I would think that there would have been bombing of US cities by US forces during the War of 1812 and the Civil War. True, aircraft hadn’t been invented yet, muchless nukes, but explosive cannon balls were called “bombs” (hence the line “the bombs bursting in air” in the national anthem) and I’m fairly certain that the US government did use those against several US cities, so I’d say that the answer to the OP is, “Yes, they can and have under certain circumstances.”
Sure, the government might be able to do it under extreme circumstances, but they had been demostrate afterwards that they had a REALLY good reason or else heads will roll.
The factual answer to this question is that, yes, the government could bomb an American city. Whether they would bomb one is probably a matter for IMHO. Whether they should do so is best suited for Great Debates.
I don’t think it’s legal for civil authorities to fire or drop weapons from aircraft.
But you could equally truthfully say, “The factual answer to this question is that, yes, Timothy McVeigh could bomb an American city.”
To distinguish between the two cases we would have delve into the differing legal consequences that would face domb-dropping decision makers and the ultimate legal (and lethal) fate of Timothy McVeigh.
I can conceive of circumstances in which government officials who drop or order dropped a bomb could face adverse legal consequences. In fact, let me reverse that – it’s hard to conceive of any bomb dropping incident that wouldn’t result in massive lawsuits and/or criminal investigations. I believe Philadelphia paid out dearly for their MOVE incident.
But we bombed the crap out of Manilla when we retook it in WWII (it was a US territory before and after the war) and no one blinked.
And if the Philadelphia bomb had worked as expected, maybe no one would have blinked.
In this day and age any incident that involves some American government agency dropping bombs on American citizens on American soil is going to end up being reviewed by a court, and probably many of them. And I can conceive of many differing circumstances that might swing a legal judgement either way.
…and, if they made a movie about it, it would be fodder for Cafe Society.
And someone’s account for it would go in MPSIMS, rants about it would go in the Pit…
Happened in the War of Northern Aggression for reasons a significant portion of our population didn’t think were credible, so yes, the gov’t could bomb one of our own cities.
BA
Can you be more clear please? WHOSE war of northern aggression?
I disagree entirely with your disagreement. The OP is using the outbreak thing as an example. If the govt could bomb a city to eliminate an immediate danger to the entire country, why wouldn’t they? If a few dozen (in an airliner) to save some thousands (in a building), why not a few thousands (in a city) to save millions (a country). It’s a matter of scale, I guess, but the ratios could be the same.
And to be honest, the decision would have a lot to do with who was threatened. You can bet on it.
Peace,
mangeorge
I don’t know whether it was legal or not. But, it is unquestionably what Wilson Goode ordered. That order was carried out.
Although the OP intended to apply to intentional bombing, perhaps there should be concern over an accidentlal bombing. After all, we dropped 4 H-bombs on Palomares, Spain, on 1/17/66, one of which fell into the Mediterranean. BTW, I was on one of the ships while it participated in the 80-day successful search. The Navy sent the USAF a bill for $6 million, just for the sea search. Tons of the soil surrounding the site of the non-nuclear land detonation(s) was flown to the US midwest for burial. I also lived in Savannah, Ga, for a while without knowing that the H-bomb that was jettisoned into the mouth of the Savannah River after a 2/5/58 mid-air collision was still there, and still is today.
This analysis is flawed. Apples and oranges. Your analogy raises the criminal law concept which allows the target of a criminal attack to fend off the attacker with force. The governmental power we’re discussing in this thread has nothing to do with this idea. Everyone agrees that the government has the right to use deadly force against criminals to prevent a violent attack on a citizen. That’s not the issue here.
Instead, we’re discussing the right of the govenment to take action that will hurt/kill/inconvenience innocent people (not the criminal attackers) to prevent an otherwise inevitable greater harm.
I agree that the greater harm has to be reasonably immediate.
Hehe, sure. Damn Yankees =D
BA
In fact the government did bomb a community in the U.S.
It was during WWII and the town was Boise (pronounced Boyse one syllable unlike Idaho) City, OK. A bomber squadron on a practice flight up the Texas Panhandle mistook the lights of the town for a special design at their drop site and they bombed the edge of town. Only real damage was a farmer’s barn.
TV
There have been rumors for years that US Army Observation Ballons dropped bombs on certain Southern cities during the Civil War.
But no real proof. It could go either way.
US Army bombers were used on striking coal miners at the Battle of Blair Mountain, but it was mostly for show.