Ron and Elise talk:
Ron: “I see that many people are appalled by the indiscriminate bombing of Ukrainian cities and the intentional targeting of civilians. I wonder whether these same people disturbed by the bombing were similarly disturbed by the 2016 bombing Aleppo that resulted in the deaths of 90 children and hundreds of adults. It is true that more than 200 nongovernmental organizations appealed to the UN for a cessation, citing the targeting of at least one hospital. But the bombing was not, in the minds of many in the West, a front-page headline. It seemed to me that the American media, for example, was more concerned about hatred of Trump than about hatred of Russian leaders who permitted the bombing. Of course, I could be could be totally wrong. Maybe you, Elise, were one of those concerned about Aleppo as you seem to be concerned today about Ukraine.”
Elise: “I tried to tell people at the time about the bombing, but there was so little coverage in the media by comparison with the coverage of the bombing of Ukraine, that people remained largely unaware and very parochial.”
Ron: “So, I have a question about morality, and it’s one that has been bothering me. It concerns my previous thinking about bombing cities.”
Elise: “What?”
Ron: “It’s a complex problem, but I’ll try to lay it out. Because my father fought in World War II, specifically on Okinawa, I’ve been fascinated, I suppose is the word, by the military action of the Allies against the Axis Powers. Bombing Japanese and German cities seemed all right. I justified them for a long time because I knew the Germans, for example, bombed without a moral imperative London and other European cities. It was okay in my mind to drop “dumb” bombs—no one had ‘smart bombs’ at the time—as I was saying, it was a matter of dropping ‘dumb’ bombs, including incendiaries on civilians, in retaliation for the German bombing.
“And then there has been in my mind those two justifiable atomic bombs that hit not just a few civilian places or even many civilian places, but all civilian places within Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Total destruction, maybe 100,000 dead and another 100,000 injured in leveled cities. Or I think of the bombing of Dresden, a nighttime saturation bombing that killed thousands and destroyed a once-beautiful city. Yes, I know, I know. The bombing of Kyiv or Kiev today is also destroying a once-beautiful city. And maybe tomorrow the Pearl of the Black Sea, Odessa, will also come under indiscriminate bombing—the war is only a few weeks old, so we’ll see…
“Anyway, back to what I was saying. The Allies bombed as the Russians bombed in Aleppo in 2016 and as they are bombing in Ukraine as we speak. So, I have to ask myself if I see a difference. Is it one of those differences without a distinction? What enables me to think of indiscriminate bombing in one instance as moral and indiscriminate bombing in another as immoral? How is it that I can more or less justify the deaths of thousands here and not there, that is, in one place and time and not in another place and time? I have to ask myself if I my personal morality isn't more than a response to situations.”
Elise: “You might be thinking in the context of offensive and defensive war.”
Ron: “There’s that, of course. I guess the Allies were trying to stop the bombing of their cities by bombing German cities. The Nazis had, obviously, started the whole thing, unprovoked by neighboring countries. And they were killing not just thousands or tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands and by the end of the war millions of people. But the innocent people, powerless to stop their own leader Hitler, those people who lived in Dresden and Hamburg and Berlin were annihilated by the Allied bombs. The Japanese, also. Sure, there were Japanese atrocities. I’m thinking of the Rape of Nanking and the deaths of many thousands of Chinese after the largely symbolic early Doolittle raid on Tokyo that offended the whole Japanese population. For a long time, I’ve been satisfied that the Japanese deserved the nuclear strikes. They had started the war at Pearl Harbor and in China and throughout Southeast Asia, so they should have been punished in a morally justifiable retribution. Besides, I thought the bombing was also justified because the Japanese would not surrender and an invasion of their islands would result in an untold number of Allied casualties.”
Elise: “So, indiscriminate bombing is justifiable in your mind. At least in some circumstances. Those who start a war deserve destruction. Those who defend, don’t.”
Ron: “Pretty much. The Ukrainians, for example, were no threat to Russia. And I think the world community, save those who want to align with a totalitarian regime—like Venezuela, Iran, China, and North Korea—those governments driven by an anti-American, anti-West success. Those who would side with Russia because of propaganda, the uninformed people of Russia currently under a blanket censorship, yes, those people see no problem with the bombing, believing that the Ukrainians are somehow Neo-Nazis. And what could be more motivating to people in a country once devastated by Nazis than to think there is a renewed threat by Nazis? A country that lost millions, that had the city of Stalingrad suffer a siege by Nazis, such a country’s citizens, now a couple of generations removed from all by historical tales, would believe that bombing Ukraine is justified, that destroying more than a dozen hospitals and a building clearly marked with the word children, that all that is justified. I don’t know if you see my point. I guess I’m asking whether or not I have been similarly indoctrinated with regard to bombing cities, that I was convinced that destroying Dresden and Hiroshima was justifiable, but that bombing Mariupol is not.”
