Position:Home>History> Civilians as Targets - WWII?

Good questions!. No, it is not morally justifiable to target civilians!. Not according to the Judeo-Christian ethics we allegedly live by!. Early "barbarian" armies like Mongols, slaughtered civilian populations without regard to moral issues!. Had they had more efficient technologies, they would have no doubt employed them!.

But as for WWII, we targeted Hiroshima and Nagasaki!. We also destroyed Dresden Germany which had zero military value!. The Germans sent buzz bombs and planes over London, which was civilian targeting as well!. Were any these attacks justifiable!? No, they were not!. The reason we have the Geneva convention was to keep some kind of morality even during war!. Bombing civilians is never a good strategy esp!. with modern weapons that can wipe out an entire city!. It brings only vile retribution and moral turpitude!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

It is morally justifiable to use whatever means (technologies) necessary to bring any war to a swift end!. To limit the use of weapons and drag on the killing and maiming, is immoral, unjustifiable and unconscionable!.

As for the bombing of "civilian" targets, that would depend entirely upon the target!. If it is a weapons manufacturing facility, by all means, disable their ability to produce more!. If it is a school, orphanage, neighborhood or hospital, it is to remain off limits!.

Was it a good strategy to employ!? In WW I, the Germans (with limited effect and affect) bombed London!. That was a bad strategy!. In WW II, they inadvertently bombed London and in doing so, opened Pandora's Box!. It was a bad strategy!. The Japanese also employed that strategy (with great intent), and like the Germans, it was Pandora's Box!. A bad strategy!. In each of these cases, there were little to no military ties to justify their actions!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

In total war it justifiable to use all weapons that exist if it ensures victory, this even pertains to tactical and full scale nuclear arms!. During the last total war, WWII, both sides used all weapons at their disposal!.

The goal of war is to defeat your enemy with minimum loss to your forces!. Why fight a war, yet limit what you military can do if it protects a civilian yet you lose 2x as many troops!. Think of the troops families back home, aren't they civilians affected by war!.

During WWII there were several instances of both sides targeting civilian targets!. Germany started first by attack British cities when Hitler ordered the change in bombing strategies!. The USA tried to use strategic bomb as best they could given the weapons of the time!. The British opted for carpet bombing!. Of course the bombing strategy used in the European campaign differed from the Pacific Theater were the Allies fire bombed Japanese cities, knowing the destruction it would cause since Japanese cities were constructed of very flamible materials!.

Industrial complexes in WWII were huge, encompassing several city blocks and hundreds of acres!. This is why hundreds of bombers were used in raids!. The USA tried to persuade the British to stop their tactics however being directly effected by bombings themselves the British listened with a deaf ear!.

However to target civilians specifically is not good strategy!. If the target is on one side of the city, there is no reason to bomb the other side also, but it does happen, even in todays world of smart weapons!. Buildings such as schools, religious places of worship, and hospitals should not be targeted however in WWII both sides built these structures next to military targets hoping the enemy would not bomb the military target for fear of hitting the civilian target!. Civilian infrastructer is open to attack as the military can use these also, such as bridges, power plants, airports, and other utility facilities!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---