Talk:Area bombardment/Archive 1

War crime or crime against humanity
As is happening on all related articles, P B Shearer is deleting all notion of the fact that many see area bombardment that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians as a war crime or crime against humanity. As Churchill himself noted it was used in order to spread terror. The Nuremberg Trial definition of crimes against humanity included murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population but no judgment on the case of area bombardment has never been made. As was already noted at the Dresden bombing article, google finds thousands of pages with "crime against humanity" and Dresden. ,  Sorry if there are Nazi pages among them, but even if they are Nazi pages, they still exist. Get-back-world-respect 23:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger
As the article carpet bombing has the word area bombing bold in the intro, the two articles need to be merged. Get-back-world-respect 14:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No merger please
Area bombing and Carpet bombing are different. Area bombing was a term applied to the bombing of cities, and mainly used in WW2. Carpet bombing implies that the target is not a city (usually a jungle). It was a term primarily used in the Vietnam war. Pattern bombing and Area bombing have more in common. Wallie 07:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Carpet bombing is a term used long before Vietnam. Carpet bombing was used in World War II as tactical bombing to obliterate enemy lines prior to an offensive.  The Normandy campaign and the two carpet bombings at St. Lo in July 1944 are particular examples.  It could be argued that "carpet bombing" is a subset of "area bombing", but it seems that "carpet bombing" is also used to refer to strategic bombing and that the terms are to some degree interchangeable. Kablammo 15:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree - the two topics are related, but distinctly separate. As such, I have added a link to Area bombardment to the bottom of the Carpet Bombing page. I believe this reference is suffecient, with a merger unnecessary and confusing.

Atomic Bombs
Would the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki be related to this topic or does it have to be technically more than one bomb? - raptor 11:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

See the recent addition of Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State --Philip Baird Shearer 10:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I reversed the recent change that was made to the paragraph on "Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State" from
 * So in the judgement of the Court, because of "severe and indiscriminate suffering"[21] and the distance from enemy (Allied) land forces, the bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki "were an illegal act of hostilities under international law as it existed at that time, as an indiscriminate bombardment of undefended cities".


 * [(Reference 21 is to Falk, Richard A.. "The Claimants of Hiroshima", The Nation, 1965-02-15. reprinted in (1966) “The Shimoda Case: Challenge and Response”, Richard A. Falk, Saul H. Mendlovitz eds. The Strategy of World Order. Volume: 1. New York: World Law Fund, pp. 307-13.)]

back to
 * So in the judgement of the Court, because of the immense power of the atom bombs, and the distance from enemy (Allied) land forces, the atomic bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki "was an illegal act of hostilities under international law as it existed at that time, as an indiscriminate bombardment of undefended cities".

The text in Shimoda which this sentence is referenced to is:
 * ''(8) It is beyond dispute that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not cities which were resisting an attempt at occupation by land forces at that time. It is also clear from what has been stated that neither of these cities fell within the definition of a defended city, since they were not in immediate danger of occupation by the enemy, even though both were defended with anti-aircraft and other guns against air raids, and had military installations. Further, it was well known that some 330,000 civilians in Hiroshima and some 270,000 civilians in Nagasaki had their homes there, even though both cities also had what may be called military objectives, such as armed forces, military installations and munitions factories. In these circumstances, it is proper to conclude that the aerial bombardment with an atomic bomb of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an illegal act of hostilities under international law as it existed at that time, as an indiscriminate bombardment of undedended cities. This is so since aerial bombardment with an atomic bomb, even if its target is confined to military objectives, bring, about the same result as a blind aerial bombardment because of the tremendous destructive power of the bomb.

And although Falk is a fair one sentence distilation of the case ("the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war"), taking two words from that sentence does not bring clarity of accuracy to this paragraph particularly as those words do not appear in the source or in the "Hanrei Jiho, vol. 355, p. 17; translated in The Japanese Annual of International Law, vol. 8, 1964, p. 231." Where they say:
 * ''that the action must fail on the merits. The aerial bombardment with atomic bombs of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an illegal act of hostilities according to the rules of international law. It must be regarded as indiscriminate aerial bombardment of undefended cities, even if it was directed at military objectives only, inasmuch as it resulted in damage comparable to that caused by indiscriminate bombardment. ...

