> Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United
> States maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians.
Like Jim, I don't know what constitutes "moral high ground" in a war.
Note that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both industrial cities, and thus
legitimate targets, just like Dresden. If the US was going for
demoralizing civilian casualties, why didn't they nuke Tokyo?
Since 1945, there has been a moratorium in usage of nuclear weapons
during war, one which the US has scrupulously observed, and in fact has
even taken a lead role in carving out such "international law". In 1945,
no such law existed. It's anachronistic (and worse) to try to hold the
US of 1945 to a code of conduct that didn't exist at the time.
> I think a "demonstration" about 5 miles offshore might have
> accomplished the same purpose.
Maybe, or maybe not. In either case, I think this suggestion is naive at
best. Developing nuclear weapons was hugely expensive -- so now the US
is supposed to give up its advantage of surprise by openly announcing to
the enemy its secret weapon, giving them a demonstration, no less?
That's simply not how it's done. I doubt any intelligent and honest
military commander would have done any such thing.
To repeat: Japan was the aggressor. They killed many of our men and
women in battle, and tortured and killed many other POWs. They committed
atrocities that are even now being discovered, disclosed, and rued. At
any time, they could have openly surrendered and been spared the further
consequences of war. They chose not to. That is not the US' fault, no
matter how you slice it.
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
This email was sent to: email@example.com
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!