4 ms·

Did you miss "in war against non-combatants"? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were exactly that. Even Tokyo was considered. PS, Pearl Harbour was against military targe

Did you miss "in war against non-combatants"? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were exactly that. Even Tokyo was considered. PS, Pearl Harbour was against military targets, and peacetime is arguable considering the embargoes, etc. Still not "high ground" by any means, but hardly unprecedented. The US already had a fleet there precisely in case it was needed against the Japanese empire.

Jakawao 9y ago
Also, keep in mind that Hawaii was not even a US State at this point. It was an independent island nation that happened to have a US military base.
- DrScump 9y ago
  No, it was a U.S. possession, not unlike Alaska (bound for statehood) or the Philippines (preparing for independence).
kazagistar 9y ago
There was no point in nuking Tokyo and such because it had already been almost entirely burned to the ground by firestorms from previous firebombings.
ghostcluster 9y ago
Japan hadn't declared war.
- timthelion 9y ago
  US never declared war in Vietnam. And since when did saying "I hate you, I'm going to war with you" make it OK to indiscriminately kill civilians. ISIS has declared war on England. Does that make it OK for them to bomb the subway?
  - ghostcluster 9y ago
    What are you trying to argue? That Pearl Harbor wasn't a surprise attack? That the Japanese didn't employ terrorist tactics against American civilians? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon > And since when did saying "I hate you, I'm going to war with you" make it OK to indiscriminately kill civilians Maybe ask the Japanese? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre If you can't understand a strategic decision to bring a war to an end and avoid a larger loss of life, I don't know what to tell you.
    - timthelion 9y ago
      My point is, that this "everything's fair in love and war" attitude is without moral basis. It's not magically OK to be evil just because you are at war, and using wartime tactics when you are not officially at war is not worse than doing them during a war.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      The Japanese were in Nanking as part of a strategic decision to bring the war to a quick end, does that justify that massacre of civilians?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Spooky23 9y ago
From the US Civil War to the atomic age, there was no such thing as a non-combatant. Industrialization meant that a modern society could indefinitely sustain mobilization and fight until economic collapse. World War 1 was where his really came to roost. The machine gun and artillery turned the western front into an industrial scale killing machine that only ended when the German economy ground to a halt. Technology improvements in WW2 enabled destruction at a scale never witnessed in history and incomparable on a relative scale to nothing except Caesar’s Gallic campaign. The way to win was about metrics — building more arms and killing as many people as possible. Japan was no different than cavalrymen in WW1, who believed that elan and decisive victory in the field would carry the day. Sociopaths like Curtis Lemay figured that out.

Jakawao 9y ago

Also, keep in mind that Hawaii was not even a US State at this point. It was an independent island nation that happened to have a US military base.

DrScump 9y ago
No, it was a U.S. possession, not unlike Alaska (bound for statehood) or the Philippines (preparing for independence).

kazagistar 9y ago

There was no point in nuking Tokyo and such because it had already been almost entirely burned to the ground by firestorms from previous firebombings.

ghostcluster 9y ago

Japan hadn't declared war.

timthelion 9y ago
US never declared war in Vietnam. And since when did saying "I hate you, I'm going to war with you" make it OK to indiscriminately kill civilians. ISIS has declared war on England. Does that make it OK for them to bomb the subway?
- ghostcluster 9y ago
  What are you trying to argue? That Pearl Harbor wasn't a surprise attack? That the Japanese didn't employ terrorist tactics against American civilians? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon > And since when did saying "I hate you, I'm going to war with you" make it OK to indiscriminately kill civilians Maybe ask the Japanese? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre If you can't understand a strategic decision to bring a war to an end and avoid a larger loss of life, I don't know what to tell you.
  - timthelion 9y ago
    My point is, that this "everything's fair in love and war" attitude is without moral basis. It's not magically OK to be evil just because you are at war, and using wartime tactics when you are not officially at war is not worse than doing them during a war.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    The Japanese were in Nanking as part of a strategic decision to bring the war to a quick end, does that justify that massacre of civilians?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Spooky23 9y ago

From the US Civil War to the atomic age, there was no such thing as a non-combatant. Industrialization meant that a modern society could indefinitely sustain mobilization and fight until economic collapse. World War 1 was where his really came to roost. The machine gun and artillery turned the western front into an industrial scale killing machine that only ended when the German economy ground to a halt. Technology improvements in WW2 enabled destruction at a scale never witnessed in history and incomparable on a relative scale to nothing except Caesar’s Gallic campaign. The way to win was about metrics — building more arms and killing as many people as possible. Japan was no different than cavalrymen in WW1, who believed that elan and decisive victory in the field would carry the day. Sociopaths like Curtis Lemay figured that out.