 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I actually agree to a large extent that the tactic was to induce fear. That is in fact a legitimate war strategy at some level. The only way to win a war is to win the morale battle. You can't kill every single enemy. This is why a (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I haven't presented any reasoning in support of that before. All my reasoning before has been about whether or not it was terrorism - nothing about morality in there. ROSCO (24 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I've gotta pull you up on that one, Larry. Just as not all US citizens are "good" or support the current war, I see it as impossible to make such a huge generalisation about Japanese civilians (no matter where they happened to live / work) in (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I would argue that it wasn't unprovoked. And why were the innocent civilians unsuspecting, when bin Laden had already given several warnings, and "declared war on the US" some 5 years earlier? And just for thought, how much warning did the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Are you satisfied with the reasoning you presented before in support of that? Has anything about it changed with Dave Eaton's presentation of his rationale? (24 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
