Justified, maybe.
But what is the difference between gas and killing a bunch of people with a big bomb that might only kill a few of them immediately and leave a lot more suffering their wounds before they die or even living a life of suffering for years after?

[It seems extremely incongruous that genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes could ever be justified or excused by ‘defensive force’ — self-defence, defence of others and defence of property. Nonetheless, art 31(1)(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court codifies defensive force as a ground for excluding criminal responsibility — https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1681146/Tonkin.pdf

A better question is whether the Bombing of Dresden was justified — something that actually happened.

Dresden wasn't, but Hamburg in 43 was.

The targeted murder of thousands of civilians was justified?

The targeted murder of thousands of civilians was justified? — Lionino

Hamburg was a strategically important city to Germany. Britain's bombing campaign forced Germany to devote resources to flak guns, divert fighters away from the Eastern Front, and placate Stalin. In 43, this was essential to winning the war. Dresden was just overkill.

All you have proved is that it was strategically advantageous to bomb Hamburg and kill civilians, not that it was justified.

Goebbels asked the Germans if they wanted total war. They enthusiastically said yes. The Allies gave it to them, good and hard. Everything is fair game in total war.

As Arthur Harris said, "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

Turnabout is fair play. If someone uses poison gas against you, you are justified in using it against them. If they bomb your cities, theirs are fair game.

The answer is no.

First of, the question of justification is a moral one, and therefore should be understood on the appropriate level; that of the moral agent - the individual.

So lets take the individual Winston Churchill.

Winston had many options open to him besides authorizing the killing of thousands.

For example, he could have foregone a career in politics and lived out his life in contemplative seclusion.

An infinitely more preferable and just option than having the blood of thousands on one's hands.

Suppose Germany had won the Battle of Britain and then launched an invasion of England. Churchill authorizes the use of poison gas and it becomes a decisive factor in repelling the Nazi invasion. — RogueAI

If poison gas is necessary to win then use it - absolutely. Churchill's responsibility is to his countrymen and to the state of the world.

Poison gas was legal in WWI. So presumably it was fine then. The international community came together and banned it in the 1920s because it was a nasty weapon. I have no issue with that, but if the entire world is at stake of being absorbed by a genocidal regime that's a completely different issue.

I think that's obvious. I think anyone in charge of England in the situation I outlined is going to use gas, no matter what they vote for here. They're not going to sacrifice England to the Nazi's to die on a moral hill. And as a practical matter, if Churchill refused to use gas and his generals believed it would be effective, he would have been replaced with someone who would use it.

Everything is fair game in total war. — RogueAI

Good to see you are consistent with your views that the Germans were justified in all their war decisions.

Good to see you are consistent with your views that the Germans were justified in all their war decisions. — Lionino

Everything was fair game for the Allies. Germany started an evil war of aggression. Nothing they did once they went down that road was justified.

Germany started an evil war of aggression. Nothing they did once they went down that road was justified. — RogueAI

Well I already knew what this was about. You things think you are not brainwashed like the North Koreans but in fact you are worse. North Koreans are enlightened by comparison.

But excuse me while I watch 9/11 footage with popcorn on my hands because the Great Satan is evil as we can see from the aggression against Vietnam.

The answer is no.

First of, the question of justification is a moral one, and therefore should be understood on the appropriate level; that of the moral agent - the individual.

So lets take the individual Winston Churchill.

Winston had many options open to him besides authorizing the killing of thousands.

For example, he could have foregone a career in politics and lived out his life in contemplative seclusion.

An infinitely more preferable and just option than having the blood of thousands on one's hands. — Tzeentch

Does Churchill, as prime minister, have a moral obligation to protect his people from Nazi invasion?

War crimes are always "justified" by the victors. Your poll is ahistorical, therefore incoherent.

:up:

Does Churchill, as prime minister, have a moral obligation to protect his people from Nazi invasion? — RogueAI

Possibly? But who would be so foolish to become a prime minister if what they aspired to was living a moral life?

Possibly? But who would be so foolish to become a prime minister if what they aspired to was living a moral life? — Tzeentch

OK, but he is Prime Minister, and we both agree he has a moral obligation as Prime Minister to protect his people from Nazi invasion. Now, there are a couple hundred thousand Jews in the UK in WW2. Is your position then that Churchill's duty to follow the Geneva Conventions outweighs his duty to prevent them being sent to death camps?

OK, but he is Prime Minister, and we both agree he has a moral obligation as Prime Minister to protect his people from Nazi invasion. — RogueAI

I am not so sure whether I agree, since I believe there can be no moral obligation to do immoral things.

If Winston cannot fulfill his responsibilities as a prime minister without breaking moral principles (which he probably cannot), then he has foolishly put himself into a double bind.

Is your position then that Churchill's duty to follow the Geneva Conventions outweighs his duty to prevent them being sent to death camps? — RogueAI

My position is whichever option he chooses, he is an immoral person, because he has foolishly taken upon himself responsibilities that require him to break moral principles.

Funny how some here say 'the end justifies the means' and then complain about Hamas in another thread.

War crimes are never justified.

:up:.

It doesn't sound like you're enjoying yourself here. Maybe try a different forum.

So far everyone appears to know what a war crime is except me. Anyone care to fill me in? Anyone?

So far everyone appears to know what a war crime is except me. Anyone care to fill me in? Anyone? — tim wood

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml :roll:

Thank you. I read it. I commend the same to you and anyone else interested for its educational and probative value.

