Due to the COVID19 situation, a number of conferences and publications have been put on hold until 2021.

The International Committee on Military Medicine book "The Impact of the Duty to Obey Orders in Relation to Medical Care in the Military" which was going to be published by Springer in May 2020, will now be delayed until 2021. For that reason, I am uploading my In Press copy of my chapter When to Suspend Bioethical Principles in Military Medicine for Operational Purposes : a Framework Approach, as it directly discusses the medical decision-making process during a pandemic.

Just War and Gaming

In 2015 I was involved in a project looking at Just War and Gaming, in regards to the depiction of war in gaming scenarios (for entertainment rather than miltiary training puposes).  This is a video of a presentation to game developers and ethicists looking at gaming and just war theory at Macquarie University in Sydney.  It was a really interesting project to be a part of.

Veterans injured in experimentation finally given medical care - 75 years after sustaining injuries

WONDERFUL news coming out of the US - the Edgewood Vets class action has led to the US Department of Defence finally offering medical care for those veterans who were used in biological and chemical experimentation from 1942 to 1975.

Notification letters were sent out on the 1st of November 2017 to all veterans who will be eligible for the health care for injuries they sustained as a result of being human guinea pigs.  The veterans groups are have argued that the Army and Department of Defense are falling short of their legal obligations.

The Edgewood Vets case is groundbreaking, as in 2016 the appelate court upheld their right to sue.  This judgment combined with the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in McManaway et al V KBR effectively overturns the Feres Doctrine which has stopped military personnel being able to sue the Department of Defence since 1950.

It is no co-incidence that since the DoD has been liable to litigation, they are finally offering medical care to soldiers who were injured, as a result of official experimentation, whilst on duty, up to 75 years after the injuries occurred.  Finally the DoD has taken their responsibilities to these veterans seriously, but after an obscenely long delay. 

Following the media and legal attention given to this situation, there has also been a resurgence in lawmakers bringing about legislation to ensure particular veterans groups are compensated - for example the Arla Harrel Act, which was signed by President Trump in August 2017 ensures that tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen who were experimented on with Mustard Gas in WWII, must have their claims reviewed by the Department of Veteran's Affairs.

There is still a long way to go, as many veterans are still not covered under this ruling (such as those experimented on at Ft McClellan), but finally there is a light at the end of the tunnel for veterans used for experimentation.  It is hopeful that the US DoD will change their policies and have a higher standard of care in regards to test subjects, in the same way that the UK Ministry of Defence were forced to, following the 2013 Supreme Court ruling regarding the deaths of several soldiers.

You can read more about the Feres Doctrine here.

You can read more about the Edgewood Veterans Case here.

From Edgewood Arsenal via www.npr.org

Militarisation of Policing

Although not strictly related to Military Ethics, this interview by Associate Professor Stephen Coleman about the use of an explosive robot to kill the sniper in the Dallas Police shootings, is an interesting discussion regarding the militarisation of police, and the difference between the role of police and the military in society.  

MERRY CHRISTMAS

Merry Christmas from all of us here at Did I Sign Up For This.  To spread the Christmas cheer, here is a video just out of the latest use of the Boston Dynamics Big Dog - pulling Santa's sleigh.....

May you and your family be safe this Holiday season, no matter where in the world you are, especially if you are on deployment.

There’s no good reason for keeping women off the front lines – something the United States needs to recognise

U.S. Army Pfc Kristina Batty in Ghazni province, Afghanistan, May 5, 2012.  Batty, a medic, is assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team. 

U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod

The U.S. military may finally be coming around on the question of women on the front lines.

In 2013 U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panette rescinded the ground combat exclusion policy for women following a unanimous recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  The armed forces were to outline their process for having gender neutral occupational standards for all frontline positions by the 1st of October 2015.  Defence had until the same date to request exclusions for roles that they did not believe were suitable for women to serve in.

On September 30th military leaders presented their recommendations to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel and Defense Secretary Carter in a confidential briefing.

In the 1940s the U.S. military faced similar debates regarding black service personnel. Arguments regarding unit cohesion and operational capability were the most prominent against integration of white and black personnel. With the power of hindsight we can see those arguments for what they were – scare tactics intended to keep the military segregated.

