And this is the crux of the arguement for the two bombings. We consider such an action, today, to be a such a horrendous action that it constitutes a war crime.
But at the time, it was considered the decisive blow that forced Japan to realize that it faced utter destruction. It gave the peace party and the emperor the leverage needed to surrender.
I've been able to listen to various living history tapes made by veterans of the Pacific War. In the over one thousand tapes that I've heard, not one single soldier, sailor, marine or airman has ever condemned the nuclear bombings, the most common sentiment is that it ended the war and allowed them to return to their lives.
In studying military history, one of the maxims is that to acheive victory, it is first necessary to destroy the enemies will and means to resist.
So is it a war crime to use every means at your disposal to destroy the enemies will to fight?
And just where do you draw the line. No Nukes? No Chems? No Bios? No shooting the enemy soldier with rounds that inflict undue suffering?
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
|