Is it effective and moral to bomb densely populated cities during warfare in order to gain a strategic advantage?
I want to raise awareness about the ethical and strategic consequences of bombing civilian areas during warfare and examine alternatives rooted in diplomacy, international law, and moral doctrine.
For centuries, the world has been consumed by war, leading to the rise and fall of various empires and new kinds of military technology. However, it was not until the invention of the airplane that war would directly affect civilians, as bombers could now carry large projectiles that decimated entire cities. While some, especially military officials, have justified bombing densely populated cities as providing a military advantage, such as in Japan during WWII. Others, including historians, argue that certain bombings, such as in Dresden, lacked significant strategic value and resulted in unnecessary civilian casualties. While these groups may support or oppose the bombing of densely populated cities, the immense destruction and loss of civilian lives raises serious ethical concerns. Despite claims of strategic value, bombing these areas often leads to excessive suffering rather than meaningful military gains, making it a highly controversial and ineffective method of warfare.
Throughout history, military leaders have argued that bombing densely populated cities is an effective tactic to weaken enemy forces, break civilian morale, and disrupt supply chains. However, this approach has repeatedly resulted in widespread destruction and immense civilian casualties, often with limited strategic gain. For example, in World War II, the Allies decided to bomb the German city of Dresden as part of their “morale bombings”, reducing cities to ash in order to crush morale. The bomber pilots were lied to and informed that the Soviets discovered that the Germans were passing military supplies through the city’s center. The bombs resulted in the deaths of over 25,000 civilians, many of whom were refugees, in one night and destroyed countless historical sites and artifacts. Additionally, the Americans returned a few months later, in March and April, to bomb it again, targeting Dresden’s railway marshaling yards and factories (McKay and Wilson). While there was some military presence, it was extremely insignificant and had little impact on Germany’s ultimate surrender. This event has been criticized by many historians and seen as an excessive use of force, further proving that destroying civilian areas does not yield strategic military advantages. More recently, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has showcased similar destruction caused by drone strikes in civilian areas. The United Nations has led several investigations of human rights violations in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory, risking their lives to visit 27 towns and settlements, graves, detention/torture centers, and interview more than 150 victims and witnesses. Unsurprisingly, they found evidence of horrifying war crimes, including rape, mass executions, torture, gender-based violence, and use of explosive weapons in largely populated areas. Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion, extremely powerful bombs have targeted at least eight civilian buildings in Kyiv, and cluster munitions were unleashed in areas without any military personnel or infrastructure (Tondo). The deliberate targeting of these areas not only lacks strategic importance but also prolongs the conflict by increasing the determination of Ukrainian troops to defend their country. This pattern of destruction shows that bombing civilian areas ultimately escalates conflicts and resistance rather than achieving military success.
Additionally, while some argue that bombing civilian areas can lead to quick military victories, history has shown that this tactic can create long-term instability, fueling future conflicts and resentment rather than resolving them. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII remain some of the most infamous examples of mass destruction and colossal civilian casualties in warfare. On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped the first nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and the second three days later on Nagasaki. The United States justified these bombings as a way to force Japanese surrender, as Japan had refused even after devastating firebombing campaigns, such as the Bombing of Tokyo, which claimed at least 80,000 lives in a single night. Additionally, there was an increasing likelihood that the United States would have to commit to a full-scale land invasion of Japan, which could have been costly for the Allies (Britannica). The dropping of these atomic bombs, which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, was not only a military tactic but a display of power and served as a warning to the Soviet Union. This demonstrates how such bombings can increase global tensions for decades, as the United States began a decades-long arms race, known as the Cold War, with the Soviet Union over nuclear weapons and global influence. Similarly, in the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict, the military strategy of bombing civilians remains a continued practice and has led to catastrophic humanitarian consequences. Israel’s highly controversial tactic of “damage not accuracy” has created a high amount of unnecessary civilian casualties
has reduced the Gaza Strip in Palestine to rubble, with an estimated 50,000 people reported dead. On October 31, 2023, Israel bombed the Jabaliya refugee camp, claiming to be targeting a senior Hamas commander, but killed 195 people in a single attack. The United Nations has warned that at least four of its shelters have been damaged, while schools, government buildings, and mosques have also been destroyed (Abed, Rothwell, and Shamalakh). This could lead to radicalized future generations of Palestinians, demonstrating how such bombings create more long-term bitterness rather than achieving lasting peace.
Beyond the legal consequences, religious perspectives strongly condemn the deliberate targeting of civilians during war. The Catholic Church emphasizes peace and denounces the destruction of human life. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life, and the sixth commandment reminds us that we shall not kill. While it does state that nations have the right to defend themselves through military force, it also clarifies by stating, “non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely” (Catholic Church). This teaching directly opposes the bombing of densely populated areas and reinforces the principle that warfare must distinguish combatants from civilians. Additionally, Pope Francis has openly spoken out against modern warfare, condemning all forms of terrorism and extremism. He has called for immediate cease-fires in every country involved in conflicts, emphasizing the disastrous results of continued violence. Not only does he highlight the issues between Gaza and Israel, Pope Francis draws attention to conflicts across the entire world, such as in the South Caucasus, Africa, and Europe, that were previously overlooked (Pope Francis). The teachings of the Catholic Church and global religious leaders reinforce the ethical stance that bombing civilians violates the basic human right to life and all moral principles, making them unacceptable methods of warfare.
Finally, while some military leaders may argue that bombing densely populated cities is a strategic and efficient method to weaken their enemies and decrease troop morale. However, this position fails to weigh the long-term consequences of this issue, including civilian suffering, international response, and the impact on future generations. This can be seen in history and proves that these bombings often escalate tensions rather than resolve them. Thus, governments and international organizations should work toward limiting aerial warfare in civilian areas and advocate for stronger war crime accountability to prevent unnecessary destruction and death. In the end, history and modern warfare demonstrate that bombing cities is not an effective method of achieving military success and only guarantees prolonged suffering and long-term instability.