Male and female participants at the Ranger School Course at Fort Benning, GA, April 20, 2015

U.S. Army Photo by Spc. Nikayla Shodeen

The same arguments have returned today. At the command of Secretary Panetta the U.S. Army underwent a two year study to develop gender-neutral standards for specialist roles currently closed to women.  The success of this standardised approach was demonstrated recently when two women graduated from the gruelling Army Ranger School.

There have been vocal critics of allowing women to attempt the Army Ranger School course.  Some claim the standards were lowered for these women.  This was adamantly denied by the Army at the Ranger School Course graduation ceremony.  It was hotly denied again by the Chief of Army Public Affairs who described the allegations as "pure fiction".

These allegations are unlike to settle down any time soon.  A Congressman has requested service records of the women who graduated to investigate "serious allegations" of bias and the lowering of standards by Ranger School instructors.

This incident reveals the depth of scepticism regarding women’s ability to serve alongside men within some quarters. The standardised approach has dismissed the issue of operational capacity – the other arguments against female service are equally weak.

The potential for women to be captured and raped has been raised by opponents of women serving in combat units.  This discussion ignores the sad reality - women in defence are much more likely to be sexually assaulted by their own troops than by the enemy.  The 2013 DOD report into sexual assault in the military found that whilst women make up 14.5% of the U.S. Military, they make up 86% of sexual assault victims within the military.  Of the 301 reports to the DODO of sexual assault in combat zones in 2013, only 12 were by foreign military personnel, meaning that the vast majority of sexual abuse victims in combat areas were abused by their own comrades, not the enemy.

Sexual abuse in the military has been a problem for decades.  Why would it increase if we allowed women in combat?  Rape of captured soldiers has also not been limited to women.  Many men have also been sexually assaulted on capture. Sexual assault in this sphere is not about sexual desire and gratification - it is about power over and denigration of your enemy.

The second argument suggests women in combat units will affect unit cohesion.  First, "the boys" won't be able to be themselves. And second, if a woman in injured in battle, men will be unable to focus on the mission and instead will be driven to protect their female colleagues.    The first argument raises a question about military culture.  Why is behaviour considered inappropriate around women tolerated at all?  The second argument is insulting to currently serving soldiers, whose professionalism and commitment to the mission is questioned by such claims.  

Soldiers overcome a ranger of powerful instincts in a firefight - including to protect their own lives.  To suggest soldiers would ignore the mission in favour of some other goal undervalues the extent of military professionalism.

Australian Army Corporal Jessica Kelly mans the MAG58 General Purpose Machine Gun at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan.

Photo by SGT Ray Vance, 1st Joint Public Affairs Unit, Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Defence.

There is also an elephant in the room.  Women have been serving in combat roles for years - as pilots, on ships, as interpreters and in female engagement teams.  For these women a decision regarding the position of women in combat is irrelevant - they are already on the front lines.

The Australian situation sits in stark contrast to that of the US. Gay & lesbian members have served openly for a decade, women have been fully integrated into combat units since 2013 and the ADF now actively recruits transgender personnel.

Australia has been able to integrate women, gay, lesbian and transgender soldiers into combat units without affecting operational capability. 

Now that Defense Secretary Carter has been given the recommendations of his service chiefs, he will have to make a decision regarding the integration of women in to combat roles. A decision is expected before the 1^st of January 2016 deadline. 

The Defense Secretary is the judge and jury on this decision that will affect hundreds of thousands of U.S. female military personnel. Hopefully he will follow the advice of his Chiefs of Staff and allow military personnel to serve in all roles in the military according to universal standards, regardless of whether they have X or Y chromosomes.

This article was originally published on  The Ethics Centre blog. 

Academia takes a sinister turn

Newly hired United States Military Academy (West Point) Assistant Law Professor William C. Bradford has called for the killing of certain law and ethics scholars in their offices, because he claims, by speaking out against some actions of the United States, or by calling for restraint on the use of military force in international relations, they have become enemy combatants in the war on Islamism.

No, I'm not making this up, and it isn't April Fools Day either.

Bradford's paper has been BIG news in the military ethics world, and now it seems it is big news outside of our circle as well, as evidenced by an article in The Guardian regarding Bradford's claims.

