Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mac_truck
Then I'd really like to know your choice of military targets aimed at ending the war against Japan in 1945. Have at it General.

There were hundreds that were military targets, munitions factories, ports, naval yards, etc - all could have been targeted by conventional weapons. The same military targets could be destroyed - certainly some civilians would be killed in any bombing, but far from the estimated 120,000 of Hiroshima and 75,000 of Nagasaki. I would have bombed with everything I had short of nukes, or used nukes on a naval fleet, but not against civilians.

Again, I acknowledge that the military is prepared for war and is universally recognized as a legitimate target. I still question why you are so eager for your family, your newborn baby, child or grandmother to be considered a lawful target by our enemies.

826 posted on 11/24/2003 7:15:44 PM PST by 4CJ ('Scots vie 4 tavern juices' - anagram by paulklenk, 22 Nov 2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies ]


To: 4ConservativeJustices
As tragic as the loss of life was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it does not begin to compare to the loss of AMERICAN life that would have occurred if the US chose to fight island to island, house to house, until Tokyo submitted.

If you have any evidence that the United States targeted grandmothers and newborns at any time during its existance, then submit it.

Otherwise STFU about it.

827 posted on 11/24/2003 7:23:36 PM PST by mac_truck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson