Are there times when dropping WMD on cities with civilian populated buildings is justified

[heavenlyboy34]

Much more at link:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm
The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian or a leftist writer. They are certainly not the words of an America-hater. They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States. Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless.
After the Japanese fleet was destroyed at Leyte Gulf in October 1944, the U.S. was able to carry out uncontested bombing of Japan's cities, including the hellish firebombings of Tokyo and Osaka. This is what Henry H. Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, meant when he observed, "The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air." Also, without a navy, the resource-poor Japanese had lost the ability to import the food, oil, and industrial supplies needed to carry on a World War.
As a result of the naked futility of their position, the Japanese had approached the Russians, seeking their help in brokering a peace to end the War. The U.S. had long before broken the Japanese codes and knew that these negotiations were under way, knew that the Japanese had for months been trying to find a way to surrender.
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, reflected this reality when he wrote, "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace.the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, said the same thing: "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I guess terrorist attacks targeted towards American civilians and carried out by those who have been screwed over by U.S. foreign policy are justified because the people on these forums failed to elect more non-interventionist politicians

This song fits perfectly with the excuses for destruction thrown around in this thread. And by the way, good job essentially defending Keynsian economics.

 

[AuH20]

Much more at link:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm
The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian or a leftist writer. They are certainly not the words of an America-hater. They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States. Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless.
After the Japanese fleet was destroyed at Leyte Gulf in October 1944, the U.S. was able to carry out uncontested bombing of Japan's cities, including the hellish firebombings of Tokyo and Osaka. This is what Henry H. Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, meant when he observed, "The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air." Also, without a navy, the resource-poor Japanese had lost the ability to import the food, oil, and industrial supplies needed to carry on a World War.
As a result of the naked futility of their position, the Japanese had approached the Russians, seeking their help in brokering a peace to end the War. The U.S. had long before broken the Japanese codes and knew that these negotiations were under way, knew that the Japanese had for months been trying to find a way to surrender.
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, reflected this reality when he wrote, "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace.the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, said the same thing: "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

All well and good, but they still wouldn't hand over the emperor. That was the sticking point in any negotations. NO EMPEROR, NO DEAL. They wilfully chose the bombs.

 

[AuH20]

The Japanese bombed a military target in response to the American regime's aggression. There's absolutely no comparison. Even Pat Buchanan knows better than to make a claim like yours.

FDR had an arranged alliance with the besieiged Chiang Kai-Shek as well as the Dutch & the British. After the Japanese takeover of Indochina, it was only a matter of time before the oil imports were cut off. This was simply a case of the two biggest kids on the block running out of space in regards to each other. FDR let Pearl Harbor happen so as to mobilize the war effort at home, which was an impeachable offense.

 

[Cabal]

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.

By mid-June, six members of Japan's Supreme War Council had secretly charged Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo with the task of approaching Soviet Russia's leaders "with a view to terminating the war if possible by September." On June 22 the Emperor called a meeting of the Supreme War Council, which included the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the leading military figures. "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers," said Emperor Hirohito. "We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."

By early July the US had intercepted messages from Togo to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow, Naotake Sato, showing that the Emperor himself was taking a personal hand in the peace effort, and had directed that the Soviet Union be asked to help end the war. US officials also knew that the key obstacle to ending the war was American insistence on "unconditional surrender," a demand that precluded any negotiations. The Japanese were willing to accept nearly everything, except turning over their semi-divine Emperor. Heir of a 2,600-year-old dynasty, Hirohito was regarded by his people as a "living god" who personified the nation. (Until the August 15 radio broadcast of his surrender announcement, the Japanese people had never heard his voice.) Japanese particularly feared that the Americans would humiliate the Emperor, and even execute him as a war criminal.

On July 12, Hirohito summoned Fumimaro Konoye, who had served as prime minister in 1940-41. Explaining that "it will be necessary to terminate the war without delay," the Emperor said that he wished Konoye to secure peace with the Americans and British through the Soviets. As Prince Konoye later recalled, the Emperor instructed him "to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity."

The next day, July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired ambassador Naotake Sato in Moscow: "See [Soviet foreign minister] Molotov before his departure for Potsdam ... Convey His Majesty's strong desire to secure a termination of the war ... Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace ..."

On July 17, another intercepted Japanese message revealed that although Japan's leaders felt that the unconditional surrender formula involved an unacceptable dishonor, they were convinced that "the demands of the times" made Soviet mediation to terminate the war absolutely essential. Further diplomatic messages indicated that the only condition asked by the Japanese was preservation of "our form of government." The only "difficult point," a July 25 message disclosed, "is the ... formality of unconditional surrender."

