By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
KLAMarine said:
Player2 said:
KLAMarine said:
 

I'm sorry but what? Are you referring to bombing because bombing cities is probably one of the more indiscriminate forms of warfare there is. This tactic makes no distinction between soldier and civilian, a bomb just falls and explodes.

Don't look at me, the others are the ones supporting the idea that nuclear bombing reduced war casualties in WW II and that USA did it for that reason.

The idea is it reduced war casualties by bringing the war to a close much quicker with the use of a frightening new weapon. No need for a long and drawn out land invasion. Scare the enemy into surrender rather than having to fight the millions who were being mobilized to defend the homeland.

Since you cut the interesting part of my reply, I'll ask, again:

What happened to the country that cared so much about civilian deaths? It didn't take long for USA to support military coup d'etats that overthrown democratic governments (with obvious consequences to civilians opposed to them), do napalm bombing, agent orange or support terrorists like the contras.