To: BikerNYC
I, too, think that the bombs were necessary to prevent further American deaths, but it was the final act of that war that made it acceptable to intentionally target civilians during armed conflict (whether that was ultimately for good or for bad has yet, I think, to be determined). Population centers were targets all throughout the second World War for both the Allied and the Axis forces. Attacking population centers during previous wars was usually considered a no no. But it started when a German pilot dropped his payload over a British civilian area (without orders) and it escalated from there.
Aside from that, the bombs weren't meant to (as a reason for the bombs) destroy the population of two cities. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were important manufacturing centers for the Japanese war effort. If the US wanted to simply annihilate Japanese people, they could have selected better targets.
APf
10 posted on
07/28/2005 7:44:51 AM PDT by
APFel
(This space for sale or rent)
To: APFel
Population centers were targets all throughout the second World War for both the Allied and the Axis forces.
Indeed. That's why I said it was the final act of that war that made such targeting acceptable.
Aside from that, the bombs weren't meant to (as a reason for the bombs) destroy the population of two cities. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were important manufacturing centers for the Japanese war effort. If the US wanted to simply annihilate Japanese people, they could have selected better targets.
One could find a rationalization to drop the bombs on any city other than to destroy the people living therein - manufacturing, food supply, energy production, whatever. To follow your argument, if we did not want to "annihilate" civilians, we could have found better targets.
16 posted on
07/28/2005 8:02:37 AM PDT by
BikerNYC
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson