Originally Posted by
USMCFLYR
Winged Wheeler:
As to my opinions of the bombings:
--There is nothing qualitatively different about being killed by a conventional weapon vs a nuclear/atomic weapon.
I'd agree, though obviously the use of WMDs has seen been made into its own category. Being killed by NBC agents has certainly taken on a different viewpoint.
--Bombing population centers like Dresden, Tokyo, or Hiroshima is of very limited military value.
I wish had the time (or inclination) to dredge up all ofmy books from Command and Staff, but there are certainly aspects of these types of bombings that were viewed as legtimate t argets for strategic purposes (on both sides of the war front) during WWII.
Here are some easier to find references:
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki"]
--Thus, using the A-bombs on a more strictly military target would have been the way I would have gone.
Agreed. YMMV - but those constitute military targets in my book. Maybe you underestimate the importance of industrial capabilities in war time?
USMCFLYR:
I understand the logic of targeting facilities and people in a war against a state with a modern industrial economy--it was taught
ad nauseum at the Zoo. According to that logic both of these cities qualified as legitimate military targets. I accept that but, I remain unconvinced that there weren't other, more essential, military assets that could have been targeted.
I recognize that people of good conscience are certain that I am wrong and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the right targets. I accept that. That bell can't be un-rung.
WW