Elise: “Moral dilemma for sure! Only you can resolve it for yourself. I remember reading that after the bombing of Dresden even people in the United States and Britain were appalled by the death toll, a death toll, by the way, that the Germans exaggerated for propaganda reasons. Nevertheless, it was still in the thousands, with many victims incinerated.”
Ron: “And there’s still something in me that says, ‘The Ukrainians should bomb a Russian city.’ Of course, I know that that would be an escalation, but how angry would you be if you were a victim of an unjustifiable conflict? Surely, Elise, you wouldn’t just ‘turn the other cheek.’ Surely, you would think, ‘There’s no way to end this except by inflicting pain on the attackers.’ I know that when I saw images of the Russian convoy stretched out along the highway, I thought of the American attack on a similar convoy of Iraqis trying to flee Kuwait. But then, I think of the Russian soldiers, all someone’s son or daughter, simply following orders in the erroneous belief that Ukrainians were Neo-Nazis. Aren’t they also ‘innocents’ in this war? Aren’t the leaders the ones responsible? Yet, I feel no empathy when I hear that Russian soldiers died at the hands of the defending Ukrainians. This war business destroys all moral clarity. It reminds me of the Pope’s having an army, or of the Crusades. Moral leaders, supposedly, calling innocents into immoral circumstances.”
Elise: “So, I agree that if my hometown were bombed, I would feel anger and I might even want to exact revenge. But, I have to ask whether or not killing those loosely associated with the bombers, killing the civilians in that attacking nation was crossing some moral line. How is killing children justified?”
Ron: “I’m between that proverbial rock and hard place, and neither is a moral position. I am driven to support Ukrainians killing Russian soldiers. I abhor that indiscriminate bombing. I am even intellectually involved: What does Russia gain by destroying a country it wants to make part of Russia? What does it do with burned out cities and millions of refugees? Just let them starve? So, what is gained by destroying that which you want to conquer? Nothing’s left. You gain nothing but disdain and a new problem, a population that will do all it can to cause you, the Russians, pain. And what folly is it for Putin to threaten nuclear war when it would mean annihilation of his own country? Does he believe that he can bomb the West with impunity? Would I as a Westerner feel perfectly justified in nuking Russia if Putin were to launch a strike against the West?”
Elise: “As I see it, our moral dilemmas are unsolvable because we face the same problems we faced throughout our history. It appears to me that we can’t get by a ‘situation ethics’ when we are involved in war or are under the threat of war.”
Ron: “I see that many people are appalled by the indiscriminate bombing of Ukrainian cities and the intentional targeting of civilians. I wonder whether these same people disturbed by the bombing were similarly disturbed by the 2016 bombing Aleppo that resulted in the deaths of 90 children and hundreds of adults. It is true that more than 200 nongovernmental organizations appealed to the UN for a cessation, citing the targeting of at least one hospital. But the bombing was not, in the minds of many in the West, a front-page headline. It seemed to me that the American media, for example, was more concerned about hatred of Trump than about hatred of Russian leaders who permitted the bombing. Of course, I could be could be totally wrong. Maybe you, Elise, were one of those concerned about Aleppo as you seem to be concerned today about Ukraine.”
Elise: “I tried to tell people at the time about the bombing, but there was so little coverage in the media by comparison with the coverage of the bombing of Ukraine, that people remained largely unaware and very parochial.”
Ron: “So, I have a question about morality, and it’s one that has been bothering me. It concerns my previous thinking about bombing cities.”
Elise: “What?”
Ron: “It’s a complex problem, but I’ll try to lay it out. Because my father fought in World War II, specifically on Okinawa, I’ve been fascinated, I suppose is the word, by the military action of the Allies against the Axis Powers. Bombing Japanese and German cities seemed all right. I justified them for a long time because I knew the Germans, for example, bombed without a moral imperative London and other European cities. It was okay in my mind to drop “dumb” bombs—no one had ‘smart bombs’ at the time—as I was saying, it was a matter of dropping ‘dumb’ bombs, including incendiaries on civilians, in retaliation for the German bombing.
“And then there has been in my mind those two justifiable atomic bombs that hit not just a few civilian places or even many civilian places, but all civilian places within Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Total destruction, maybe 100,000 dead and another 100,000 injured in leveled cities. Or I think of the bombing of Dresden, a nighttime saturation bombing that killed thousands and destroyed a once-beautiful city. Yes, I know, I know. The bombing of Kyiv or Kiev today is also destroying a once-beautiful city. And maybe tomorrow the Pearl of the Black Sea, Odessa, will also come under indiscriminate bombing—the war is only a few weeks old, so we’ll see…
“Anyway, back to what I was saying. The Allies bombed as the Russians bombed in Aleppo in 2016 and as they are bombing in Ukraine as we speak. So, I have to ask myself if I see a difference. Is it one of those differences without a distinction? What enables me to think of indiscriminate bombing in one instance as moral and indiscriminate bombing in another as immoral? How is it that I can more or less justify the deaths of thousands here and not there, that is, in one place and time and not in another place and time? I have to ask myself if I my personal morality isn't more than a response to situations.”
Elise: “You might be thinking in the context of offensive and defensive war.”
Ron: “There’s that, of course. I guess the Allies were trying to stop the bombing of their cities by bombing German cities. The Nazis had, obviously, started the whole thing, unprovoked by neighboring countries. And they were killing not just thousands or tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands and by the end of the war millions of people. But the innocent people, powerless to stop their own leader Hitler, those people who lived in Dresden and Hamburg and Berlin were annihilated by the Allied bombs. The Japanese, also. Sure, there were Japanese atrocities. I’m thinking of the Rape of Nanking and the deaths of many thousands of Chinese after the largely symbolic early Doolittle raid on Tokyo that offended the whole Japanese population. For a long time, I’ve been satisfied that the Japanese deserved the nuclear strikes. They had started the war at Pearl Harbor and in China and throughout Southeast Asia, so they should have been punished in a morally justifiable retribution. Besides, I thought the bombing was also justified because the Japanese would not surrender and an invasion of their islands would result in an untold number of Allied casualties.”
Elise: “So, indiscriminate bombing is justifiable in your mind. At least in some circumstances. Those who start a war deserve destruction. Those who defend, don’t.”
Ron: “Pretty much. The Ukrainians, for example, were no threat to Russia. And I think the world community, save those who want to align with a totalitarian regime—like Venezuela, Iran, China, and North Korea—those governments driven by an anti-American, anti-West success. Those who would side with Russia because of propaganda, the uninformed people of Russia currently under a blanket censorship, yes, those people see no problem with the bombing, believing that the Ukrainians are somehow Neo-Nazis. And what could be more motivating to people in a country once devastated by Nazis than to think there is a renewed threat by Nazis? A country that lost millions, that had the city of Stalingrad suffer a siege by Nazis, such a country’s citizens, now a couple of generations removed from all by historical tales, would believe that bombing Ukraine is justified, that destroying more than a dozen hospitals and a building clearly marked with the word children, that all that is justified. I don’t know if you see my point. I guess I’m asking whether or not I have been similarly indoctrinated with regard to bombing cities, that I was convinced that destroying Dresden and Hiroshima was justifiable, but that bombing Mariupol is not.”
Elise: “Moral dilemma for sure! Only you can resolve it for yourself. I remember reading that after the bombing of Dresden even people in the United States and Britain were appalled by the death toll, a death toll, by the way, that the Germans exaggerated for propaganda reasons. Nevertheless, it was still in the thousands, with many victims incinerated.”
Ron: “And there’s still something in me that says, ‘The Ukrainians should bomb a Russian city.’ Of course, I know that that would be an escalation, but how angry would you be if you were a victim of an unjustifiable conflict? Surely, Elise, you wouldn’t just ‘turn the other cheek.’ Surely, you would think, ‘There’s no way to end this except by inflicting pain on the attackers.’ I know that when I saw images of the Russian convoy stretched out along the highway, I thought of the American attack on a similar convoy of Iraqis trying to flee Kuwait. But then, I think of the Russian soldiers, all someone’s son or daughter, simply following orders in the erroneous belief that Ukrainians were Neo-Nazis. Aren’t they also ‘innocents’ in this war? Aren’t the leaders the ones responsible? Yet, I feel no empathy when I hear that Russian soldiers died at the hands of the defending Ukrainians. This war business destroys all moral clarity. It reminds me of the Pope’s having an army, or of the Crusades. Moral leaders, supposedly, calling innocents into immoral circumstances.”
Elise: “So, I agree that if my hometown were bombed, I would feel anger and I might even want to exact revenge. But, I have to ask whether or not killing those loosely associated with the bombers, killing the civilians in that attacking nation was crossing some moral line. How is killing children justified?”
Ron: “I’m between that proverbial rock and hard place, and neither is a moral position. I am driven to support Ukrainians killing Russian soldiers. I abhor that indiscriminate bombing. I am even intellectually involved: What does Russia gain by destroying a country it wants to make part of Russia? What does it do with burned out cities and millions of refugees? Just let them starve? So, what is gained by destroying that which you want to conquer? Nothing’s left. You gain nothing but disdain and a new problem, a population that will do all it can to cause you, the Russians, pain. And what folly is it for Putin to threaten nuclear war when it would mean annihilation of his own country? Does he believe that he can bomb the West with impunity? Would I as a Westerner feel perfectly justified in nuking Russia if Putin were to launch a strike against the West?”
Elise: “As I see it, our moral dilemmas are unsolvable because we face the same problems we faced throughout our history. It appears to me that we can’t get by a ‘situation ethics’ when we are involved in war or are under the threat of war.”
RSS Feed