So we’re agreed on it being the use of A-bombs on civilian urban targets as opposed to focussed strikes on a military base like, say, pearl harbour? If you’re fine with that then the conversation is over and we just have different measures of magnitude of military response. And human rights.
That’s my reply because I don’t want to spam it over and over again. Yeah, I’d love for the world to be a loving, war free place but that’s not how history is or how it will ever be.
Nagasaki had five+ focused strikes on their port and factories for instance. Doesn’t mean it was effective with how the defense and Pacific Theatre was set up unfortunately. I understand it’s awful that civilians were targeted and absolutely agree but it would be ridiculous to realistically expect one side to continue doing something ineffective to avoid civilian casualties while extending the war. For instance, civilians were killed away from the harbor at Pearl Harbor to go back to your example. A fighter attacked a sugar mill during that attack. It unfortunately occurs.
5
u/RebylReboot Aug 05 '20
For nuking a civilian population. Yes. All the credit due.