3 ms·

Yes, I'm aware of the doublespeak used to justify bombing major civilian population centers. I still would object to being bombed merely for living in a city, s

Yes, I'm aware of the doublespeak used to justify bombing major civilian population centers. I still would object to being bombed merely for living in a city, so object to bombing others for the same reason.

panick21_ 5y ago
Please tell me how the US should have reacted to how they would have won the war while considering your moral principles. Please explain this when you make comments like that. And please also explain how many additional US soldiers (not to mention soldiers and civilians in China and other Asian nations) would you think acceptable to fight the war according to your moral principles. If for example the Nazi put a single German child into the guard house of the synthetic fuel production facility, would you not destroy it? Its easy to be critical, but please actually explain what your moral principles would have been and how you would have applied them. And can you make a credible case that these principles would have lead to less overall suffering. I am gently curious what your logic is and what alternative strategy you would advocate.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  >Please tell me how the US should have reacted to how they would have won the war while considering your moral principles. They could bomb military targets, not civilian populations. Yes, Tokyo contained some military facilities, that doesn't justify firebombing the entire city. The entire doctrine of "bomb the civilians into war weariness" has not been found to be successful, and even in 1944 there were already examples showing that. It more often causes the bombed to rally together against a common enemy, like London in the Blitz or what still effects North Korea today. Your example of one child in a synthetic fuel facility is ridiculous. I understand that some civilian workers of factories will unfortunately be victims, and that bombs will miss their targets. That's not comparable to wide scale firebombing or nuking the population.
  - codechad 5y ago
    > They could bomb military targets, not civilian populations. Yes, Tokyo contained some military facilities, that doesn't justify firebombing the entire city. I guess history disagrees with you.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      I'd say it agrees with me, we firebombed Tokyo and the war didn't end.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - codechad 5y ago
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    Production was distributed threw the cities in Japan, that's a simple fact. And they did target military target when they had good target. After attacks on city on we can literally see production output going down. There is an argument that in Germany some of the attacks on cities were counter-productive and a more intense focus on certain industrial areas would have been more beneficial. But those were also better guarded. Even so, economic historian Adam Tooze book shows pretty well that air attacks did have large economic attacks.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      >And they did target military target when they had good target. If you don't have a good military target, then don't bomb them. Yes killing however many thousands of people will drive down production. It doesn't end the war and it only makes the post war stage more difficult.
      - panick21_ 5y ago

panick21_ 5y ago

Please tell me how the US should have reacted to how they would have won the war while considering your moral principles. Please explain this when you make comments like that. And please also explain how many additional US soldiers (not to mention soldiers and civilians in China and other Asian nations) would you think acceptable to fight the war according to your moral principles. If for example the Nazi put a single German child into the guard house of the synthetic fuel production facility, would you not destroy it? Its easy to be critical, but please actually explain what your moral principles would have been and how you would have applied them. And can you make a credible case that these principles would have lead to less overall suffering. I am gently curious what your logic is and what alternative strategy you would advocate.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
>Please tell me how the US should have reacted to how they would have won the war while considering your moral principles. They could bomb military targets, not civilian populations. Yes, Tokyo contained some military facilities, that doesn't justify firebombing the entire city. The entire doctrine of "bomb the civilians into war weariness" has not been found to be successful, and even in 1944 there were already examples showing that. It more often causes the bombed to rally together against a common enemy, like London in the Blitz or what still effects North Korea today. Your example of one child in a synthetic fuel facility is ridiculous. I understand that some civilian workers of factories will unfortunately be victims, and that bombs will miss their targets. That's not comparable to wide scale firebombing or nuking the population.
- codechad 5y ago
  > They could bomb military targets, not civilian populations. Yes, Tokyo contained some military facilities, that doesn't justify firebombing the entire city. I guess history disagrees with you.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    I'd say it agrees with me, we firebombed Tokyo and the war didn't end.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - codechad 5y ago
- panick21_ 5y ago
  Production was distributed threw the cities in Japan, that's a simple fact. And they did target military target when they had good target. After attacks on city on we can literally see production output going down. There is an argument that in Germany some of the attacks on cities were counter-productive and a more intense focus on certain industrial areas would have been more beneficial. But those were also better guarded. Even so, economic historian Adam Tooze book shows pretty well that air attacks did have large economic attacks.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    >And they did target military target when they had good target. If you don't have a good military target, then don't bomb them. Yes killing however many thousands of people will drive down production. It doesn't end the war and it only makes the post war stage more difficult.
    - panick21_ 5y ago