Summarizing the messages between Togo and Sato, US naval intelligence said that Japan's leaders, "though still balking at the term unconditional surrender," recognized that the war was lost, and had reached the point where they have "no objection to the restoration of peace on the basis of the [1941] Atlantic Charter." These messages, said Assistant Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss, "indeed stipulated only that the integrity of the Japanese Royal Family be preserved."

Navy Secretary James Forrestal termed the intercepted messages "real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war." "With the interception of these messages," notes historian Alperovitz (p. 177), "there could no longer be any real doubt as to the Japanese intentions; the maneuvers were overt and explicit and, most of all, official acts. Koichi Kido, Japan's Lord Privy Seal and a close advisor to the Emperor, later affirmed: "Our decision to seek a way out of this war, was made in early June before any atomic bomb had been dropped and Russia had not entered the war. It was already our decision."

In spite of this, on July 26 the leaders of the United States and Britain issued the Potsdam declaration, which included this grim ultimatum: "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces and to provide proper and adequate assurance of good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

Commenting on this draconian either-or proclamation, British historian J.F.C. Fuller wrote: "Not a word was said about the Emperor, because it would be unacceptable to the propaganda-fed American masses." (A Military History of the Western World [1987], p. 675.)

America's leaders understood Japan's desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested. If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.

The sad irony is that, as it actually turned out, the American leaders decided anyway to retain the Emperor as a symbol of authority and continuity. They realized, correctly, that Hirohito was useful as a figurehead prop for their own occupation authority in postwar Japan.

...

President Truman steadfastly defended his use of the atomic bomb, claiming that it "saved millions of lives" by bringing the war to a quick end. Justifying his decision, he went so far as to declare: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."

This was a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."

If the atomic bomb was dropped to impress the Japanese leaders with the immense destructive power of a new weapon, this could have been accomplished by deploying it on an isolated military base. It was not necessary to destroy a large city. And whatever the justification for the Hiroshima blast, it is much more difficult to defend the second bombing of Nagasaki.

All the same, most Americans accepted, and continue to accept, the official justifications for the bombings. Accustomed to crude propagandistic portrayals of the "Japs" as virtually subhuman beasts, most Americans in 1945 heartily welcomed any new weapon that would wipe out more of the detested Asians, and help avenge the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. For the young Americans who were fighting the Japanese in bitter combat, the attitude was "Thank God for the atom bomb." Almost to a man, they were grateful for a weapon whose deployment seemed to end the war and thus allow them to return home.

After the July 1943 firestorm destruction of Hamburg, the mid-February 1945 holocaust of Dresden, and the fire-bombings of Tokyo and other Japanese cities, America's leaders -- as US Army General Leslie Groves later commented -- "were generally inured to the mass killing of civilians." For President Harry Truman, the killing of tens of thousands of Japanese civilians was simply not a consideration in his decision to use the atom bomb.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945. The Japanese monarchy was one of the oldest in all of history dating back to 660 B.C. The Japanese religion added the belief that all the Emperors were the direct descendants of the sun goddess, Amaterasu. The reigning Emperor Hirohito was the 124th in the direct line of descent. After the bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9 of 1945, and their surrender soon thereafter, the Japanese were allowed to keep their Emperor on the throne and he was not subjected to any war crimes trial. The Emperor, Hirohito, came on the throne in 1926 and continued in his position until his death in 1989. Since President Truman, in effect, accepted the conditional surrender offered by the Japanese as early as May of 1945, the question is posed, "Why then were the bombs dropped?"

http://mises.org/daily/4217/

Such reasoning will not impress anyone who fails to see how the brutality of the Japanese military could justify deadly retaliation against innocent men, women, and children. Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."

This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the U.S. Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.

On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage."90 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn’t like the idea of killing "all those kids."91 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people . . . all those kids.

Moreover, the notion that Hiroshima was a major military or industrial center is implausible on the face of it. The city had remained untouched through years of devastating air attacks on the Japanese home islands, and never figured in Bomber Command’s list of the 33 primary targets.

Thus, the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency: that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that was needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost.93 The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll – nearly twice the total of U.S. dead in all theaters in the Second World War – is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly, the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb "spared millions of American lives."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/08/ralph-raico/the-war-criminal-harry-truman/

 

[heavenlyboy34]

All well and good, but they still wouldn't hand over the emperor. That was the sticking point in any negotations. NO EMPEROR, NO DEAL. They wilfully chose the bombs.

That still doesn't justify it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

All well and good, but they still wouldn't hand over the emperor. That was the sticking point in any negotations. NO EMPEROR, NO DEAL.

That has got to be one of the most viciously ridiculous & murderously asinine excuses I have ever heard for what was done.

They wilfully chose the bombs.

