By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
KLAMarine on 11 August 2015
Edit Thread
Player2 said:
KLAMarine said:

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.

Your question is a complex one but I'll try to keep my answer brief. Feel free to ask more if you feel it necessary and I'll try to answer to the best of my ability.

Player2 said:

What happened to the country that cared so much about civilian deaths?

I'm going to say a change of US leadership with different administrations exercising varying degrees of restraint in their actions happened. As an example, Lyndon B Johnson forbade bombing certain targets in North Vietnam. Richard Nixon, the man following Johnson was not so inhibited going so far as to even bomb parts of Cambodia. Congress funded the Vietnam War during the aforementioned two administrations but during President Ford's term, Congress wanted no more of the Vietnam War and refused to provide any further military spending on South Vietnam. President Ford himself had the honor to declare the Vietnam War over "as far as America [was] concerned" as North invaded the South.

Civilian casualties certainly matter but depending on who is in office, they will matter to varying degrees.