Historic Aviation > Aviation History

64th Anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing

<< < (3/5) > >>

Gripen:

--- Quote from: Webmaster on August 06, 2009, 05:30:48 PM ---But valkyrian's point is that it is not something to celebrate. You mention some other examples of bombing civilians, as if that makes it right, it doesn't, nobody is proud of those... they are commemorated, not celebrated.

--- End quote ---

I wasn't trying to celebrate it, I was pointing out the fact that not only the USA did it, I interpreted his comment as just Americans were bombing civilians, I was pointing out that other countries have and still do it.

Webmaster:
No ok, but the fact that others did kill civilians, that doesn't justify it. But you pointed out why dropping the bomb can seen as the right decision and thus justified. To some people it can never be justified, and I think it is actually a good sign that younger people do not support it, as a good proportion of them probably did vote for that option as in their eyes there can be no justification for dropping nuclear weapons.

I believe valkyrian's point goes a bit deeper and asks why killing civilian on the losing side is always a crime of war, but never on the winning side. That's a difficult debate, I just accept that as reality. But I suppose the difference is whether it can be justified at the time, and as Gripen pointed out, it was. That's the difference with a General killing Jews.

Gripen:
Theres never a justification for genocide, such as the Jewish Holocaust, the Rwanda genocide, Cambodia etc etc.

valkyrian:
Well, i must say that the analysis Gripen presented to us was very enlighting. So, they wanted to reduce the casualties right?

Then why didn't the drop the bomb on an island full of japanese soldiers? the impact would have been the same. for many square miles around the bombed area, all the japs would have been vaporized.

Weby, you spoke my mind.

F-111 C/C:
The location of the the bombs was considered a Strategic target as opposed to a Tactical target where only military assets are targeted. Strategic targets are always messy and controvertial but a 'neccessary evil' in winning a war. If more Strategic targets were allowed in Vietnam we wouldn't have lost. The same goes for Iraq and Afghanistan. The ROE dictate 'Military' targets only and fire only when fired upon. That is fighting a war with both hands tied.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page