The reason I wrote the sentence as I did is because the court is making the point that because the A-bombs were so destructive even if they had been a targeted on a specific military installation their effect was such that it was the equivalent of indiscriminate aerial bombardment which was illegal under international law against an undefended city. Therefore I think that my original wording is more succinct than that which includes two words from Falk.

However in passing I would like to make the point that the judgement is seriously flawed in that it seems to arbitrarily include "The Draft Hague Rules of Air Warfare, December, 1922-February, 1923" but ignores the  "Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War. Amsterdam, 1938" which being closer to World War II it could be argued was closer to International opinion on what civilised countries though indicative of international law  on aerial bombardment at that time. Article 2 of that convention stated that:
 * '' Art. 2. The bombardment by whatever means of towns, ports, villages or buildings which are undefended is prohibited in all circumstances. A town, port, village or isolated building shall be considered undefended provided that not only (a) no combatant troops, but also (b) no military, naval or air establishment, or barracks, arsenal, munition stores or factories, aerodromes or aeroplane workshops or ships of war, naval dockyards, forts, or fortifications for defensive or offensive purposes, or entrenchments (in this Convention referred to as "belligerent establishments") exist within its boundaries or within a radius of "x" kilometres from such boundaries.

and defines what constitutes a defended town and it is not distance from the front line as is argued in Shimoda. However I have not found a source which points this out, so I have not included this in the article. This is not to say, that if one discounts the fact, as the Japanese court did, that as the Drafts did not become treaties, (because one can also argue that they are not become treaties is indicative of international opinion ..., (but that is another discussion)) that the case would have ended with a different conclusion as Article 5.2 of the same draft says "In cases where the objectives above specified are so situated that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment." it is just that the specific arguments about why it was illegal would have been constructed differently. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion
From the History of the page:
 * 02:12, 24 October 2006 72.94.204.107 (/ i agree with your comment on talk,[see ] but it must be clear that atomic warfare was not the consideration...it was the power of the bomb)
 * 11:03, 24 October 2006 Philip Baird Shearer (Talk | contribs | block) (→Aerial area bombardment and international law - They are specific about the power of atom bombs, as it turned a targeted attack into an indescriminate attack.)
 * 08:18, 25 October 2006 72.94.204.107 (come now, pbs. lets not be misleading. if they meant atom bombs, they would have made the ruling centered around that. it was ambiguous.)
 * 23:25, 25 October 2006 Philip Baird Shearer (Talk | contribs | block) (I think you are missing the point. If a single 20,000 TNT ton convntnl bomb could have been dropped then then it would still hve been true as it would also have turned a trgtd bombing into indscrmnt 1)
 * 02:56, 26 October 2006 72.92.110.194 (to the contrary. the a-bomb's resulting destruction is the focus, almost essentially setting a standard, like on a richter scale or SPL measurement, ...there is a difference.)

The sentence by PBS (emphasis added for clarity of difference):
 * ''So in the judgement of the Court, because of the immense power of the atom bombs, and the distance from enemy (Allied) land forces, the bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki "was an illegal act of hostilities under international law as it existed at that time, as an indiscriminate bombardment of undefended cities".

The sentence by 72.94.204.107:
 * ''So in the judgement of the Court, because of the immense power of the bombs, and the distance from enemy (Allied) land forces, the bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki "was an illegal act of hostilities under international law as it existed at that time, as an indiscriminate bombardment of undefended cities".

