The Maintenance of the Non-combatant/Combatant Distinction and its Relation to Strategical Warfare
The Jus in Bello principle of distinction between non-combatants and combatants was not maintained by either America or Japan. This affected strategical warfare considerably, leading to an event which could arguably be the most blatant disregard of the Jus in Bello principle of non-combatant immunity. Maiese states that, “the principle of discrimination recognises that individuals have a moral standing "independent of and resistant to the exigencies of war." (Maiese, 2015). Adding to this, Maiese suggests that, “no individual can justly be attacked unless he has, through his own action, surrendered or lost his basic human rights.” (Maiese, 2015). As combatants, when enlisting to fight, forfeit some basic rights when they become soldiers, “their deaths can be morally justified.” (Maiese, 2015). As there is no change in status for civilians, they have not forfeited any basic rights, and are considered to, “never be permissible targets of war.” (Maiese, 2015). Two major schools of thought exist in the debate of defining what constitutes as a violation of non-combatant immunity, and what doesn’t. Some historians believe that “any tactic that hurts a significant number of non-combatants,” constitutes as a violation of the principle. Others historians argue that the difference, “lies between deliberately targeting non-combatants as the focus of the tactic vs. focusing on targeting militarily significant targets.” (Grimsrud, 2015).
Bearing this in mind, as the majority of Japanese combatants and civilians adhered to the code of Bushido, and did not believe in surrendering, it was extremely difficult to maintain a distinction between combatants and non-combatants when, “to the horror of American troops advancing on Saipan, they saw mothers clutching their babies hurling themselves over the cliffs rather than be taken prisoner.” (Powers, 2015).
The dropping of the two atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved to be the most controversial event that occurred during the war in the Pacific. Those who claim that America’s actions can be justified because they targeted, “an important Japanese military base,” in Hiroshima, forget that the atomic bombs were dropped in the centre of Hiroshima, well removed from the Japanese military base that was situated there (Bix, 2015). If one did not agree with the assessment of the bombing of Hiroshima, one cannot disregard the bombing of Nagasaki, which occurred two days after the bombing of Hiroshima, as this city had no military significance, and there was no military base situated there (Grimsrud, 2015). This leads to the only logical explanation for the bombing of Japan; America aimed to remove a vast number of civilians by the dropping of the bombs which, consequently, had not previously been tested (Bix, 2015). President Truman sought to justify his allowance of the bombs to be dropped by arguing that they were released, “in this first attack to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians.” (Bix, 2015). However it has been clearly proved that this was not the case. Approximately 200,000 civilians and soldiers were killed because of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan (Bix, 2015). A survey conducted by the U.S Strategic Bombing Survey found that, “the principal cause of civilian deaths…was burns,” which were received from the atomic bombs (Grimsrud, 2015).
Even though the majority of Americans endorsed the atomic bombing of Japan, Herbert Bix claims that there was, “a tiny minority of religious leaders, social critics, scientists, and antiwar activists [who] labelled the destruction of the two cities a war crime, and charged that the government had trampled on the lofty ideals which were supposed to serve as the moral basis of U.S. foreign policy.” (Bix, 2015). Therefore it can be said that the Americans disregarded the Jus in Bello principle of non-combatant/combatant discrimination when deciding to drop the atomic bombs on Japan, which in turn assured America of military victory.
Bearing this in mind, as the majority of Japanese combatants and civilians adhered to the code of Bushido, and did not believe in surrendering, it was extremely difficult to maintain a distinction between combatants and non-combatants when, “to the horror of American troops advancing on Saipan, they saw mothers clutching their babies hurling themselves over the cliffs rather than be taken prisoner.” (Powers, 2015).
The dropping of the two atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved to be the most controversial event that occurred during the war in the Pacific. Those who claim that America’s actions can be justified because they targeted, “an important Japanese military base,” in Hiroshima, forget that the atomic bombs were dropped in the centre of Hiroshima, well removed from the Japanese military base that was situated there (Bix, 2015). If one did not agree with the assessment of the bombing of Hiroshima, one cannot disregard the bombing of Nagasaki, which occurred two days after the bombing of Hiroshima, as this city had no military significance, and there was no military base situated there (Grimsrud, 2015). This leads to the only logical explanation for the bombing of Japan; America aimed to remove a vast number of civilians by the dropping of the bombs which, consequently, had not previously been tested (Bix, 2015). President Truman sought to justify his allowance of the bombs to be dropped by arguing that they were released, “in this first attack to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians.” (Bix, 2015). However it has been clearly proved that this was not the case. Approximately 200,000 civilians and soldiers were killed because of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan (Bix, 2015). A survey conducted by the U.S Strategic Bombing Survey found that, “the principal cause of civilian deaths…was burns,” which were received from the atomic bombs (Grimsrud, 2015).
Even though the majority of Americans endorsed the atomic bombing of Japan, Herbert Bix claims that there was, “a tiny minority of religious leaders, social critics, scientists, and antiwar activists [who] labelled the destruction of the two cities a war crime, and charged that the government had trampled on the lofty ideals which were supposed to serve as the moral basis of U.S. foreign policy.” (Bix, 2015). Therefore it can be said that the Americans disregarded the Jus in Bello principle of non-combatant/combatant discrimination when deciding to drop the atomic bombs on Japan, which in turn assured America of military victory.