Bradford doesn't directly name the scholars he believes should be targeted (presumbaly out of a fear of litigation), except for a number who have the dubious honour of being cited in his footnotes in the 185 page long diatribe. Some of those he does name in the footnotes include Professor David Rodin from Oxford, Professor Gabbi Blum from Harvard, Professor David Luban from Georgetown, and Professor Michael Walzer from Princeton, who is the founding father of the modern study of Just War Theory.  I am relieved that no one in my department is directly named, however I would imagine he would have a major problem with my colleague & partner Stephen Coleman​'s TEDx talk on Terrorism & my post on the Red Cross teachings Hamas about IHL, as well as my recent talk about the documentary Drone at the Stonger than Fiction Film Festival, as well as the work of almost all of our friends and colleagues in the Military Ethics community.

Like the rest of the Military Ethics community I am horrified that someone would be allowed to publish such death threats - polite though they are, they are still calling for the bombing of scholars in their offices (including their home offices), as long as there isn't too much collateral damage.

I am saddened that West Point would hire such a person, especially since he allegedly had to leave a previous job for misrepresenting his military service - yes, I promise, I'm not making this up - as it tarnishes the reputation of the fine institution that West Point is, and the reputation of the other wonderful scholars who work there, some of whom ought to be targeted with violence according to his claims.

The National Security Law Journal has published an apology to their readers that states that they "made a mistake in publishing the highly controversial article" that was "not presentable for publication".  It goes on to say that they can't "unpublish the article" - whilst I agree you can't easily unpublish it in print form, the NSLJ continue to have it up online on their website, though it could be removed quite easily.  The decision to leave the paper up online, effectively means that the editorial committee are standing by their decision to publish it in the first place.

I have to say when I read the NSLJ apology, I had to read it twice and ask myself "I'm sorry, what did that pathetic excuse for a "cover-my-arse-in-case-something-goes-wrong" apology say?"  Seriously, Rick Myers, Editor on Chief, is that truly the best you can do?  No, we are not objecting to the fact that this article was "highly controversial", it is the fact that the author calls for the direct targeting of academics, in their offices (both at their institutions and at home).  This article isn't simply controversial, it is inciting people to violence. No, we aren't complaining because it was "not presentable for publication" - that implies that there are merely typographical or referencing mistakes that needed fixing prior to publication.

Simply put, I believe the Journal, the editor-in-chief Rick Myers, and the George Mason School of Law Dean Henry Butler owe an explanation to us all - starting with answering my most pressing questions; (1) Did you even READ this article before you published it, and if you did, (2) what the hell were you thinking when you decided to publish it?, and (3) When are you going to remove it from your website?

I do realise that this is a student run journal, however it is a postgraduate law school student run journal, that portrays itself as a respectable journal of law, not a High School newsletter. In fact on the "about us" section of the journal's website it states that the new journal logo "reflects the academic quality of our work. Together, they present a journal that is strong, innovative and committed to quality scholarship for the 21st century".  Sadly in publishing the article by Bradford, you have undermined your credibility as a journal capable of publishing "quality scholarship", and also that of the school who sponsors the journal.  If the NSLJ is going to claim to be a respectable journal of law, then the editorial board and all those affiliated with it have a responsibility to provide us with more in the way of answers than merely apologising for a controversial article that was not presentable for publication.

The George Mason School of Law has an honor code which states that "each student at George Mason University School of Law is entering a profession where honest and ethical conduct is not only a professional responsibility, but a legal requirement" - perhaps it is time that the students and faculty at the George Mason School of Law took that honor code seriously.

I wish to commend  Professor Jeremy Rabkin, a faculty member at the George Mason School of Law for publishing a piece titled "A Betrayal of Rational Argument" in which he discusses with great insight the article in question.  Perhaps Professor Rabkin should have written the apology for Rick Myers to use on the journal front page.

So this is my public call for the National Security Law Journal and West Point to stand up and be accountable for publishing and hiring William C. Bradford. The concept of academic freedom is essential, however the article by Bradford crosses over the line - in fact look behind you NSLJ and West Point, this professor has stepped soooooo far over that line you will need binoculars to find the line.   In academia we can have strongly held opposing views and still enter into a respectful dialogue - this is neither respectful nor dialogue.

EDIT - 1st September 2015 - William C. Bradford has resigned from West Point and this has been reported in The Guardian and by RetractionWatch who received a statemebt from West Point that said "Dr William Bradford resigned on Sunday.  He was hired on Aug. 1, 2015 and taught 5 lessons from Aug. 17-27.  He taught a common law corse".

RED CROSS RUNS WORKSHOPS ON IHL FOR HAMAS FIGHTERS

www.cnn.com

The image I have in my head when I think of a Hamas fighter is that of the militant with a balaclava hiding their identity wearing a para-military “uniform” whilst firing Qassam rockets into civilian areas in Israel.  Or perhaps the image of a suicide bomber killing themselves and as many civilians as they can.  It is surprising then to read an article in the New York Times this week  about the workshops run by the InternationalCommittee of the Red Cross teaching Hamas fighters their responsibilities under International Humanitarian Law (IHL). 

The three day workshops examine things such as the importance of the Geneva Conventions, and how they complement Islamic Principles.  By utilising case studies and discussion based role playing of scenarios they encourage the participants to examine the principles of just war theory (jus in bello), IHL, and how the teachings of Islam fit in with these concepts (and you may be surprised to discover they fit in surprisingly closely).  Apart from the examination of the teachings of Islam, this is the same approach I take in teaching military ethics to junior officer cadets – I found this comparison surprising.

In 2008, Muhammad Munir, a professor of law at the International Islamic University in Islamabad wrote an interesting article titled Suicide Attacks and Islamic Law in the International Review of the Red Cross Journal.  Generally speaking, the main problem with suicide attacks in relation to just war theory and IHL, is the indiscriminate nature of most suicide attacks (that is those that aren’t directly targeted at combatants in situations such as “green on blue” attacks).  Munir found that the prohibition in IHL and just war theory over the deliberate targeting of civilians through suicide attacks, is in line with Islamic teaching and that “a suicide bomber might be committing at least five crimes according to Islamic law, namely killing civilians, mutilating their bodies, violating the trust of enemy soldiers and civilians, committing suicide and destroying civilian objects or properties”.

It is important to note that there are Islamic scholars who support the deliberate targeting of civilians who are not Muslim, but that they do not make up the majority of opinion of the Muslim population worldwide.  The similar analogy would be if all Christians around the world were held accountable for the beliefs of the Klu Klux Klan – this is simply unreasonable for Christians.  Likewise it is unreasonable for all Muslims to be held accountable for the use of suicide bombers in Israel (and the actions of ISIL and ISIS more recently).  It is important to remember that Islam was more advanced in the treatment of civilians in war for many centuries before it was codified into the Geneva Conventions.  Mohammad Ibn al-Hassan al-Shaybani (748-804AD) was the first to codify the rules of war and these were added to by Imam al-Awza’I (707-774AD). According to the ICRC “by affirming the principle of humanity in the midst of war, al-Shaybaniand al-Awza’I helped pioneer the modern law of armed conflict”.

www.youtube.com

If Hamas is to gain the credibility they need in order to legitimise their cause in the international community, then they are going to have to seriously reconsider their tactics involving Israeli civilians.  If there is to be a change in tactics away from suicide bombings and rockets (that cannot be aimed with much degree of accuracy), then the question must be asked how this can possibly come about.  Given that Gaza is an occupied territory with borders tightly controlled by other states, it is difficult to see how they would be able to move to more modern warfare methods which are more discriminate.  Israel will never allow Palestine to have access to more accurate weapons, and so it makes me wonder why fighters are being trained in IHL, when they do not have other weapons which are more discriminate in nature.  My hope is that workshops like these are not just “window dressing” but a genuine desire to turn around international opinion based on a change in tactics away from targeting civilians.  Palestine as the occupied territory has wasted the moral high ground they occupy because of their targeting of civilians.  Conversely Israel does not seem to care what the international community think of their actions in regards to killing 1462 civilians in the Gaza conflict in 2015, largely because of the attacks (both by suicide bombers and rocket attacks) on their own civilians. If Hamas is able to change their tactics to be more discriminate, they will be able to fulfil their responsibilities better under IHL, and may be able to recapture the moral high ground, and gain international support for a two state solution.

The timing is interesting given the International Criminal Court’s current investigation into war crimes in the Gaza conflict in mid-2014.  According to the UN Human Rights Commission, during the 7 week conflict 2251 Palestinians were killed in Gaza (of which 65% were identified by the UN as civilians, including 551 children), and 71 Israelis & 1 Thai national were killed in Israel (of which 8.3% were civilians).  In June 2015 the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry into the 2014 Gaza Conflict found that it likely that war crimes were most likely committed by both Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militants, although it seems that the civilian casualties were disproportionately on the Palestinian side, with 30% of those civilian casualties being children.  

