Human Shields and Choice

[Chaerophon]

Hiroshima. Do you feel the death of less than 100,000 Japanese was more acceptable to an American president than the death of 500,000 or so Americans, which was the CONSERVATIVE staff estimate? We were still at war with Japan, they had not given up, and the closer we got, the harder they fought, and the Japanese soldiers knew how to fight pretty darned well. They were not surrendering by the hundreds and thousands at a time the way the Germans were in 1945.

I know, that's why it was justified. But that fact doesn't make the murder of 100,000 "right". Merely necessary.

I hear what you are saying re: the British mindset, but for me, such an argument just doesn't hold water. If it was "wrong" before the war, then it is still "wrong" during the war, just as wrong as it is now. When the motive behind such an attack is purely revenge, the act becomes abhorrent to me. I admit, the Brits lost family, friends, and entire communities. To return the favour when it is unnecessary and has no justification other than "emotional contentment", is not only unjustified, it is WRONG on another level altogether as a result.

Edit: I know that the decision was, in part, Churchill's to make. That quote wasn't intended as proof that he wasn't in on the decision making process. My example of a general was simply for the sake of example.