even if you assume the bombs beat japan, the concept of the bomb beating them is predicated on them having been cowed by a sufficient display of might, which could have just as easily been done off shore, rather than to two civilian population centers. which is what people at the time and involved with the project said.
and if the bombings were done on civilian population centers because such a display would otherwise be ineffective, then the idea is "if you murder enough civilians, you win the war"
which while relevant to, and an accurate assesment of, the u.s stance in every war since... is not usually the kind of argument youd hear said outloud
It is, literally, terrorism. Rather than attempting to beat the Japanese through military strategy and might (y'know, warfare), they instead decided it was much easier to murder millions of civilians and say "If you don't surrender to our demands, we'll murder millions more". It is utterly indefensible.
Terrorism is sometimes justifiable when the terrorists are operating in self-defense or in service to some inherently just cause. But terrorism to win a war you're already winning faster so fewer of your own soldiers die (and the ebil gommunists get a smaller share of the spoils) is literal supervillain shit.
even if you assume the bombs beat japan, the concept of the bomb beating them is predicated on them having been cowed by a sufficient display of might, which could have just as easily been done off shore, rather than to two civilian population centers. which is what people at the time and involved with the project said.
and if the bombings were done on civilian population centers because such a display would otherwise be ineffective, then the idea is "if you murder enough civilians, you win the war"
which while relevant to, and an accurate assesment of, the u.s stance in every war since... is not usually the kind of argument youd hear said outloud
It is, literally, terrorism. Rather than attempting to beat the Japanese through military strategy and might (y'know, warfare), they instead decided it was much easier to murder millions of civilians and say "If you don't surrender to our demands, we'll murder millions more". It is utterly indefensible.
Terrorism is sometimes justifiable when the terrorists are operating in self-defense or in service to some inherently just cause. But terrorism to win a war you're already winning faster so fewer of your own soldiers die (and the ebil gommunists get a smaller share of the spoils) is literal supervillain shit.
yes. correct.
the u.s and military doctrine of fomenting terror, name a more iconic duo