By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Cactus said:
starcraft said:
 

What you're describing is how unethical armies and certain sadistic individuals (who exist EVERYWHERE including OUTSIDE of war) conduct warfare.  As someone else mentioned, when it comes to the US military, you're picking the isolated incidents and using them to indict the whole body.  The vast majority of the military strikes America has made SINCE THE COUNTRY'S INCEPTION have had risk/benefit analysis' made that incorporate civilian collatoral.

There is no instance of America EVER making it policy to attack civilians first.  EVER!

Honor in dying is a subjective thing I will grant you, but you're clearly the world's greatest pessimist if you genuinely believe it isn't possible in any scenario.

And now I feel like and idiot, because I just realized I spent time responding to someone who appears to have just claimed it wasn't worth fighting the Nazi's...


I agree with what you're saying in principal, but I question the bolded. What about the Hamburg/Dresden firebombing in WW2? What about the atomic bomb drops? I don't want to get into a debate about the ethics of these events, but they do seem to be attacks where the immediate goal was civilian casualties.

I guess it would depend on your definition of attacking first.  Both of those were last resorts long after other countries dragged America into the war and millions had died on both sides.

Also, the Nuclear Bombs were both targeted at the most military/industrial sites the Americans could pinpoint, and they didn't truly comprehend the devastation they would bring.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS