Not as much as the bombing of London by the Nazies
Why not? How is their attack on a civilian target with the intent of assaulting the civilian populace different from ours?
Should have done the same thing in Iraq.
:wtf: :surprise:
Is this a sarcastic shock and awe reference?
WTF are you talking about the Nazis and the German people were responsible for no less than the Deaths of 6 million concentration camp victims, 20+ million soviet civilians and soldiers. The reach you should have gone for was in Tokyo when Curtis Lemay made the decision to drop napalm all over Tokyo because most structures were made of wood thus killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. But this again is a huge reach 60+ years later from a war that killed so many innocents.
Nazis yes, but the German people?
Curtis Lemay and "bomber" harris both have much to answer for...
They're in the army, they're pilots, they're not stupid. They know what bombs cause.
Pilots are indeed not stupid.
However, they are members of the military and therefore under orders.
One R.A.F. pilot refused to serve in T.W.A.T. on the basis that the R.A.F. had told him that he could decide not to fight in an unjust war.
My opinion (not that nay of you cunts give a fuck) is that this bears some relevance to the philosophy excercise known as "the terror bomber excercise"
If we assume that the intention of bombing civilians is unjust and that the intention of bombing armament production facilities is good.
The terror bomber has the intent to cow the enemy populace in terror (note that blitz spirit is just the opposite of this and there are those who claim that the Dresden firebombings had the same effect - opposite to that intended) and is therefore bad or unjust.
The target bomber has the intent to bomb enemy munitions production facilities rather than cause mass casualties and is therefore good.
Ideally the only people killed by the target bomber will be those in the facilities, making the tools of war.
Question: If the terror bomber inadvertantly kills less than the target bomber, which is more morally reprehensible? Is the intent or the result the most important thing in this question of morality?
Thread derailment: Was the use of atomic weaponry on Japan purely an excercise in scaring the Soviet Union?
After all, how scared would you be of an old woman armed with a sharpened bamboo stick if you had an M1 Garand?
