The previous post ended with this: “The question of interest is jus bello (in war), especially as it concerns the ways and means to end the Asia Pacific War. In the language of Just War Theory – were the ways and means “proportional” and was adequate care given to the question of non-combatant injury and death.? In preparing to write on this topic I am not sure how to best describe the reading and research.  The following expressions come to mind: “down the rabbit hole,” “swamp,” and “forget the forest, I am still looking for trees.” Whereas the conditions for establishing jus ad bellum are consistent and have been clearly expressed, not so much for jus bello. It is an understatement to say there are “different schools of  thought.” The debate centers on two concepts: proportionality and necessity – that are intertwined.

One of the schools of thought are the “consequentialists.” Although I did not see a delineation of “schools with a school,” the literature certainly seemed to indicate a wide division in views of writers that would be counted as consequentialists. For the sake of brevity, I would label them the “wide” and “narrow” schools of thought and would provide an example of each (with apologies to just war theorists and their work.)

After the May 1945 German surrender, arrangements were made for the Allies to meet in Potsdam, Germany. The topics were to settle the postwar arrangements for Europe and to reach agreement on coordinated Allied military operations against Japan. A month before the mid-July Potsdam Conference, President Truman met with his senior advisers to go over plans for ending the war with Japan and to prepare himself for Potsdam. In a 14 June memorandum to the service chiefs setting up this meeting, his Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, said the President wanted to:

“. . . discuss details of our campaign against Japan. He expects at this meeting to be thoroughly informed of our intentions and prospects in preparation for his discussions with Churchill and Stalin. He wants an estimate of the time required and an estimate of the losses in killed and wounded that will result from an invasion of Japan proper. He wants an estimate of the time and the losses that will result from an effort to defeat Japan by isolation, blockade, and bombardment by sea and air forces. It is his intention to make his decision on the campaign with the purpose of economizing to the maximum extent possible in the loss of American lives. Economy in the use of time and money cost is comparatively unimportant. I suggest that a memorandum discussion of the above noted points be prepared in advance for delivery to the President at the time of the meeting. . . .”