According to the New York Times, Jacques de Maio, director of the Red Cross in the Israeli and Palestinian territories stated that “for the first time, Hamas is actually, in a private, protected space, expressing a readiness to look critically at a number of things that have an impact on their level of respect for international humanitarian law.  Whether this will translate into something concrete, time will tell”.  My hope is that Hamas is using these workshops as a genuine step forward towards peace – for the 1.8million people crammed into the 360km2 in Gaza, their future depends on it.

(Thank you to Steven Jones for making me aware of the ICRC workshops)

Next Generation Sniper Rifle Hacked

In a demonstration of the wise saying “Just because you can make something, doesn’t mean you should”, the laser guided wifi enabled sniper rifle has been hacked. 

http://tracking-point.com/precision-guided-firearms/precision-guided-semi-auto-762

12 Months ago I updated the technology page of this blog to include the TrackingPoint Precision Guided Firearm (PGF).  All that is needed to turn someone like myself (a complete shooting novice) into a sniper, is to “paint” the target with a laser sight, pull the trigger and then line up the firing dots.  When the target is in the optimal position (taking in to account wind, movement, curvature of the earth etc) the gun will fire on its own to take down the target.  I raised a number of concerns when I first posted about this weapon, including the wifi capabilities of the gun might lead to it being hacked.  Twelve months later, and that is no longer a possibility, but a reality.

http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-can-disable-sniper-rifleor-change-target/

Security researchers Runa Sandvik and Michael Auger were able to successfully hack into the TrackingPoint PGF’s computer and change the target, without the gun user being aware.  They also managed to hack the gun so that it couldn’t be fired by disabling the firing pin, and made changes so that the gun would fire wildly off target. Auger and Sandvik also found that they could load malware software on to the gun, so that changes were not initially obvious until certain times or locations are realised.

http://on.aol.com/video/hacking-a-smart-sniper-rifle-518975393

Happily, it was not easy for Sandvik and Auger to hack into the gun – it took them a year and they eventually had to destroy one of the guns by completely pulling it apart in order to work out how to hack in to it. However, now that the work is done, it can be repeated on other copies of the same gun.  What is to stop a well funded military who has a lot of hacking expertise (yes, I’m looking at you China and Russia) from purchasing a gun and doing the same thing?

I have many concerns about the capabilities of this weapon, however it seems that the biggest vulnerability with the gun was its wifi capability. Which begs the question, of why was it wifi enabled in the first place.  It seems it was to make it easier to operate from difficult positions (using google glass for example, to shoot around corners), and to share your exploits (be they shooting animals for sport or humans in battle) in current time to your friends and family back home, and your command in HQ.  Sandvik in an interview with PCMag stated that "There's a lot of cool things you can do with technology and connecting it to the net, but there's a question of whether or not it's necessary to do that".

It seems that the CEO of TrackingPoint could use some sage advice from William Adama from Battlestar Gallactica, who had a deep distrust of networked computers when it came to military equipment.  Perhaps it is time to take stock and think about the ethical and security issues raised with the development of new weapons – just because it can be made, doesn’t mean it should be made, and just because it can be wifi capable, doesn't mean it should be. 

http://www.reactiongifs.us/so-say-we-all/

70th Anniversary of the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima

Atomic Clouds over Hiroshima (L) and Nagasaki (R).  Wikicommons.  Left photo taken by Charles Levy 

In the late 1980's I spent a year living in Japan as an exchange student in Kofu, Yamanashi. I loved my time in Kofu and it largely shaped the person I am today, particularly living with the Wakao family and training with my Kyudo club to get my black belt in Japanese Archery. When I was living in Japan I met people who had been scarred by their experiences of living through the atomic blast at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fast forward almost 30 years, and I am now teaching both of these events as case studies in Military Ethics at the Australian Defence Force Academy.  

Today is the 70th  anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and coincidentally we have been discussing the event in class.  Making these discussions even more poignant, I currently have an exchange student from the National Defense Academy of Japan in my class, and so discussions of the bombing of Hiroshima have taken on a very personal tone this week (when we would normally be using it to discuss consequentialism).

Photo by Shigeo Hayashi, October 1945.Hiroshima Peace Dome.

An article by Christian Appy was published on the Salon website today titled "The indefensible Hiroshima revisionism that haunts America to this day".  I found some of the claims in the article quite shocking, and so went digging to see if the facts matched up to what they were claiming.

