[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).

[APFel]

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

[Mi-kha-el]

So, the History began on that day and there had not been bombings (conventional, though it may be) of cities and villages in Europe. All sides did it. Half of Europe was in ruins. It is a veeeeeeeery weird comment.

[Dan Evans]

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

But it was started long before by Axis powers in Europe.

Today it is acceptable only in retaliation for a nuclear strike. Precision weapons make it possible to avoid civilians in conventional war,