Presidential Immunity?

Sources?

 

No. It was at war and civilians were not technically targeted.

Hiroshima was chosen because it was a military hub.

Kokura was chosen for its military importance (supply) as a port. But weather was not suitable and Nagasaki was the next choice as a port city.

The idea of a war without civilian casualties is far fetched, at best.

Lessons learned....don't live in a city of military strategic importance....and pay attention to the leaflets.

 

Yep. And how was this accepted?

Hint - he was denounced.

Douhet believed in total war. His idea was that wars were against nations.

His goal in areal operations was to attack on five levels - industry, transport infrastructure, communications, government and "the will of the people".

He concluded that the greatest gain was not the destruction of the opposing military but the destruction of the government by its citizens (the people turning against the government).

This was important not only in gaining victory but sustaining that victory.


That said, his ideas were not accepted by the Italian military. And the US did not adopt his ideas.

 

Lol....had he lost the war he would have, along with many others, been tried as a war criminal.

The problem, of course, is timing.

Churchill led the movement to attacking civilian infrastructure to decrease morale (in response to the London bombings).


Have you watched Apocalypse Now?

I had first thought of Conrad's Heart of Darkness in this discussion (power and morality) but the Vietnam movie loosely interprets the book and probably is more fitting.

 

In WW2 we did turn from avoiding civilian casualties to viewing war as being against a nation (perhaps not quite "total war", but closer than pre-WW2 standards).

That was why I mentioned Apocalypse Now (our discussion parallels Kurtz's discussion with Willard).

Destroying infrastructure (bridged, railways, etc) is not targeting civilians simply because the people are not the objective. Those bridges would have been targeted regardless of the presence of a civilian population. The question is whether they should be targeted if civilian casualties would occur, and then the next question is whether the opponent is using civilians to protect these strategic points.


That said, I do not believe a nation can obtain a lasting victory or peace if war is each nation targeting the military of the other. So I'm probably closer to a total war mentality when it comes to war strategy.

 

I haven't seen it yet (I still plan to).

 

Not at all.

I am anti-war. BUT if we are talking about war theories then a position closer to total war makes sence.

In the US it is our elected leaders who are over the military. In such structures I am not sure tgat you can divorce the citizens from the nation when it comes to war.

The other side of the coin is non-democracy governments. But still, the intent of total war is to galvanize the citizens against their government.

And then there are situations like WW2 when you are combating a nation that subscribes to total war.


The problem with a strict military vs military war is it resolves nothing (often war, regardless, resolves nothing). The citizens remain loyal to a "defeated" nation and history repeats itself in some form.


That said, I am speaking of war theories. As a Christian I am opposed to war, the death penalty, abortion, etc.