I am not a World War II historian. However, I do recognise that there have been two largely separate accounts of the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Those on the "pro" drop the bomb side argue that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings were necessary to end the war quickly.  Those on the "anti" drop the atomic bomb side of the argument, disagree with a number of claims from the "pro" drop the bomb side of the debate.  Here is what my digging found today...... 

In 1947, Secretary of war, Henry L. Stimson argued that the dropping of both bombs were necessary in order to bring about a quick end to the Second World War, and was necessary to save a million allied casualties that would be incurred in a full scale invasion of the main islands of Japan.  From "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb", Harper Magazine, Vol 194, no 1161 (February 1947), pp 101-107.

 www.trumanlibrary.org

On the 17th of July 1945, twelve U.S. Scientists involved in the Manhattan Project wrote to President Truman petitioning him to not use the atomic bomb on Japan due to the responsibility that they felt the USA had to prevent "opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale".  Petition to the President of the United States, July 17, 1945.

18th July 1945 Diary entry for President Truman 

www.trumanlibrary.org

On the 18th of July U.S. President Truman wrote in his diary "P.M. [Prime Minister Winston Churchill] & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan [atomic bomb] (it is a success).  Decided to tell Stalin about it.  Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for Peace.  Stalin also read his answer to me.  It was satisfactory.  Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in".  It is clear from this diary entry that Japan was attempting to surrender as early as July 1945 and that President Truman was aware of this.  It is also clear from this (and from his letters to his wife) that he believed that Japan would surrender before the planned allied invasion of Kyushu in November 1945 and before Russia entered the war with Japan as planned in early August 1945.

General Eisenhower opposed the use of the atomic bomb, arguing in July 1945 with Secretary of War Henry Stimson that he had "grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'".  Eisenhower, D (1963) Mandate for Change, 1953-1956:The White House Years. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday.  p. 380.

In 1945 the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that "based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated". United States Strategic Bombing Survey (1945). United States Strategic Bombing Survey [reports].  Washington DC. p. 104.  This claim by the U.S. Department of Defence's own United States Strategic Bombing Survey makes it difficult to sustain the claim that the use of the atomic bomb was necessary to bring about a quicker end to the war in the Pacific.

Minutes of Meeting held at the White House, June 18, 1945. p. 5

www.trumanlibrary.org

Often the fact that there were 41,700 allied casualties in the taking of Okinawa is highlighted as a consideration for there being a potential for a large number of casualties in the proposed invasion of Kyushu.  However at a meeting held at the White House with President Truman on the 18th of June 1945, Fleet Admiral King stated that there was a big difference between the invasion of Okinawa and the proposed invasion of Kyushu.  "There had been only one way to go on Okinawa.  This meant a straight frontal attack against a highly fortified position.  On Kyushu however landings would be made on three fronts simultaneously and there would be much more room to maneuver.  It was his opinion that a realistic casualty figure for Kyushu would lie somewhere between the number experienced by General MacArthur in the operations on Luzon and the Okinawa casualties."  Minutes of Meeting held at White House, June 18, 1945.  p. 5.  www.trumanlibrary.org 

Minutes of Meeting held at the White House.  June 18, 1945. p. 3.

www.trumanlibrary.org

Admiral King stated that the expected casualties would be between 31,000 and 41,700.  This number is drastically different the claim after the bombings that the use of the atomic bomb would save millions of allied casualties.  It seems then that there is little justification for the use of the atomic bombs on Japan, except for their use as a radiation experiment on live participants, and in preventing Russia from invading Japan in the north, leading to the partitioning of Japan in a similar way to Germany. 

The fact that the use of the atomic bomb on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki breached the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and did not fulfill the requirements of Just War Theory (jus in bello), combined with the fact that atomic & nuclear weapons have since been declared means mala in se (evil in and of themselves), had already led me to the conclusion that their use was unjustified on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Looking at the evidence I came across today in only a few hours (the Internet is a wonderful thing when libraries such as the Truman Presidential Library make available all their manuscript collection online), it seems that the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was deplorable, and that the white washing of history around these events is a continuation of that travesty.

For a more personal account of the aftermath of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is worth taking a look at the book Sadako and the comic Barefoot Gen.  The Global Hibakusha Project also tells the stories of survivors of radiation from nuclear weapons.