First of, the question of justification is a moral one, and therefore should be understood on the appropriate level; that of the moral agent - the individual. — Tzeentch

I am not sure about this. Justification does not really belong in the realm of morality. Justified would mean that there are adequate reasons or motives to make an action reasonable. Morality is not always based on reasoning and quite often on vague concepts or beliefs.
If there are enough reasons to justify an action then a moral system can always be found to validate it.

So lets take the individual Winston Churchill.

Winston had many options open to him besides authorizing the killing of thousands.

For example, he could have foregone a career in politics and lived out his life in contemplative seclusion.

An infinitely more preferable and just option than having the blood of thousands on one's hands. — Tzeentch

Since when has war been about the individual? Yes he could have found a better job, testing cigars for the Cubans possibly would have given him the life of contemplative seclusion you suggest.
But that does not change the fact that the bloody nazis were invading and there would still have to have been some poor chump of a prime minister in England that would have been forced to make the decision.

Possibly? But who would be so foolish to become a prime minister if what they aspired to was living a moral life? — Tzeentch

I have aspired to be a great pianist, but it aint gonna appen cause I be tone def.
I doubt that he ever seriously thought that he would live a moral life in politics, but I bet he tried his best.
After the allies started getting German coded messages through Enigma he had to make several serious decisions about how to use the info so as the Germans did not find out that they had cracked the code, many allied lives were lost because of not being able to use that information.

But I think that anyone, even you placed in that position would make the same choices from the bad options available.

If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them.

A better question might be
"Is it justifiable to permit a group of people ruthlessly kill, kidnap, rape, torture and willfully cause great suffering to others by withholding permission to act in a necessary manner from those changed with the safety of those affected?"

If this isn't a moral question to you, then I'm afraid there might not be enough common ground to have a constructive discussion.

As for the question of reasonableness: there are many things some people at some point thought to be reasonable. Considering how unreasonable mankind tends to be (especially when it comes to conflict) such a label bears little substance to me.

If this isn't a moral question to you, then I'm afraid there might not be enough common ground to have a constructive discussion. — Tzeentch

I would have thought that having completely different ideas about a topic would make for an even more interesting topic. A discussion between two like minds rarely leads to new thoughts for either. :chin:

Justification:

• Something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary
• A statement in explanation of some action or belief
• The act of defending, explaining or making excuses for by reasoning

As for the question of reasonableness: there are many things some people at some point thought to be reasonable. Considering how unreasonable mankind tends to be (especially when it comes to conflict) such a label bears little substance to me. — Tzeentch

Reasonableness:

• Goodness of reason and judgment
• The quality of being plausible or acceptable to a reasonable person

Yes, well mankind is not famous for being the most reasonable of creatures or using his reasoning skills in adequate ways. His actions throughout history are ample proof of this. And as I already mentioned, anyone can find a version of morality that can allow them to sleep peacefully after their horrific actions. There are plenty of moral systems out there and you can always invent your own.

Justifying something is not about moral correctness but about having reasons and motives for ones actions. Whether those actions are morally admissible or reprehensible has nothing to do with the actual reasoning behind the actions.
For example, it is immoral from my point of view to kick a dog, but I can justify my kicking the shit out of your dog when it attacks you. And I doubt that you would bitch about me doing it if the action saved you from harm.

Let us ask another question.
Instead of Churchill using gas to repel the invaders, he fills the water where they will cross with thousands of mines and steel cables to tangle the propellers and rudders of the boats. Then he sends all of the planes they have to bomb the boats and submarines to torpedo them. Then he has miles of machine guns, land mines, spiked pits, moats filled with electrified water, barbed wire and little old ladies with umbrellas waiting for them on the beach.
Thousands end up dead,maimed or missing. About the same amount of enemies that would have died using gas, but thousands more on the side of the defenders died as well.

Were Churchill's actions justified? Or were the systematic methods he used against the enemy war crimes.

For example, it is immoral from my point of view to kick a dog, but I can justify my kicking the shit out of your dog when it attacks you. And I doubt that you would bitch about me doing it if the action saved you from harm. — Sir2u

And this is what you would term "justice"? :chin:

Instead of Churchill using gas to repel the invaders, he fills the water where they will cross with thousands of mines and steel cables to tangle the propellers and rudders of the boats. Then he sends all of the planes they have to bomb the boats and submarines to torpedo them. Then he has miles of machine guns, land mines, spiked pits, moats filled with electrified water, barbed wire and little old ladies with umbrellas waiting for them on the beach.
Thousands end up dead,maimed or missing. About the same amount of enemies that would have died using gas, but thousands more on the side of the defenders died as well.

Were Churchill's actions justified? Or were the systematic methods he used against the enemy war crimes. — Sir2u

The term "war crime" refers to international humanitarian law.

If you're asking me whether war of any kind can be morally justified, my answer would be no.

Zooming in to individual persons, can homicide be justified? Self-defense is typically said to justify killing in some or many cases, where are the boundaries, though? (In general, there are all kinds of odd cases to consider.)

Can such, or similar, justification be applied when zooming out to societies? Societies also encompass individuals. Boundaries...? Initiators carry significant responsibility, they're just not always easy to identify, which can be (is) abused. The attackers↔defenders relationship is asymmetrical, attackers choose for both, defenders can't choose otherwise.

Warring has already parted ways with (self)constraint in marked ways, that notions of war crimes then have to contend with. Giving up on the ethics doesn't help though. War crimes are unjustified (at least illegal) as per definition, yes?

If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them. — Sir2u

:100: