
Originally Posted by
stoffi
You have to look at this war in the time it was fought. Germans bombed British cities, the Allies bombed German cities, the Japanese massacred civilians by the hundreds of thousands if not millions. Bombing infrastructure and cities was seen as a tool to win the war.
I am of course against this kind of warfare today, but today is today and 1940 was 1940. We can judge and say that a lot of civilians lives were lost, and we are right, but it happened and it was the way of that war.
As for nuking two japanese cities, the alternative would have been a hell of a lot worse. The Allies would have bombed Japan back to the stone age, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. After that, the invasion would come and millions of Japanese would die here, including civilians. Also, half a million Allied soldiers would die.
So, what's better, killing millions of millions of people(including millions of civilians) or just a few hundred thousand civilians? I'd prefer the nuke to be honest.