As the dissagreement is about one word, I am asking for a Third opinion on this and I will accept the third party's decision. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi -- I came here from Third opinion. I'm a contributor to the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article, especially the "support" and "opposition" sections, so this general issue is something I've given some thought to. I'll start by saying my "third opinion" is near-neutrality. I don't believe the inclusion or exclusion of the word "atomic" either carries any POV issues, and I think it has only minimal effects the clarity of the article. In a different context, the distinction would certainly be significant; it would be false, IMO, to suggest that a conventional bomb of the same destructive power would have the same effect in terms of the psychological impact on a target nation. But as I see it, terror effects aren't being discussed in this part of the article, nor are they discussed in the Shimoda decision (though a prohibition on "terrorizing the civilian population" is mentioned in passing). In terms of article clarity, my opinion is slightly in favor of including the word "atomic." In the cited Shimoda paragraph, only destructive power is discussed, and in theory, it could be discussing a 20 kiloton conventional bomb. But in reality, there's no such thing as a 20 kiloton conventional bomb, nor is there ever likely to be. So in that sense, even ignoring the psychological/terror effects of the "atomic" aspect of atomic bombs and considering only their explosive force, atomic bombs are unique and in a class by themselves. So it's my opinion that the Shimoda decision was referring to "the immense power of the atomic bombs," and not "the immense power of the bombs."
 * Since I'm so close to neutral on this point, I'll be happy to consider and comment on any follow-up arguments either of you might have. KarlBunker 12:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * PBS, at no point in time was it designated that atomic was an important part of the equation. there's no such thing as a 20 kiloton conventional bomb Well, I agree but I have to laugh that you use the word conventional. There is nothing conventional about the methods that were not quite as deadly, but equally horrifying and discovered less than a decade earlier. I think there are some extremely important connotations in the inclusion of atomic, and I am surprised that this argument had to go to these lengths. Again, the bombing hit a point, in my opinion, of "richter scale" or "spl measure" status. They could have been dropping pamplets from the air and if they were just as deadly, there is little reason to believe the outrage would be the same. This issue is extemely important considering area bombing. I see the Shimoda opinion as establishing a level that functions as the maximum at which we we must begin to question the legitimacy of aerial bombardment.--72.92.110.194 05:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 72.92.110.194, that was me who made the remark about theoretical 20 kiloton conventional bombs, not PBS. Perhaps because I'm recently arrived to this discussion, I'm afraid I don't understand most of your response. You say "there are "important connotations in the inclusion of atomic"; could you tell me what you think those connotations are? Could you tell me why you think that inclusion of the word is not in keeping with the intended meaning of the Shimoda decision? KarlBunker 10:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly. PBS is of the opinion that the ruling of Shimoda stands as some sort of evidence demonstrating that residential firebombings (such as Dresden) were not a war crime. I highly disagree with his conclusion, which is an extension of our previous debates. Since Shimoda involved no consideration regararding atomic weaponry, it seems to have instead created a benchmark of totality. That is what I meant by including the richter scale or spl (sound measurement) in the previous statement, demonstrating other systems that measure force/extremities. Examine the language of the ruling and it becomes more evident that this is precisely what Shimoda was. Shimoda seems to have established a measurement of illegality in terms of total destruction and intent. Thus, is one of few scales we have to determine historical war crimes. That led to my second point: Nagasaki and Hiroshima establish a point of reference. That means anything beyond those two incidents, as far as totality (etc.) is concerned, is a bonafide war crime. Anything "below" this, however, remains undetermined. Shimoda only gives us a point of reference. The statement that uses "atomic bombs" does not make it clear that "atomic" was not a part of the consideration. It is a very subtle point, but as this argument demonstrates, it is important nevertheless. In regards to other bombings, the most important points from Shimoda are that it confirmed the subjugation of land and sea terms in the Hague to air in a post-wwII court regarding the war while refusing to comment on the legality of atomic bombs directly.--User:72.94.110.194 01:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You make some excellent points, 72.94.110.194, and you've changed my mind. I sincerely doubt that anyone reading this article will ever see as much significance to the presence or absence of the word "atomic" as you two do, but as I reconsider the language of Shimoda, I have to agree now that the word should not be included. The Shimoda decision was speaking in terms of a level of indiscriminate destruction--and that level can be reached either through a single atomic bomb or multiple conventional bombs. KarlBunker 03:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the previous section there are serious problems with how this decision was reached, which does not make it in any way a universally accepted precedent. When I wrote the Shimoda paragraph, given that it is in an article about area bombardment, I structured it in such a way that it addressed their POV on area (not atomic) bombing -- For example I have not mentioned the poison issue (Evaluation of the act of bombing according to international law, paragraph 4 {anyway, that is covered better by the 1996 ICJ advisory opinion paragraph 54, 55 and 56. The ICJ's conclusion on this was how has common usage of weapons by states been effected by the treaties on poison weapons. This idea is common concept in international relations which leads to the "customary practice" referred to in The Air Force Law Review Volume 56 2005, (referenced in the article section,)  and the frequently mentioned "fact on the ground" argument}.

