Quote:
Originally posted by reconmike
Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki picked at random?
Ofcourse not they were military targets, being the center of the Japanese war machine.
They were manufacturing their war effort in these cities.
Is a assembly line building war planes with civilian people a military target?
|
i have no info on the reasons why they were dropped. can you link me to any useful sites (i tried googling, but got irrelevant stuff).
Quote:
|
Except we weren't at war with them. BTW, civilians dying is part of warfare, not to say that Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren't tragic. In recent years we have gotten the idea that warfare is somehow sterile, and only the military is involved. Even stranger to me is that European countries seem to be thinking this, despite their experience with two devastating wars in the last century. When you go to war, the goal must be to win, and sometimes civilians will die. This isn't to trivialize the issue, but maybe people should think harder before they support the idea of armed conflict. The American public was all for invading Afghanistan when we first did it, and also to a lesser degree with Iraq. Support seems to wane as collateral damage mounts or our own troops die. When advocating for military action, we should remember the saying: "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it!"
|
well, we werent or arent "at war" with iraq right now. when was the last time we had an official declaration of war?
regardless of whether or not the two cities had been the supply houses, we killed almost 200k people and permanently scared a lot more (and future generations).
i agree that civilians can be killed in a war, but how about killing 200k civilians + the infected people?
the more and more i think about it, i'm getting to a postion against the droppin of the nukes.