5 ms·
If the U.S. had instead somehow parachuted in 200,000 troops to Hiroshima, and then lined up and shot to death 100,000 men, women, children, elderly people, hos
by hudibras 10y ago
If the U.S. had instead somehow parachuted in 200,000 troops to Hiroshima, and then lined up and shot to death 100,000 men, women, children, elderly people, hospital patients, etc., and then burned every building down to the ground, would that be okay? What if by doing so it would end the war?
Even if there were going to be many U.S. military casualties (which I doubt, although I know this is debatable), that doesn't in any way justify killing civilians. It's a tragedy of World War 2 (and Korea and Vietnam to lesser extents) that our leaders thought this was an appropriate way to fight a war.
- sukilot 10y agoWhy do soldiers deserve to die more than civilians? This is not obvious. Soldiers by and large are not enrolled in war by virtue of free choice among competitive options.
- slededit 10y agoSoldiers have the means to defend themselves.
- adventured 10y ago> that doesn't in any way justify killing civilians WW2 wasn't just a war, it was absolute war: the survival of nations and perhaps hundreds of millions of people were on the line. In absolute war, most of the resources of the nation, including most of its labor pool, is put into war supply mode. That is a critical distinction. Killing civilians was inherently necessary, as they worked the manufacturing plants that supplied the weapons. If you intend to destroy the factories to stop the flow of weapons and supplies, you are going to kill very large numbers of civilians. And before the reflexive comment: simultaneously I'm not condoning intentionally targeting civilians as an appropriate means of instilling terror or capitulation.