72.92.110.194 I am surprised that you think that "PBS is of the opinion that the ruling of Shimoda stands as some sort of evidence demonstrating that residential firebombings (such as Dresden) were not a war crime." On the contrary I thought I had written the Shimoda paragraph to show that their POV was quite the opposite about aerial bombardment of what they clasify as an undefended city. (Although it could be argued that Dresden in Feb 45 was close enough to the front lines not to qualify under Shimoda's definition of undefended). After all the conclusion which I included is quite explicit the atomic bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki "was an illegal act of hostilities under international law as it existed at that time, as an indiscriminate bombardment of undefended cities". I recognised that as 72.92.110.194 pointed out that to clarify the sentence it was better to alter it to the bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki "was an illegal act of hostilities under international law as it existed at that time, as an indiscriminate bombardment of undefended cities".

But I did (and still do) think that the "immense power of the atom[ic] bombs" is a better description because it in no way alters the overall meaning of the sentence and it is more precise. If the bomb had been a conventional bomb along the lines of a Grand Slam (or even specially constructed thin skinned 22,000 pound blockbuster) the largest conventional bombs that could be carried at the time, the power of these bombs would not have turned a targeted attack by a single aircraft into an indiscriminate one. It is only atomic bombs that could alter a targeted attack into an indescriminate attack and I think it should be mentioned. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree the Shimoda decision is far from being a universally accepted precedent," but that point and points relating to Dresden aren't what we're discussing here. Since Shimoda was focussing on the indiscriminate nature of the death and destruction caused by the atomic bombings, perhaps a better overall wording of the sentence in question would be to replace "because of the immense power of the bombs" with "because of the indiscriminate destruction caused by the bombs". KarlBunker 13:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so (i) because we end up with indiscriminate being used too often in the same sentence. (ii) because it is not the indiscriminate destruction that is the problem, proportional collateral damage is acknowledged by Shimoda, but the disproportionate scale of that destruction which turns a targeted bombing into an indiscriminate one. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

History - chicken or the egg?
Was the employment of area bombardment preceded by the fact that the technology for precision bombardments were rudimentary? Also, there exist a long history of 'razing a city to the ground' for various objectives during conflict. An aerial bombardment is purely the extension of this to the third dimension. PS: Wikipedia articles concerning politics and conflict tend to be the most weakest (factual errors, POV issues etc) - Wiki reflects cyberspace. Htra0497 15:35, 6 November 2006 (AEST)


 * Rudimentary precision. Partly. The Butt's report delivered in August 1941, set a hit as within five miles of the target. The report based on analysis of aerial photographs concluded that less than one third of sorties flown got within five miles (eight km) of the target. As Butt did not include those aircraft that did not bomb because of equipment failure, enemy action, weather, or simply getting lost, the reality was that about five per cent of bombers setting out bombed within five miles of their target (Hank Nelson A different war: Australians in Bomber Command). However if one looks at the situation from the Autumn of 1944 on, when the intensive bombing of Germany resumed after the strategic bombers finished their tactical support of the D-Day landings, the situation was different, new and better Stabilizing Automatic Bomb Sight (which meant "true and level" was no longer necessary), electronic aids like, GEE, H2S radar, G-H meant that the RAF could bomb much more accurately. For example No. 5 Group RAF by 1945 could use pathfinders to mark a specific target and then by slightly altering the path over the target and timing bombers bomb drop, could bomb in a fan pattern as was done over Dresden.  Even better accuracy was archived by No. 617 Squadron RAF in a daylight raids. Not every RAF squadron could have achieved the precision of the elite 617, but it does raise the question if the  RAF should have continued with night area bombardment after D-Day. The directives from Autumn 44 made area bombardment a secondary consideration, -- but Bomber Harris C-in-C of Bomber Command  (as did many others) still favoured it as a tactic -- with the priority oil and some other specific targets. The USAAF officially only bombed precision targets, but in raids like Berlin on February 3, 1945 are considered by many to be area bombardments in all but name. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Precision Bombing
It is arguable that the origins of Precision bombing go back to Trenchards theory of Air Control. During this time, it was people like Harris and Bufton who were developing tactics and methods to bomb small targets by air. The differnce is that Harris thought it was too hard, and became an exponent of Area Bombing, Wheras Bufton (who became a Station Commander and them worked at the Air Ministry, and became Harris's arch enemy), still held precision bombing was possible.

Before I add this opinion, what do you all think?

Lincolnshire Poacher 11:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

See: Air Power and Colonial Control: The Royal Air Force, 1919–1939 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990)