Now there's a thread about the atomic bombing of Japan. So I thought why not get at the main problem of, which I feel is, do you think that it's necessary to bomb a civilian target? This has happened many times thoughout History. World War II is filled with cilivian targets being bombed on both sides. From a military stand point it makes sense. From a moral standpoint it doesn't So whats your feeling about bombing civilian targets?
No it's never "right". It may be useful but it's never right. Civilian casualties should be kept to a minimum in war but that will never happen. It's a part of war, sadly.
Well I don't think that we should bomb specifically civilian targets, but when a factory or an industrial zone making fighter planes and tanks are oh so conveniently placed right next to a residency area, then yes bomb them.
Weopans Factories are by no means "civilian areas". It's cruel and unnessisary to bomb say a neighborhood just 'cause. I see really no reason to do it unless it's the entire world going apsolutly crazy like WWII, when it had to be done.
I didn't say that weapons factories are civilian areas. I said that if residency is near the factory, then it will be affected by the bombs too.
Don't you think the government or the Owners should build stuff like that AWAY from population centers?
They do that because they think if the factory is next to a population center that the enemy will not try to risk the chance of killing civilians. (which didn't work)
FIrst of all the Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial targets. Japan had all their industrial and civilian areas completely jumbled together. edit: And no it is never "right".
For the most part that is true of most cities back than had industrial targets and civilian targets together so no mater what your gonna kill civilians. The reason I made this thread is that most people that said the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagaski were completly evil which in a moral standpoint is true and you can say is worse and normal bombs which it is but before we had the atomic bombs people were killing eachother with high explosive and incendiary bombs. The bigger question in all this is how many civilians have to die to destroy an industial target and win a war. (plus there are some cases of bombing cities just to kill civilians) If you look at this question from a military point of view the number of civilian deaths doesn't matter because in the end your destroying the enemies ability to fight which means that you most likly take less casualties on your side. (this is going to make you look bad but its war) From a moral piont of view your killing innocent people and why should their lives count less than the lives of your people.
Well the firebombing of Tokyo killed more civilians than the dropping of both atomic bombs combined I believe. Not sure on that one though. Again, think how many Japanese lives were actually saved from dying in the invasion. The benefits outweigh the negatives. On any normal situation though yes I agree with you. .
So what some of you motherfuckers are saying, is that industrial centers and public utilities are located next to residency and commercial centers, in order to discourage hostile forces from bombing them; rather then for economic, convenience and functionality reasons? Makes perfect fucking sense.
I've been thinking about this and I have to put out my opinion again. I'm not taking this at a moral standpoint but more of a military standpoint. Yes, bombing civilian targets is a good way to hurt the enemy where it hurts. It destroys potential troops, decreases production, lowers the enemy's morale, and induces fear. This is all good to defeat the enemy.
90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima 330,000-500,000 do to other bombings. 60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki I got this from Wikipedia so you know it may not be completly right.
Shhh, quiet with your logic Demon. You might startle someone. Also, this thread is painful to read in so many ways.
We had a debate about this in Philosophy class the other day. Had the Nazis won the second world war they would have tried every single allie leader for bombing civilian targets (tough they did too) Next one can argue that by bombing a civilian target your making them more likely to give up (which is not the case for else everyone would give up instantly in world war 2) Next i like to add the Bombings Of Iraq and Now Libya have killed more people then the ground fighting it's self. Its a cowards way to fight a war, and it hardly works the way one plans it.
