But men who dodged the draft understand war?
Like you, they understand what it is to be a coward.
But men who dodged the draft understand war?
Except we didn't know this. People who make these kinds of arguments, without an understanding of how Japan prosecuted the war, are guilty of 20:20 hindsight.
This was war and total war at that. You don't prosecute a war on what actions are justifiable. In total war the only justification for any action is that which will win the war with the least casualties for your side.
Does this lead to horrific, inhumane and utterly ruthless decision being made? Absolutely it does and this should stand as a completely shocking reminder of the horrors of war.
Your view seems lodged in an age of chivalry. The slaughter of civilians is terrorism, plain and simple, whether the terrorists have uniforms, an air force or are state sponsored or not.
I am all too aware of how Japan prosecuted the war. There were leaders who did not agree with dropping the bomb, they were fully aware of how the war was being prosecuted.Except we didn't know this. People who make these kinds of arguments, without an understanding of how Japan prosecuted the war, are guilty of 20:20 hindsight.
This was war and total war at that. You don't prosecute a war on what actions are justifiable. In total war the only justification for any action is that which will win the war with the least casualties for your side.
Does this lead to horrific, inhumane and utterly ruthless decision being made? Absolutely it does and this should stand as a completely shocking reminder of the horrors of war.
You just, cannot, have a war without civilian casualties. It's hopeless. At best, you minimize it and this country gets an A+ in that category, over the long haul. In fact, one can argue that we do it to a fault in the present age.
I am all too aware of how Japan prosecuted the war. There were leaders who did not agree with dropping the bomb, they were fully aware of how the war was being prosecuted.
that is still minimalization of casualties. you go after high value targets, and you hit non-militants at the same time...it's going to happen.Think so, lol?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_US_drone_strikes
Obama-led drone strikes kill innocents 90% of the time
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/90-of-people-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-in-afghani/
And that result was the end of WWII.
If you're trying to draw a moral equivalence between that, and Islamic terrorism forget about it. Islamic terrorists kill innocents for thoroughly immoral objectives.
If you want to bark up that tree, all wars are acts of 'terrorism' since innocents are nearly always killed in them. Such thinking leads to extreme pacifism, and extreme pacifism just gets people killed.
Terrorism is such a broad term it's too easy to do mischief with...like what you're doing lol.
There isn't but one goal in war and that is to WIN.
[h=2]~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER[/h]"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
I have always respected Ike.
Yes, Japan was never informed that the US had a new weapon when the warned Japan of total destruction.
The Emporer was planning to surrender, he only asked for immunity for the royal family and that they have the right to rule to maintain the rule of law in Japan.
And? Are we supposed to tell the enemy what we are using in WAR?