Napalming of Tokyo, Osaka, and Kyoto - although there was factories in all of these cities, there was a very dense civilian population. Casualties for civilians were roughly 80,000 people for Tokyo alone. All burned to death.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki - conservatively estimates say a total of 100,000 people died. And although there were military bases here, was it still justified? Imagine attacking Los Angeles or San Diego to destroy military installations containing 5000-7000 military personnel at most.
Although we justify these attacks through Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor was a military target. Only 2,403 American servicemen and 68 civilians were killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pacific/sfeature/sf_costs_02.html
I really don’t want to bring up Vietnam or Iraq.
We prosecute war criminals of other countries, but why don’t we hold ourselves to the standard we set? Doesn’t this damage out nation’s image?
2006-08-18
13:39:56
·
10 answers
·
asked by
Jonesy
2
in
Law & Ethics