Quote:
Originally Posted by Hood
Stones and glass houses etc.
|
I'm sorry, but I don't call other people's intelligent and mature opinions as idiotic, and in this specific thread the conversation has been extremely civilised, so no, it's not acceptable. Besides
if we had any friction we need to move on, or shall we always use it as an excuse for being rude to each other?
Quote:
|
The end does not always justify the means, hence the controversy over Harris and the atomic bombs on Japan up to modern day issues in the Middle East.
|
Bingo. And since you mentioned the Middle East, as much as I definitely don't want Iran to get a nuclear arsenal for obvious reasons, it's crazy to think that some countries dictate over others' freedom of choice on such topics.
Quote:
|
It's too easy to look back from our current warfare morality/philosophy and to criticise those in the past. Take the trenches of WWI - at the time it was all new as the face of war completely changed within a year or two. In the early stages could they really have appreciated the horror?
|
well it's not like the Allies didn't know about area bombing effects, since the Blitz happened 3 years before.. Truth is that Harris' de-housing, meant as DELIBERATE (not incidental, like it could happen with pinpoint) targeting of civilian targets was not necessary, was just a bloodshed of innocents on both sides.
The use of atomic bombs stands on another ground though: they had to use the two kinds of bombs because of all the R&D that went into it and because they needed to send a message to Russia. Still, they could have used a desert island and invited an international observation committee..