SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : World Affairs Discussion
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: zonder who wrote (2597)12/13/2002 8:13:53 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) of 3959
 
I notice phrases like "not justified by military necessity" and "undefended towns.." in the definition. So the laws you've cited don't actually contain a blanket ban against attacking a city ever which is what I think you're trying to get at.

The idea that invading the Japanese home islands would have caused many more casualties than the atomic bombs is a reasonable conclusion drawn from the facts known at the time. The US had a lot of experience invading Japanese held territory at the time. I think the invasion of Okinawa cost around a quarter of a million lives, most of them Japanese. Avoiding large scale repeats of that was a worthy goal. I would repeat that in life one sometimes faces a choice between the lesser of evils. Refusal to choose the lesser of evils may well allow fate or other parties to make the choice of the greater evil for you.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News