Droping the bomb on Hiroshima - was it the right thing to do?

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]

International prestige get's you further than the value of human life(In todays world). If America didn't do anything to stand out, than I'm sure America wouldn't be taken seriously. Both of us have different views on this so I'll leave it at that.

pianist

That's my point. You feel that collateral damage in the name of international prestige is justified. I don't. So I'd make a lousy politician.

well if i may jump in. Russia declared war on Japan 3 days before the first nuke was dropped. The Primary reason was to swiftly end the war. putting russia in their place was an added bonus intentionally or not

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I voted yes but not because it saved lives. That's BS. The real reason that I think we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was to flex our muscles and show the world that we were the super power, and to not f around with us. alphamale1989

Anyways, some estimates show that 200,000 American troops would have died, in addition to 1,000,000 Japenese civillians, and of coase the other Allied forces would have lost many lives as well.

Here is the sorce I got that from, it has arguments for both sides: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_arguments_for_and_against_the_atomic_bombings_of_Japan_being_justified

I'm saddend by the fact that lives were lost, but lives are always lost. By dropping the atomic bomb we showed our might as a nation, and we more importantly showed the might of the atomic bomb. It's all very disturbing and it's a very synical way of looking at things, but it's all politics.  

Indeed... and we would not see it as just if it were used against us. It sounds silly and childish... but that old "do unto others" motto is an easy way to evaluate whether something is justified or not, even in war. It's not whether or not you fight which is in question (clearly the Allies had a more justified reason to be at war), but rather the way you do it. Kicking your foe in the nuts is dirty, no matter who does it, and no matter why the combatants are in the arena.

So if a person feels that nuking New York would have been unjustified, then so too was nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If, on the other hand, someone feels that nuking New York WOULD be justifiable, then he'd have a legitimate case to argue for the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

pianist

My only real argument is that morality and justification aide, if something could be done that would be atrocious and immoral in its own right but would possibly spare the lives of many more people, both military and civilian, it would be logical to do it. But in regards to a hypothetical bombing of New York, the logic behind such a bombing would depend on the situation of the time. it wouldn't make sense if, say, in early 1945, Germany sent a long range bomber to attack New York just to kill as many people as possible before the Red Army overran Berlin because that wouldn't cause an allied surrender.

America should only be concerned with American lives in times of war not Japanese ones.freshgman

I think there actually is a difference depending on the bomb dropped. They were prepared for firebombings and other conventional attacks, and they were prepared for long stand-offs and invasions. But they weren't prepared for two cities being destroyed so quickly without even a chance to defend them. Maybe you're right and they still would have surrendered sooner than we expected, but to say that completely obliterating their cities with weapons that they didn't even understand had no effect is silly. The prospect of a slow beating is much different from that of complete annhilation. 

darkmoney52

Nah... it doesn't make a difference.  A city destroyed by the air by one bomb or a hundred is still just as destroyed.  Japan had no hope of stopping the American air force and they knew it.  And again, the consensus amongst historians is that the nukings had no effect at all the on the military leaders who wanted to continue the war.  Why would they change their minds?  THEY were the ones who believed in this 'fight to the last man' nonsense.  At best, the nukes MAY have slightly affected the surrender date, making it happen a bit earlier, because it gave the Emperor the leverage and motivation he needed to defy the military and ask for peace.  But since he was already considering surrender before the nukes were used... even that is debatable.

The Emperor did claim that the use of 'inhuman bombs' was the reason for the surrender, and that he 'could not bear to see his people suffer' (or something to that effect), but that doesn't change the fact that he held the surrender mindset before the bombs were dropped.  Pose the question of surrender to the military leaders and you'd receive a very different response, bombs or no bombs.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I voted yes but not because it saved lives. That's BS. The real reason that I think we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was to flex our muscles and show the world that we were the super power, and to not f around with us. tediously_brief

Dude, the results can be achieved by a massive barrage of conventional weapons. US does that a lot, we use so much heavy ordanace on very few targets. Thats how the US operates, bomb the **** out of em, so our troops are as safe as possible. 

Now I disagree. I don't think that a massive barrage of conventional weapons would of had the same effect, not when we had this brand new, never before used weapon that is suppose to be more powerful than anything before imagined. The world knew what a massive barrage of conventional weapons would do, but the world didn't know what an atomic bomb could do.

My only real argument is that morality and justification aide, if something could be done that would be atrocious and immoral in its own right but would possibly spare the lives of many more people, both military and civilian, it would be logical to do it. But in regards to a hypothetical bombing of New York, the logic behind such a bombing would depend on the situation of the time. it wouldn't make sense if, say, in early 1945, Germany sent a long range bomber to attack New York just to kill as many people as possible before the Red Army overran Berlin because that wouldn't cause an allied surrender.

fidosim

I agree.  But again... a kick to the balls is still a kick to the balls, even when you have a legitimate reason to do it.  I most certainly agree with you that bombing just to cause death (like the firebombings of Germany late in the war) is worse than bombing with the hope of ending the bloodshed.  But if you were to believe some people posting here... then dropping two nukes on American cities WOULD cause instant surrender.  After all, that's what 'caused' the Japanese surrender, right?  :P

Now I disagree. I don't think that a massive barrage of conventional weapons would of had the same effect, not when we had this brand new, never before used weapon that is suppose to be more powerful than anything before imagined. The world knew what a massive barrage of conventional weapons would do, but the world didn't know what an atomic bomb could do.

-Sun_Tzu-

Interestingly enough, it did exactly what a massive barrage of conventional weapons does... except with the addition of radiation that kills people decades after the fact. 

[QUOTE="tediously_brief"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I voted yes but not because it saved lives. That's BS. The real reason that I think we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was to flex our muscles and show the world that we were the super power, and to not f around with us. -Sun_Tzu-

Dude, the results can be achieved by a massive barrage of conventional weapons. US does that a lot, we use so much heavy ordanace on very few targets. Thats how the US operates, bomb the **** out of em, so our troops are as safe as possible. 

Now I disagree. I don't think that a massive barrage of conventional weapons would of had the same effect, not when we had this brand new, never before used weapon that is suppose to be more powerful than anything before imagined. The world knew what a massive barrage of conventional weapons would do, but the world didn't know what an atomic bomb could do.

I was actually refering to how today, US forces use ordnanace like it's free, and how that "flexes our muscles".

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Now I disagree. I don't think that a massive barrage of conventional weapons would of had the same effect, not when we had this brand new, never before used weapon that is suppose to be more powerful than anything before imagined. The world knew what a massive barrage of conventional weapons would do, but the world didn't know what an atomic bomb could do.

pianist

Interestingly enough, it did exactly what a massive barrage of conventional weapons does.

Yeah I know, and unfortunately not only did it kill a tremendous amount of people on the spot, the radiation caused by the bomb was simply devastating.

But alas, mankind is cursed with curiosity; we just had to see what it could do.

how did it save more people than it killed when there are people born in japan with terminal illness because of the effects that are still being felt today Japan has a declining population because of this so know it wasn't justified .snakes_codec

people can also play at the fact that if america had invdaded by land MANY cities would have been destroyed, many japanese would have committed suicide (so many already did from past events) and a lot of soldiers more would have died. And you can say that less lives were saved because of the radiation but it can just as easily have been said that many lives would not have even existed if all those soldiers who would become fathers of children had died and all those civilians had died in the fighting to take over cities or from committing suicides.

[QUOTE="pianist"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Now I disagree. I don't think that a massive barrage of conventional weapons would of had the same effect, not when we had this brand new, never before used weapon that is suppose to be more powerful than anything before imagined. The world knew what a massive barrage of conventional weapons would do, but the world didn't know what an atomic bomb could do.

-Sun_Tzu-

Interestingly enough, it did exactly what a massive barrage of conventional weapons does.

Yeah I know, and unfortunately not only did it kill a tremendous amount of people on the spot, the radiation caused by the bomb was simply devastating.

But alas, mankind is cursed with curiosity, we just had to see what it could do.

A tremendous amount of INNOCENT people were killed on the spot. 

Yeah I know, and unfortunately not only did it kill a tremendous amount of people on the spot, the radiation caused by the bomb was simply devastating.

But alas, mankind is cursed with curiosity, we just had to see what it could do.

-Sun_Tzu-

:lol:

Amen.  People don't like to admit it, but morbid curiosity... satisfying egos... revenge... legitimizing the expenditure of so much money... all these non war-related factors played an important role in the decision.  The public face of the bombings was that they were to end the war without any more American casualties.  But the truth is that there were all sorts of issues that had nothing to do with that (including a desire to send a message to the Soviets!) which played just as big if not a bigger role than the desire to end a war that was essentially over already save for the mid 1940s version of the Iraqi Information Ministry.

