Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 7
The Cambodia bombing story includes Nixon bypassing congressional approval and crews bombing coordinates without borders; how does that confront common evangelical ideas about serving honorably while “just following orders,” and how would early Christians have judged responsibility when the consequences are hidden?
Another way to ask: What does the Cambodia bombing story say about the idea of serving “honorably” by just following orders? How would early Christians judge someone’s responsibility when the damage is kept secret?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript challenges “just following orders” by showing how honorable service can still participate in unauthorized and hidden attacks; the speaker implies responsibility remains because crews really did “bomb those coordinates,” even when borders and consequences were obscured.
Support from Transcript:- He states plainly: “President Nixon ordered” bombing Cambodia and “did not have the approval” to attack another country.
- He notes it was “kind of squelched afterward,” showing how wrongdoing can be buried.
- He explains how crews were insulated: maps “don’t have borders… They have coordinates. And you're told, go bomb… these coordinates.”
- He describes moral distance: “Oh, I wonder who’s down below that. You don’t know.”
- He says a crew might assume: “I must be in South Vietnam… No, you’re attacking Cambodia,” and “may not find out for a long time.”
- He connects this to “deception, unauthorized activities,” and an “objective” mindset.
If a Christian doesn’t know who is being harmed, does that remove guilt—or increase the need to refuse? What limits should conscience place on obedience to commands?