Dear Editor,
In war, collateral damage is unavoidable. Innocent people live in nations that are thrust into war. As combatants clash, those people are often caught in the middle.
As preparation for D-Day in WWII, the Allied assault on the northern coast of France, bombers hit over 1500 towns and villages in occupied France, killing an estimated 20,000 civilians. When the actual assault was launched, Allied troops suffered major losses, with 4,414 killed and 5000 wounded in one day, June 6 of 1944. In the ensuing Battle of Normandy, 73,000 Allied forces were killed and 153,000 wounded. But the beachhead was established, as a launching point for the liberation of Europe and the ultimate defeat of Germany.
When President Truman learned of the development of the atomic bomb, he knew it was a weapon more awesome than any ever developed. By reports, he agonized over its use as a means to defeat Japan. Japan’s
Emperor Hirohito had declared that any land assault on the mainland of the island would be met with a population willing to fight fiercely and die to the last man, woman, and child. Casualties would be enormous, on both sides, with Japan suffering the loss of much if not most of its population.
At the time, Japan had a population of 77 million, with an estimated 6 million soldiers in the Imperial Japanese Army (8%).
The population of Nagasaki was 200,000, while the population of Hiroshima was 400,000. If dropping the atom bomb on these cities would promote Hirohito to surrender, would the end justify the means, in terms of potential loss of life?
Similarly, the population of France in 1944 was 41 million, with the occupying Nazis numbering an estimated 300,000 (0.7%). Yet, the Allies restricted their pre-D-day bombing runs to the towns and villages closest to the assault site. One plan — that would have spared the troops who died on D-Day — would have been to simply continue the bombings throughout France, killing the occupying Nazis, but also killing French civilians. Why was this path not taken?
This also brings up the question, why limit the attack on Japan with atomic bombs to 2 cities? Why not just wipe out every city from Tokyo on down?
The answer is, although war is hell, and civilian casualties are inevitable, the purpose of war is to defeat the enemy with MINIMAL loss of innocent life. If our leaders and our army do not exercise restraint and proportionality, and simply launch scorched earth attacks on the real estate occupied by civilians but also SOME of the enemy, we will have abandoned any morality. We thus become no better than the worst of our enemies.
The idea is to have a BETTER world, once a war has been won.
The population of the Gaza Strip in 2023 was 2.1 million people. Of those, it’s estimated that Hamas forces were from 20 to 40 thousand (1% to 2%).
If your home is infested with moths, there are much better and less destructive ways to get rid of the pests than burning the house down. But to be sure, if you torch the entire house, the moth problem is solved. Does the end justify the means?
Jeff Harrison
Buffalo, Texas
