If Dresden, Hiroshima &Nagasaki were justified back in 1945, does it mean nuking civilian targets today is OK?

Question

Yes Dresden was firebombed. And so were other German and Japanese cities. Why am I supposed to explain that and would it change the focus of my Q in any way? Stop being nitpickers and address the Q and be polite to the person who takes the time to ask a pointed Q that makes everyone think. Asking Q's that matter is not easy and many of you don't do enough asking of Q's If you did you might be kinder to the asker and think twice before jumping his or her bones. TWH 08252006

Dresden, like the Holocaust of the Jews are becoming fading memories because somelidealogues like it that way, many of you weren't around when it happened, and thinking about today's events and possibilities in a historical and/or logical context is a "brain-strain". Just so you know this: if you pride yourself in fact-based thinking, the facts of history are relevant EVIDENCE and they have a part in any good discussion. TWH 08312006

I won't close the answer period until we are close to running out of time and I will pick the best answer.

Answer 1

thanks, free-hmmr--good ans. well, as an old soldier, I guess they were right back then, if not you would be speaking japanese and dubya would be emperor. brrrrrr. rat

Answer 2

Being as how I am apparently the only one who was around when these episodes were occuring, I will offer my observation of those events.

In case you are a bit weak in your history, the number of military deaths in the conflict, were most staggering.. There was a calculated number who would be killed with the A bomb.. a small number compared to what would be lost by an invasion of Japan... as they would fight to the last person, to defend the homeland. These factors were well known and allowed the decision to be made, to bomb. Dresden was mild compared to what Britain had to withstand for many years. Why Dresden would be brought into the question, is questionable in itself.

That same fanaticism exists today also..the people intending to take over the world by religious Jihad, are just as determined as were those of the second world war..Domination being the critical factor. Therefore, we will again be faced with the decision.... whether it is justified to use the nuke.. a lot of things have to be considered in any case. When you or someone you know gets wiped out by terrorists, your thinking will take on an entirely new dimension.

Even the Geneva convention regarding war has to be scrapped.. We will not be fighting a country. Terrorists have no particular loyalty other than the barbaric death of infidels. There is no army, no uniforms, nothiing conventional at all. They are taught this from the time they are old enough to attend school. The madrasas are adamant in their teachings. These are the facts for the world to consider, at this time in our history.

Answer 3

History and moral questions are moving targets. What was an acceptable form of behavior 50 years ago might be frowned upon today. In WW2 it was an accepted form of thinking that if the civilian population could be made to suffer enough, to lose their hoomes and their livelihood, then they would pressure the government to end the war. British Bomber Command deliberately targeted civilian areas with that end in mind; Curtis LeMay launched so many firebomb attacks against Japan that the US miltary ran out of bombs. At the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki feelings were different than today about a lot of things. The Japs were sub-human beasts to be obliterated. Also, nothing at all was known of the long-range effects of an atomic blast upon the human body. Going back even further, Spanish invaders decimated Indian populations of Central and South America at will; this was an accepted thing at the time.

As we move through time and learn from the mistakes of the past maybe we become more civilized in the way we kill each other; thats what the Geneva Convention and the rules of war were all about.

So, in answer to your question, what was OK in 1945 is not OK today; times are different, and hopefully we have learned from the experiences of the past.

The one benefit of Hirsohima and Nagasaki was precisely that; the horrors of the aftermath probably prevented the Cold War from flaring up into a full blown nuclear confrontation because the results were just to horrible to contemplate on either side.

Answer 4

Dresden wasn't a nuclear target , it was a firebombing raid led by the RAF. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justifiable in the consideration of risking millions of allies lives for the lives of roughly 350,000 Japanese, the classic case of the lesser of two evils. To compare these events to today's circumstances however, is appauling. Remember this, Japan was an invading force who attacked the US without cause. What is going on in the world now is the US being the invading force. So if anyone was to suffer a justifiable nuclear retaliation, it would be the United States. How is the US any better than Japan in 1941? I say this a white anglo-US citizen, so don't even try to accuse me of being a muslim or anti-patriotic, that's a cheap tactic used by Republicans to support a war they want to make profits.

Answer 5

Dresden was not nuked. Conventional bombs were used. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked to avoid the massive casualities that were predicted if we had to invade Japan. The USA alone would have suffered somewhere around a million casualities. The Japanese fought to the death as a rule so imagine the casualites they would have suffered. Bombing and killing civilians for the sake of killing them has never been a policy of our nation but we have often had to make some tough decisions for our own protection.

Answer 6

If they are part of a country that is trying to get nukes to attack us then yes. The justification has been and will continue to be which is the course of less destruction. Anyone that follows events in the world know that Iran will not care about the lose of Israeli or American lives. Neither would North Korea if they could strike they would. The reasoning westerners apply does not work with Islamic radicals or the North Koreans. Face facts.

Answer 7

I do not see that the the three events that you mention could really be considerd "justified" as very few people shared in the decision making process, or approved these events.

Nevertheless, it is not OK to nuke, firebomb or kill civilians today, regardless of the form of words used to "justify" it.

Killing is not a civilised activity.

Answer 8

I think freedom hammer has a real good point, and as he said propaganda was so fierce in ww11 that the japs and Germans were looked on as a sub species, the same as today when Arabs are discussed,therefore it is perfectly okay to kill Arabs,wheather they are women , children, or old and helpless, America will support Israel no matter what they do, they own and control our political system, no politician dares to confront them,
does anyone want to debate the power of propaganda? especially our Zionist press?

Answer 9

Boy, that's a stretch! The events of World War II have absolutely nothing in common with the ME conflict except as a matter to drudge up debating points.

Answer 10

The Ten Commandments strictly states that, "Thou shalt not kill." No one is better than another. It was not justified back then and sure 'nuf is not justified in this present time. We should pray for those who believe that they are superior to others. Only God justifies life and death. "If God be for us, who can be against us?" - Romans 8:31. - Peace and God Bless.

Answer 11

Hiroshima & Nagasaki were not civilian targets even though there were a large number of civilian casualities.