicrous to talk of a lower figure of 10,000; this reeks to me of misinformation. They could as easily have started at one: 1-100,000 killed.
In either case the fact remains that none of the bombers will find themselves in jail for their activities. -
Message 12
Posted by Rurfus (U1800117) on Tuesday, 16th August 2005
I agree the lower figure is ludicrous. Alot of these counts are lacking because they rely largely on what is reported in the news. I have noticed news reports on those killed are not reported as often as they used – not necessarily a case of it happening less. For instance in summer 2003 the Â鶹ԼÅÄ would report much more on how many US forces were been killed as individual stories, now on the other hand on any news they post it will say "in other news from Iraq..."
They also tend to focus in on certain regions for coverage, namely Baghdad. The coverage by the news isn't nation wide, so therefore there are still many more that are unaccounted for.
The military also keeping people in the dark comes back to your earlier point that if they can keep it secret they can get away with it. The news services are likely to be informed of events by the military, which are undoubtedly selective, in what information they reveal (just as they were during the war) -
Message 13
Posted by the_other (U2402568) on Friday, 4th November 2005
yes it seems like a crime
it only enraged the people
but both sides did it i think
i would refuse to bomb
they should have bombed military trgets or crops
i feel like saying war is a crime
but i guess some countries need to go to war -
Message 14
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Saturday, 5th November 2005
Aggressive war and preemptive self-defence are crimes - mad so by the 1926 Treaty and the Nuremburg Trials respectively, hence why Dubya and Tony should be on trial.
The ifference these days seems to be between targetting civilians and hitting some when the target is military - the latter being known as "collateral damage" or alternatively, what is "necessary" in the "name of freedom".
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.