[QUOTE="freshgman"]America should only be concerned with American lives in times of war not Japanese ones.DJ_Novakain

Well you have 72 MILLION PEOPLE WHO DIED involving 60 countries . that thing needed to end

[QUOTE="DJ_Novakain"][QUOTE="freshgman"]America should only be concerned with American lives in times of war not Japanese ones.freshgman

Well you have 72 MILLION PEOPLE WHO DIED involving 60 countries . that thing needed to end

Yeah... but it would have ended without the bombs.  Again, I think we overemphasize the role the bombs played in the war's outcome.  It was already a foregone conclusion when they were dropped.

We sure sent the soviets a message, they went ahead and made thier own nuke, which was stolen from our plans.tediously_brief

There was no way that technology wasn't going to find its way around.  Germany was developing one, too.  Scary thought, really.... Nazi Germany with nuclear weapons.

[QUOTE="tediously_brief"]We sure sent the soviets a message, they went ahead and made thier own nuke, which was stolen from our plans.pianist

There was no way that technology wasn't going to find its way around.  Germany was developing one, too.  Scary thought, really.... Nazi Germany with nuclear weapons.

That's the thing that really troubles me. It's only a matter of time before some radical barbaric dictator gets his hands on something as powerful as a nuclear warhead.  

[QUOTE="snakes_codec"]how did it save more people than it killed when there are people born in japan with terminal illness because of the effects that are still being felt today Japan has a declining population because of this so know it wasn't justified .bionicle_lover

people can also play at the fact that if america had invdaded by land MANY cities would have been destroyed, many japanese would have committed suicide (so many already did from past events) and a lot of soldiers more would have died. And you can say that less lives were saved because of the radiation but it can just as easily have been said that many lives would not have even existed if all those soldiers who would become fathers of children had died and all those civilians had died in the fighting to take over cities or from committing suicides.

the difference is Allied countries didn't have to go into Japan to have all those people killed I'm pretty sure the Japanese saw they were beaten there was know need to drop a 2 huge bombs on them that has killed millions of men women & children even continuing to this day .

[QUOTE="freshgman"]

[QUOTE="DJ_Novakain"]That is just something I can't agree with. The only thing most of those people did wron was be born into the wrong country.pianist

Well you have 72 MILLION PEOPLE WHO DIED involving 60 countries . that thing needed to end

Yeah... but it would have ended without the bombs. Again, I think we overemphasize the role the bombs played in the war's outcome. It was already a foregone conclusion when they were dropped.

remeber that US was bombing tokyo and other cities with regular bombs for awhile

Off topic, but, it seems like we are **** with more and more countries getting the bomb it looks like there's no way out of nuclear war. :( gg, no re. tediously_brief

It's sometimes debated whether or not the bomb should have been developed at all, but the truth is that human nature made such a weapon inevitable, as is the pursuit of obtaining it by most other countries.

[QUOTE="tediously_brief"]Off topic, but, it seems like we are **** with more and more countries getting the bomb it looks like there's no way out of nuclear war. :( gg, no re. fidosim

It's sometimes debated whether or not the bomb should have been developed at all, but the truth is that human nature made such a weapon inevitable, as is the pursuit of obtaining it by most other countries.

yeah imagine 30yrs from now

[QUOTE="bionicle_lover"]

[QUOTE="snakes_codec"]how did it save more people than it killed when there are people born in japan with terminal illness because of the effects that are still being felt today Japan has a declining population because of this so know it wasn't justified .snakes_codec

people can also play at the fact that if america had invdaded by land MANY cities would have been destroyed, many japanese would have committed suicide (so many already did from past events) and a lot of soldiers more would have died. And you can say that less lives were saved because of the radiation but it can just as easily have been said that many lives would not have even existed if all those soldiers who would become fathers of children had died and all those civilians had died in the fighting to take over cities or from committing suicides.

the difference is Allied countries didn't have to go into Japan to have all those people killed I'm pretty sure the Japanese saw they were beaten there was know need to drop a 2 huge bombs on them that has killed millions of men women & children even continuing to this day .

ok well the japanese didnt surrender, so the americans had to do something. personally i feel they could maybe have waited a little longer, but we'll never really know how japan would have reacted without the bombs, which is what makes hypothesizing so hard. Though i do believe two bombs were completely unnceessary (at least in such a small period... japan probably had to confirm that the city is gone. after all, i'd be quite suprised if my country suddenly went one city short with no previous indication that such a thing would happen)

remeber that US was bombing tokyo and other cities with regular bombs for awhile

freshgman

And the effects of that conventional warfare would be why part of the Japanese government was already interested in surrender.... the part that ended up actually getting it done.  The people who never wanted it done were not affected in the least by the bombs - conventional or nuclear.  At no time did they see surrender as an option.