Bullshit. The U.S. government willfully chose the bombs - for no reason other than to rattle a saber in Stalin's face.

 

[AuH20]

Bullshit. The U.S. government willfully chose the bombs - for no reason other than to rattle a saber in Stalin face.

You do realize that the Russians later got it's nuclear technology freely from the west? There was no saber rattling.

 

[JCDenton0451]

That has got to be one of the most viciously ridiculous & murderously asinine excuses I have ever heard for what was done.

Bullshit. The U.S. government willfully chose the bombs - for no reason other than to rattle a saber in Stalin face.

It was the fastest way to bring the war to a close...

 

[Cabal]

It was the fastest way to bring the war to a close...

No, it wasn't considering the bombs were dropped months after Japanese leadership had been willing to negotiate terms of surrender.

 

[AuH20]

It was the fastest way to bring the war to a close...

And yet a failed coup almost succeeded in nullifying the eventual surrender, after both bombs had been dropped. Death before dishonor in the face of guaranteed annihilation.

 

[Occam's Banana]

You do realize that the Russians later got it's nuclear technology freely from the west? There was no saber rattling.

The hell there wasn't. You've already been provided with incontrovertible statements from Nimitz, Arnold, Leahy and even Eisenhower himself that NO military purpose was served by the use of nuclear bombs. It was pure geopolitics at its murderous worst - and NOTHING else.

It was the fastest way to bring the war to a close...

The war was already over. Japan had NO navy and NO air force left.
Japan was defeated. THEY knew it and the U.S. knew it. Japan wanted to surrender. The U.S. knew THAT, too.
Japan's chiefly desired condition was the preservation of the Emperor and his family - something which the U.S. ended up granting anyway.
But nothing other than the abject & unconditional surrender would serve - so 150,000 to 250,000 human lives were ended for the sake of imposing a pointless humiliation.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

they're not civilians, they're collateral damage! See I did terminology Olympics, problem fixed.

 

[AuH20]

The Japanese were warned with no ambiguity:

In July 1945, while at the Potsdam Conference, Truman issued the "Potsdam Declaration" to the Japanese, after he had been informed of the successful test of the atomic bomb. Truman called on Japan for immediate surrender, or promised they would face "prompt and utter destruction", "the like of which the world has never seen". The Japanese made no reply at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

On July 26, the United States, Britain and China released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender, with the warning, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay." For Japan, the terms of the declaration specified:[1]

the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"

the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies"

"Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943.[3]

"The Japanese military forces shall be completely disarmed"

"stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners"



On the other hand, the declaration offered that:[1]

"We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, ... The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established."

"Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to rearm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted."

"The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government."
The only mention of "unconditional surrender" came at the end of the declaration:[1]

"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."[1]

Leaflets and round the clock radio warnings:

The government did not disclose the declaration to the Japanese people. However, the ultimatum was broadcast to the Japanese Home Islands on the radio while leaflets describing it were dropped from American bombers. Although picking up leaflets and listening to foreign radio broadcasts had been banned by the government, the American propaganda efforts were successful in making the key points of the declaration known to most Japanese.[citation needed] As a result, Prime Minister Suzuki felt compelled to meet the Japanese press, to whom he reiterated his government's commitment to ignore the Allies' demands and fight on.[5]

"Prompt and utter destruction, the like of which the world has never seen." It doesn't get much clearer than that. The Japanese never contacted the Americans directly nor addressed this serious threat.

 

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

It's worth remembering that "the atomic bombing of the Hiroshima city center, in which forces acting on behalf of the United States government deliberately targeted a civilian center and killed over half of all the people living in the city at the time, remains the deadliest act of terrorism in the history of the world."

Also, the OP Poll question asked "Are there times when..." not "Is it conceivable that...." I do not believe that there has ever been a time in history when it would have been justified to drop a WMD on a city with civilian populated buildings and I highly doubt that there will ever be a time in the future when this would be justified. However, as I said before (quoted below) I do believe that a situation in which it would be justified to drop the WMD is conceivable:

Yes.

For example, if every person in the city is guilty of murder and if every civilian in the city is participating in an attempt to commit murder again and the only way to stop them is to drop a weapon of mass destruction on the city killing them all, then I would argue that doing so is justified. Even if there might be ways to stop them without dropping the WMD, the fact that they are all already guilty of murder may mean that dropping the WMD is still justified, although I personally would probably prefer to pursue a course of action that does not involve killing them all.

RIP 8/6/45

"[Sixty eight] years ago today, on August 6, 1945, at 8:15 in the morning, the American B-29 bomber Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb over the center of the city of Hiroshima, Japan. Hiroshima was the first target ever attacked with nuclear weapons in the history of the world.

