Hiroshima was the answer to a trolley problem: destroy a good part of an industrial city with tens of thousands of civilian deaths, demonstrating the power to obliterate Japan if their government did not surrender, or invade the mainland resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties and many US infantry casualties. Not to mention the horrors that partial Stalinist USSR occupation would have brought on the people of Japan, with the complex and deadly political splits that we saw play out in Germany and Korea.
The quick followup of using Fat Man on Nagasaki was arguably a war crime. With the benefit of hindsight, we should have given them more than three days to consider what it meant to continue war with a country that had nuclear weapons.
In the case of Russia invading Ukraine, Russia is the belligerent. The US did not start the war with Japan but it needed to finish it. Developing and using a nuclear weapon on Hiroshima in the effort to bring the war to a close with less casualties on both sides was probably the best course of action. It would have been much worse if the war had carried on with the status quo.
And speaking of Russia/USSR, dropping the bomb was also a measure of keeping peace by putting them in check. There was a justified concern that the Soviet Union wouldn't have waited long to keep expanding West into the rest of Europe after the war.
I got virtually the same apologia in public school. Problem is, it's more self serving than accurate, a nice example of the ends justifying the means. You're also missing the point I was making or at least arguing a different one.
When is it ethical to knowingly/deliberately kill civilians?
Bear in mind that civilians in countries with despotic/authoritarian regimes have even less say in the actions of their government than do the citizens of the 'enlightened' democracies that are usually doing the bombing. At the end of the day it's still killing everyday people like you or me who are just trying to survive and live their lives.
Tactical necessity and/or hastening the end of the war is the default defense for 'collateral damage'. Thing is, there's nothing you can't justify with that. Hence "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” and other absurdities.
Hell, Curtis LeMay himself said "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." All I'm saying is let's hold everybody to the same standards.
PS Ever read about the 'laws of war'? If you enjoy the absurd, they're good to read about, just what was and wasn't acceptable in warfare at various points in time and how that's changed over the centuries. At one point, if a city didn't immediately submit to an army it was perfectly acceptable for the army to rape, loot, pillage and slaughter the inhabitants.
LeMay was likely referring to all of the firebombing he conducted. It was Hiroshima that truly ended the war though. And of course Dresden was a horrible war crime committed against civilians too. Not that two wrongs make a right, but nothing the US or other Western allies did was comparable to atrocities committed by the Germans, Japanese, and Soviets.
why compare it then?
every state has done shit.
especially against civilians, even their own.
Germany is still fucked
How so?
Dunno
Probably pure coincidence
But America also doesnt look great.
Just saw some homeless videos...