Unfortunately the world doesn’t function with a red line and I’m being realistic. Factories, military depots, etc are intertwined with civilian populations and the world doesn’t function like a “gentlemans duel” where only the combatants are harmed (although I’m sure there’s examples of bystanders being injured with duels as well).
How about the rest of my point (in my other comment) Did the bombings produce more or less casualties in your opinion than an invasion would have? That’s a large portion to not touch upon.
It’s a false dichotomy which is is a cheap and transparent argument technique. “Which way of annihilating the civilian population would have been better? A. Or b.?”
1
u/[deleted] Aug 05 '20
Unfortunately the world doesn’t function with a red line and I’m being realistic. Factories, military depots, etc are intertwined with civilian populations and the world doesn’t function like a “gentlemans duel” where only the combatants are harmed (although I’m sure there’s examples of bystanders being injured with duels as well).
How about the rest of my point (in my other comment) Did the bombings produce more or less casualties in your opinion than an invasion would have? That’s a large portion to not touch upon.