|
Kasz216 said: 1) Your saying the bombings weren't nessassary. However it was one of three nessassary options. The other two options were Invade by land, more japanese soldiers die, more citizensed forced to fight die and more people starve. Blockade, more soldiers die, more citzens die 2) That's not true at all. Lets go through this A) It is intended to help win the war. Well yeah this was basically the plan to end the war. Check. B) It must be an attack on a military target. Both bombs were targeted at military targets inside the cities. Check. C) The civilian losses must not be excessive compared to the expected military advantage. The military advantage expected? Winning the war because a show of weapons that big a country would have to be insane to ignore. The number of civilians dead? Much less then if we didn't win the war that way. Check. 3) Doesn't change the fact that you stated your opinion as if an expert and dismissed other opinions. |
Funny fact but at Nuremberg Trials the defence abused of the phrase "absolute military necessity", notably Otto Stammer, Goring's attorney. It didn't help. Your reasoning is based on groudnless assumptions and won't help in court either (the prosecution will simply eat you alive). Though it should be noted that "vae victis" is the only law of war that's actually working.
That's very simplistic approach and again a lot of assumptions neither you nor I know anything about, but there're more options except those you've gave. Even if exclude conventional warfare, targets for nuclear bombing could have been chosen better to avoid deaths among civilians, e.g. bombing distant military object or sparsely populated areas to warn opponent about consequences of further resistance. These actions could have been recognized as military necessity.
//"Nuclear bombings are to save lives" is a common historiographical cliche that children have been taught partly to save teachers time instead giving them more complex picture. That's basically what you've told me in our prervious discussion regarding "FDR saved US", why not now?
