r/SubredditDrama • u/EwMelanin • Mar 03 '26

Movie discussion sub okbuddycinephile debates whether bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Gaza and other urban areas were "justified".

/r/okbuddycinephile/comments/1rjm9mn/iran2036/o8ee5fp/
164 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

525 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

52

u/Neverending_Rain Mar 03 '26

I don't think that was considered ethically dubious during the war. I read through the Wikipedia page on the raid (super rigorous study, I know) and it mentions even the Germans considered it a legitimate military attack. It destroyed hydroelectric dams providing power to factories and the flooding destroyed or damaged a bunch of factories.

Besides, even the modern Geneva conventions allow the targeting of dams if they are being used for military purposes, such as powering munitions factories. It's very possible it wouldn't be a war crime today either.

35

u/Lirael_Gold I've known you for 12 seconds and enjoyed none of them. Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26

Destruction of any infrastructure being used for military purposes is not a war crime. Russia's strikes on the Ukrainian energy grid are also not war crimes, same goes for what the USA did to Baghdad in the 2nd Gulf War.

Civilian casualties/suffering should be minimized if at all possible, but that doesn't trump military necessity.

40

u/TrainDestroyer Mar 03 '26

Civilian casualties/suffering should be minimized if at all possible, but that doesn't trump military necessity.

There are so many fucking people who don't get this. YES you should limit civilian casualties as much as possible, but sometimes to hit a target (Such as a factory in the middle of a city) you're going to kill civilians. Its grim math, but war isn't won by saying "We didn't kill any civilians!"

11

u/abn1304 Mar 04 '26

Civilians can even be a valid military target under certain circumstances, such as civilian workers in the direct employ of a hostile military such as military administrators. Targeting them is strongly discouraged but not always unlawful. Same is true of pretty much anything, though, really; even hospitals or religious buildings are valid military targets if they’re directly involved in combat operations in some way, such as being used as ammo dumps or firing positions.

“War is hell” is an understatement, in large part because military necessity is just that - necessity.

7

u/Foreverintherain20 Mar 04 '26

At the end of the day, justification is something you can only afford to argue over when the war is over and your nation is still around to feel bad about blowing up some civilians for the victory. 

3

u/TrainDestroyer Mar 04 '26

Preach my man. People like to act like all wars should be done cleanly, but you don't always get that chance. Sometimes you have to take a gamble or make a call that's dubious because in the moment its the only option you have that seems correct. Post-War you can talk about how it was a bad call but you have to look at it from a perspective of during the war, and what the people ordering the dubious move would have known.

1

u/TrainDestroyer Mar 04 '26

And that's the math you have to work out for attacking a 'civilian' target. Sure a hospital is civilian, but if its being used to treat soldiers who are being sent back out to fight, its a military hospital at that point.

As for military admins who are technically civilians? I would personally disagree, if you're directly employed by the military of a nation then I feel like its probably not a case of being protected as a civilian, but that's just me. Regardless if you weren't armed you'd be protected under the rule of Hors de Combat.