[QUOTE="darkmoney52"]

I think there actually is a difference depending on the bomb dropped. They were prepared for firebombings and other conventional attacks, and they were prepared for long stand-offs and invasions. But they weren't prepared for two cities being destroyed so quickly without even a chance to defend them. Maybe you're right and they still would have surrendered sooner than we expected, but to say that completely obliterating their cities with weapons that they didn't even understand had no effect is silly. The prospect of a slow beating is much different from that of complete annhilation. 

pianist

Nah... it doesn't make a difference.  A city destroyed by the air by one bomb or a hundred is still just as destroyed.  Japan had no hope of stopping the American air force and they knew it.  And again, the consensus amongst historians is that the nukings had no effect at all the on the military leaders who wanted to continue the war.  Why would they change their minds?  THEY were the ones who believed in this 'fight to the last man' nonsense.  At best, the nukes MAY have slightly affected the surrender date, making it happen a bit earlier, because it gave the Emperor the leverage and motivation he needed to defy the military and ask for peace.  But since he was already considering surrender before the nukes were used... even that is debatable.

The Emperor did claim that the use of 'inhuman bombs' was the reason for the surrender, and that he 'could not bear to see his people suffer' (or something to that effect), but that doesn't change the fact that he held the surrender mindset before the bombs were dropped.  Pose the question of surrender to the military leaders and you'd receive a very different response, bombs or no bombs.

There's a really big ****ing difference between having a city destroyed by hundreds of bombs and having a city leveled by one bomb. That difference being that your enemy can't possibly annihilate all your major population centers and defenses with conventional weaponry, but if that enemy suddenly comes up with a superweapon that can destroy everything in a four mile radius, and assuming that said enemy has a lot of those weapons, you're looking at being bombed back into the stone age within a matter of weeks.

Also keep in mind that Japan didn't surrender until after the second bomb was dropped. I think that indicates how far the Japanese were willing to go. They see an entire city destroyed by one bomb and they're still willing to fight. Even after the second bomb some of the higher-ups in the Japanese government and military were pleading with the emperor to keep fighting until the end and it's common knowledge that some of those people were planning to assassinate the emperor in order to keep Japan from surrendering.

how did it save more people than it killed when there are people born in japan with terminal illness because of the effects that are still being felt today Japan has a declining population because of this so know it wasn't justified .snakes_codec

The population in Japan is declining because it has become to much trouble to raise a child. 

That's the thing that really troubles me. It's only a matter of time before some radical barbaric dictator gets his hands on something as powerful as a nuclear warhead.  

-Sun_Tzu-

Yes... although it's important to note that unless that barbaric dictator happens to take control of a country that already has a large nuclear arsenal, it's unlikley that he would have the means to do much damage.  The world was a much more even playing field for Nazi Germany and the Imperial Japanese than it is today.  When you have two nukes and your foe has thousands, you really don't have much motivation to use them, no matter how crazy you are.  We see exactly what happens when tyrannical governments attempt to obtain such weapons - we saw it in North Korea and Iran (and even Saddam's Iraq).

Like guns in America, it will be essentially impossible to remove nuclear weapons from society, because now that such a potentially devastating weapon exists, stockpiles must be maintained as a means of deterrence to prevent a modern day Hitler from using them.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

That's the thing that really troubles me. It's only a matter of time before some radical barbaric dictator gets his hands on something as powerful as a nuclear warhead.

pianist

Yes... although it's important to note that unless that barbaric dictator happens to take control of a country that already has a large nuclear arsenal, it's unlikley that he would have the means to do much damage. The world was a much more even playing field for Nazi Germany and the Imperial Japanese than it is today. When you have two nukes and your foe has thousands, you really don't have much motivation to use them, no matter how crazy you are. We see exactly what happens when tyrannical governments attempt to obtain such weapons - we saw it in North Korea and Iran (and even Saddam's Iraq).

