The first paragraph contains this: "Obviously, if the bombings weren't necessary to win the war, then bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong". I don't see wh

The first paragraph contains this: "Obviously, if the bombings weren't necessary to win the war, then bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong". I don't see why articles need to go there. Studying history is useful but making moral judgments mixes societies at different levels of moral development. Unless "unintentionally" can be fudged to morally sanction wiping out a city with a nuclear weapon today, I don't see the point. Maybe I slightly exaggerated the moral repugnance of society today towards civilian death. But the difference between moral attitudes toward civilian death today and civilian death in WW2 is so dramatic, a little bit of exaggeration does very little to weaken the point.