Just re-read this thread and, unusually for such a subject, felt moved to pass comment.
The general thrust is that civilians were harmed for a target of little or no strategic importance. I have nothing to say about that. At that time it was deemed a target and that decision is one (of millions) that has entered that annals of history. It cannot now be changed.
What I would say however is that in times of war there is no such thing as “civilians” – there is only “us and the enemy”. Looking at it any other way means you will lose. This is even more telling when the confilct is against any country that does not hold human life in such high regard as is in the “west”. To such peoples “humans” are the product of unskilled labour and plentifully abundant.
War is, it would seem, part of the human condition, unfortunate but true as attested over the centuries. Only comparatively recently has the concept of collatoral damage been raised to the level of military condemnation. Use of the military should be considered as deploying a broadsword not a scalpel so the effects of its use should not to be taken lightly, nor should they (the military) be taken to task for doing their duty.
In times of war it is worth remembering the saying (paraphrased from Patton I think) “The trick is not just to be ready to die for one’s country but to make the other side die for theirs.”
Finally, the staunchest anti-war group I know of are . . . current and ex- servicemen. War is noisy, it hurts, the food is always awful and you’ve got to “work” weekends.
Sign In
