It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Gothmog
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass
a necessary evil? To fight evil. Right? One can certainly do more than hope.
Thats where a lot of people are incorrect. WW2 was not about "evil" that is debatable. It was to stop 2 major countries from taking over other sovereign nations as they were hellbent on world domination. They failed. War in itself is evil. No debate.But a necessary evil sometimes.
This may be true, as you say.
But that doesn't answer the question whether civilians can be targeted.
You need to remember that today people who do so are ostensibly called terrorists. The argument runs that no matter what your cause or justification is, you can't target civilians on purpose.
I am going to research the number killed by the 2 bombs , and then research the number of civilian lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan . I betcha the latter is much more.
originally posted by: Vector99
originally posted by: Gothmog
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass
a necessary evil? To fight evil. Right? One can certainly do more than hope.
Thats where a lot of people are incorrect. WW2 was not about "evil" that is debatable. It was to stop 2 major countries from taking over other sovereign nations as they were hellbent on world domination. They failed. War in itself is evil. No debate.But a necessary evil sometimes.
This may be true, as you say.
But that doesn't answer the question whether civilians can be targeted.
You need to remember that today people who do so are ostensibly called terrorists. The argument runs that no matter what your cause or justification is, you can't target civilians on purpose.
I am going to research the number killed by the 2 bombs , and then research the number of civilian lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan . I betcha the latter is much more.
Here's an interesting number for ya, the 2 day firebombing campaign of Tokyo is estimated to have killed more than the 2 bombs combined did.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
Why did they drop 2 bombs on Japan.
originally posted by: Sovan
US is the only to have resorted to nuking another country, and one wasn't even enough.
Did German and Japanese civilians deserve to be intentionally targeted in WW2?
originally posted by: luciddream
originally posted by: muSSang
It's a hard call, Japan would not surrender unconditionally, so a invasion plan was drawn up, this would of cost the allies more lives than the WMD's had taken.
I think the nukes were justified, remember if it wasn't nukes it was going to be bats armed with insidinary timered bombs. So in hindsight the WMD's actually saved lives.
This is what they teach so people think it is justified, The truth is Japan was already defeated, food supply cut short and other import restriction.
It was simply US gov had to show their new technology to the world on fisherman, women and children.
originally posted by: skunkape23
If I had been in Truman's shoes, I would have dropped the first nuke on an unpopulated area.
Let them see what we've got and give them a chance to surrender.
Dropping the atomic bomb on a densely populated area was an unnecessary and barbaric act in my opinion.
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
originally posted by: Bluntone22
When you start a war and have your factories surrounded by civilians you are asking for those civilians to be killed. Especially when you factor in that a bomber in ww2 aiming for a target could easily miss by a half mile.
Yes, sure, but that may explain many bombing runs in WWII but surely not Dresden nor the two cities in Japan. Both were beyond that.