Like guns in America, it will be essentially impossible to remove nuclear weapons from society, because now that such a potentially devastating weapon exists, stockpiles must be maintained as a means of deterrence to prevent a modern day Hitler from using them.

well the only "barbarians" to have ever used the was the US. One would say they cannot be trusted!

No. Never bring innocent civilians into war. NEVER.

It's disgusting.

There's a really big ****ing difference between having a city destroyed by hundreds of bombs and having a city leveled by one bomb. That difference being that your enemy can't possibly annihilate all your major population centers and defenses with conventional weaponry, but if that enemy suddenly comes up with a superweapon that can destroy everything in a four mile radius, and assuming that said enemy has a lot of those weapons, you're looking at being bombed back into the stone age within a matter of weeks.

Also keep in mind that Japan didn't surrender until after the second bomb was dropped. I think that indicates how far the Japanese were willing to go. They see an entire city destroyed by one bomb and they're still willing to fight. Even after the second bomb some of the higher-ups in the Japanese government and military were pleading with the emperor to keep fighting until the end and it's common knowledge that some of those people were planning to assassinate the emperor in order to keep Japan from surrendering.

gameguy6700

Dude... you have no idea if Japan was going to surrender or not after the first bomb was dropped.  The message they sent to the Allies after the attack was misinterpreted as an insult, when in reality, they were simply asking for time to verify that their city had been annihilated.  And again... whether destroyed by conventional bombs or nuclear bombs, a city is every bit as destroyed.

You think the nuclear bombs forced surrender?  Then ask yourself this - would America have surrendered if two nukes were dropped on its cities?  If they REALLY wanted to fight on, do you think they would?  If they REALLY had the 'fight to the last man' mentality, do you think they'd stop just because two cities were destroyed by one bomb instead of hundreds?

It's all a bunch of BS.  I say it again - the bombs may have slightly sped up the inevitable, but a prompt surrender was coming one way or another.  It was a foregone conclusion.  And like you said, the insane military leadership believed the war should continue... and they believed that even after the nukes were dropped.  The people who ended the war were already considering ending the war before the nukes were dropped.

Just think about it for a moment... does 'fight to the last man' really mean 'fight to the last man until TWO (not one, but TWO) of our cities are destroyed?"  Or does it mean 'fight to the last man?'  You REALLY think the second bomb made any difference at all? That somehow they could accept the total destruction of one city, but not two?

Yes... although it's important to note that unless that barbaric dictator happens to take control of a country that already has a large nuclear arsenal, it's unlikley that he would have the means to do much damage.  The world was a much more even playing field for Nazi Germany and the Imperial Japanese than it is today.  When you have two nukes and your foe has thousands, you really don't have much motivation to use them, no matter how crazy you are.  We see exactly what happens when tyrannical governments attempt to obtain such weapons - we saw it in North Korea and Iran (and even Saddam's Iraq).

Like guns in America, it will be essentially impossible to remove nuclear weapons from society, because now that such a potentially devastating weapon exists, stockpiles must be maintained as a means of deterrence to prevent a modern day Hitler from using them.

pianist

The genius ofMAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). The most perfect acronym ever to have been created.

Yes it was the right thing to do.

Without the nuclear bombing on Horishima, the planned land invasion would have created probably double the casualties of the nuclear bombing on the Japanese side alone. Furthermore the Soviet Union would have went on with their invasion which would have led to many a more deaths, both military and civilian.

well the only "barbarians" to have ever used the was the US. One would say they cannot be trusted!

freshgman

The modern day government of the US may not be perfect, but it is far less likely to nuke its foes than, say, North Korea or Iran.

[QUOTE="Dark__Link"]You can't decide to decimate a region and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians because of some ambigious guess of how many could die....

Imagine if the Japanese nuked New York and Washington DC to get America to surrender. Would you support it then if 500,000 plus people died over time...

Oh pleaseToriko42

[QUOTE="tediously_brief"]I think i was justified. Nukes kill people just the same as conventional weapons kill people. Would it have been better if we fire bombed them? Toriko42

I don't think its possible to offend more people than you already have in this thread. 

They were already bombing the japanese cities, they just wanted to test there new big bomb and send a message to the world not to mess with them, it wasn't about breaking japan but setting themselves up as the super power of the world.

My problem with the arguement is that more civilians died then military, both hiroshima and nagasaki where bad locations fulled with more innocents then military personal, that and had america held out the japanese may have surrender based on the soviets entering the mix against them, the japanese eventually would have eaten there pride and surrendered based on the allied forces overwhelming numbers.

Its probably one of the greatest mistakes in american history what they did not picking military only locations, they picked the locations based on size and how much damage they could cause, they wanted to see how effective there new weapon was and they had a perfect excuse not to get them into trouble around the world because they had everyone else on there side and nice big ole targets to test them on.

The after effects of the war crimes commented by the occupation forces (mostly american) was freaking shocking, if the bomb wasn't bad enough the acts commited afterward are disgraceful by any standards.

[QUOTE="freshgman"]

well the only "barbarians" to have ever used the was the US. One would say they cannot be trusted!

pianist

The modern day government of the US may not be perfect, but it is far less likely to nuke its foes than, say, North Korea or Iran.

from our Point of view though. if you venture outside the US you will get different answers. Also the gov't at the time was considered modern as well

No. Never bring innocent civilians into war. NEVER.

It's disgusting.

Rikusaki

Thank God people that acually matter listen to W.T. Sherman and not the likes of you. 

from our Point of view though. if you venture outside the US you will get different answers. Also the gov't at the time was considered modern as well

freshgman

Such a point of view would not be too objective.  Truth be told, the US (and Russia too) have had many opportunities since WWII to use nuclear weapons and have refrained from using them as anything more than a political tool.  But given their past actions and the mindset they portray, there can be little doubt that certain individuals would not hesitate to turn these weapons on a foe in a time of war.  

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

No. Never bring innocent civilians into war. NEVER.

It's disgusting.

DucksBrains

Thank God people that acually matter listen to W.T. Sherman and not the likes of you. 

 

I don't think its possible to offend more people than you already have in this thread. 

Cloud_Insurance

It would be quite easy, actually.  Just create a thread that mocks a bunch of deities from every major religion in the world.  I can guarantee you that it would offend more people, because even more people care about their religious beliefs than they do about national pride.

[QUOTE="DucksBrains"][QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

No. Never bring innocent civilians into war. NEVER.

It's disgusting.

pianist

Thank God people that acually matter listen to W.T. Sherman and not the likes of you. 

Believing this notion of a "Perfect World" is stupid, civilians have, are, and always will be involved in war.  Trying to avoid the inevitability only exacerbates the problems. 

Its probably one of the greatest mistakes in american history what they did not picking military only locations, they picked the locations based on size and how much damage they could cause, they wanted to see how effective there new weapon was and they had a perfect excuse not to get them into trouble around the world because they had everyone else on there side and nice big ole targets to test them on.

 

Zenkuso

That's one of the things that really bothers me, too.  Yes, they chose to target cities of military significance... but it was the residential sectors of the cities that were targeted, simply because it was anticipated that the blast would cause more destruction there.  The desire was clearly not simply to send a message.  I remember reading an interesting article years ago in my war history cIass.  In it, they discussed the bombing of Nagasaki, and specifically that the bomb missed on account of the weather.  Because of that, it exploded over a more hilly area of the city, and caused fewer casualties.  Learning that it had initially been intended for the residential sector of the city, and that the explosion of the first bomb was proclaimed to be "the greatest thing in history" by Truman... details like that are what really sicken me about the way the bombs were employed.

[QUOTE="pianist"][QUOTE="DucksBrains"]

 

Thank God people that acually matter listen to W.T. Sherman and not the likes of you. 

DucksBrains

Believing this notion of a "Perfect World" is stupid, civilians have, are, and always will be involved in war.  Trying to avoid the inevitability only exacerbates the problems. 

That's sick.

Really... that is just sick man.

Do you think this is cool?

Huh?

HUH?

PEOPLE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MY FRIENDS ARE DEAD.

DEAD.

Believing this notion of a "Perfect World" is stupid, civilians have, are, and always will be involved in war.  Trying to avoid the inevitability only exacerbates the problems. 

DucksBrains

But the point still stands... wouldn't it be better if soldier's DIDN'T involve civilians in war?  This isn't about what is realistic, but about what is better... and there's a reason we still try very hard to avoid civilian casualties in our modern wars, inevitable as they may be.