The bomb exploded about 200 yards over the city, creating a 13 kiloton explosion, a fireball, a shock-wave, and a burst of radiation. On the day that the bomb was dropped, there were about 255,000 people living in Hiroshima.

The explosion completely incinerated everything within a one mile radius of the city center. The shock-wave and the fires ignited by the explosion damaged or completely destroyed about nine-tenths of the buildings in the city. Somewhere between 70,000 and 80,000 people—about one third of the population of the city—immediately died. The heat of the explosion vaporized or burned alive many of those closest to ground zero. Others were killed by the force of the shock-wave or crushed under collapsing buildings. Many more died from acute radiation poisoning—that is, from the effects of having their internal organs being burned away in the intense radiation from the blast.

By December 1945, thousands more had died from their injuries, from radiation poisoning, or from cancers related to the radioactive burst or the fallout. It is estimated that the atomic bombing killed about 140,000 people, and left thousands more with permanent disabilities.

Almost all of the people maimed and killed were civilians...."

Continue Reading: http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/08/06/815am/

 

[robert68]

All well and good, but they still wouldn't hand over the emperor. That was the sticking point in any negotations. NO EMPEROR, NO DEAL. They wilfully chose the bombs.

The following assumes your “facts”, purely for the sake of argument.

First, the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had know say in the decisions of their government. It’s collectivist to conflate both them and the Japanese state into "they".

Secondly, by your logic, any party or state that doesn’t submit to the demands of another party or state, is 'choosing' whatever punishment that party or state delivers as a consequence, to them and anyone else, in any number, anywhere in the world. Total nonsense and antithetical to Liberty.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It's actually hard to answer, and I'll tell you why.

It is blatantly obviously 99.99999999999% of the time no; Hiroshima and Nagasaki were certainly no, but if I sat around for an hour and tortured the hell out of some reason, I could probably come up with a scenario where such a thing would be justified. It would read like the plot of a Hollywood flick, and the likelihood of such a situation ever existing for any reason would be all but zero, but even 0.00000000001% of the time is technically not zero.

OK, wild speculation...Comic book villain, finger on a button that detonates the whole planet, underground impervious to traditional munitions, in the middle of a city, half the city population will defend the bunker to the death so special ops troops are a no-go, says he'll push the button unless we make him emperor of the planet. We have 72 hours to decide. Find the guy who built it and learn that it's real, and specs are such that only a fireball in excess of 250,000° Celsius will destroy the switch without potentially triggering it...

Of course, the situation is so ridiculous as to be absurd. It's just not going to happen, so the answer is 'no,' but it's not completely impossible for such a scenario, so the answer wouldn't be "never under any circumstance." The circumstance is just so incredibly unlikely that it wouldn't even fly in a James Bond movie.

I'm probably more dove-ish on this than the vast majority of the 'no' votes in the poll, I'm just really good at coming up with the devil's advocate scenario.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Also, the OP Poll question asked "Are there times when..." not "Is it conceivable that...." I do not believe that there has ever been a time in history when it would have been justified to drop a WMD on a city with civilian populated buildings and I highly doubt that there will ever be a time in the future when this would be justified. However, as I said before (quoted below) I do believe that a situation in which it would be justified to drop the WMD is conceivable:

Thanks for this distinction, I placed my "no" vote based on that and not on unlikely conceivables.

 

[AuH20]

The following assumes your “facts”, purely for the sake of argument.

First, the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had know say in the decisions of their government. It’s collectivist to conflate both them and the Japanese state into "they".

Secondly, by your logic, any party or state that doesn’t submit to the demands of another party or state, is 'choosing' whatever punishment that party or state delivers as a consequence, to them and anyone else, in any number, anywhere in the world. Total nonsense and antithetical to Liberty.

A mass plurality of Japanese citizens lived to serve their living god, the emperor. 'They' is a suitable pronoun. This wasn't exactly a populace taken hostage like in Nazi Germany.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I do believe that a situation in which it would be justified to drop the WMD is conceivable:

For example, if every person in the city is guilty of murder and if every civilian in the city is participating in an attempt to commit murder again and the only way to stop them is to drop a weapon of mass destruction on the city killing them all, then I would argue that doing so is justified. Even if there might be ways to stop them without dropping the WMD, the fact that they are all already guilty of murder may mean that dropping the WMD is still justified, although I personally would probably prefer to pursue a course of action that does not involve killing them all.

This is casuistry. The question was "are there times" - not "is it conceivable (under some ridiculously contrived hypothetical)."

That there might exist pink unicorns who shoot rainbows out of their asses is conceivable.
But are there times when pink unicorns shoot rainbows out of their asses?

See the difference?