Reply #22: Very tough question. [View All]

I am torn.

I believe that killing civilians is morally wrong, and should be avoided to the extent that it is possible to do so. But it is my understanding that in WWII killing civilians was pretty much typical behavior on all sides. It should not have been so, but it was a different time, with different morals, and before smart bombs and precision targeting.

I am not a historian. But I have heard that the conventional bombing of Dresden was even more deadly than the either of the Atomic bombs in Japan. Yet we do not agonize over the morality of Dresden. Which begs the question: Is it morally worse to kill tens of thousands of people with an Atom bomb than with conventional bombs?

Then there is this interesting piece, posted recently on DU, which provides an interesting perspective from one faction on the Japanese side. I think it is worth reading:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=4735&mesg_id=4735

I think the Bombs probably shortened the war, and they probably saved lives. Would we have had the same result if we dropped the bombs on unpopulated areas? There is no way of knowing.

If we had not dropped the bomb, and if the war went on for months or years, with hundreds of thousands of more deaths, would we now be discussing the morality of our decision NOT to drop the bomb?

Unfortunately, morality comes in all shades of gray.