[Xbow]

What I have done is point out that the logic that allows harming civilians in war is the same logic as the one used by terrorists. My point in doing so was to show that killing civilians in war is as bad as terrorism. In other words, I am condemning both, rather than excusing either.

What you have not done is prove your point. First off, intentionally targeting and blowing up a grade school or tossing a heavy pipe bomb charged with TNT and hex nuts packed with rat poison into a coffee shop full of students is not at all similar to attacking a military/industrial target where civilians will be killed. One very obvious reason is 'choice'. The terrorist chooses to attack a soft target...the more horrific the better. But collateral damage caused by an attack on a military/industrial target is most often a negative consequence of the action. Then of course there is Truman's warning of total ruin from the Air prior to Hiroshima and the Millions of leaflets dropped over Japan warning then to evacuate their cities after Hiroshima.

Xbow wrote:
Nagasaki was also an incredibly valuable military target.

Wikipedia wrote:
Nagasaki had never been subjected to large-scale bombing prior to the explosion of a nuclear weapon there.

Its hilarious and somewhat lamentable that you failed to read the entire entry and are now attempting to use that out of context sentence as support for your absurd notion that Nagasaki was not a valuable military target.

But of course, the production of Kaiten suicide torpedos, Shinyo suicide boats, type A to C Mini subs & the modification of aircraft to be used in Kamikaze missions and the 200,000 regular and militia troops in the area were of no importance. The USA just wanted to kill a lot of Japanese babies now isn't that right?

I guess you still don't know or are conveniently ignoring the fact that the conventional bombing campaign against Japan began in mid 1944 via large B-29 raids. Some facts:
•Eight raids by 250 B-29s delivers as much destructive force as a FatMan Nagasaki bomb,
•Six raids by 250 B-29s equal the destructive force of the Hiroshima bomb.
•In late 1944 The Oppenheimer Commission suggested that Kyoto, Hiroshima, Kokura, Nagasaki, and Niigata be spared B-29 attacks. Oppenheimer and Groves wanted intact cities to destroy instantly as a way of compelling the Japanese to surrender. Do you think the Japanese would have given a shit about an abandoned city that had already been flattened by conventional bombing? Besides that the Japanese understood and had no special fear of conventional bombing as they had done much of it to civilian populations themselves.

1) The American intention was to bring Japan to its knees quickly, and force its capitulation.
2) Not to damage its longer-term military capacity.
3) The Americans did strike a balance in hitting Nagasaki rather than Kyoto.
4) Arguably, they cared more about ancient temples than above Japanese children.

1) No one disputes this, least of all me.
2) Ridiculous! The objective was to eliminate military/industrial capability prior to invasion and 'possibly' get the Japanese to throw in the towel. The notion that the atomic bombs would bring about Japan's surrender was the subject of much debate and even ridicule by the Military. The Navy favored blockade, The Army & The USMC favored invasion, The United States Army Air Force favored conventional strategic bombing with High explosive and Incendiary bombs centered on densely populated urban areas. Reference the Tokyo raid AKA 'Operation Meetinghouse' that killed nearly as many people as Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
3)Rediculous! Kyoto was removed from all target lists by Henry L. Stimson from 1943 onward. Kyoto was never in play!
4)Rediculous! This is where your childish anti Americanism makes you appear to be something of a clown. For the Japanese the destruction of Kyoto would have been analogous to the destruction of the Vatican or Mecca. Its destruction would have done nothing except increase Japanese determination to fight to the last man. Only killing the Emperor would have done more to strengthen their will to resist. Your notion that Americans, "cared more about ancient temples than Japanese children," is in point of fact 'retarded'. I have never heard that argument before so I suspect that it is entirely your concoction. There never has been an argument on that point. You created it to express your hatred of the USA and to mask your almost complete lack of knowledge of this subject.

Its OK to hate the USA, but you should do it for the right reasons and support your opinions with facts not contrivance. You would have been better off claiming that Hiroshima, Nagasaki and strategic bombing against Japan were not entirely responsible for Japan's surrender. For that there are mountains of evidence. As the thought permanently losing Hokaido Island to the Soviets for the Japanese was too horrible to contemplate. Remember the Soviets invaded Manchuria three days after Hiroshima on the day that Nagasaki was Atom Bombed 9 Aug 1945.

Unbeknownst to the Americans, the Soviets were preparing to follow up their invasions of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands with an invasion of the weakly defended island of Hokkaidō by the end of August, which would have put pressure on the Allies to do something sooner than November. On August 15, the Japanese agreed to surrender, rendering the whole question of invasion moot

Eran, I suggest you crack open a few books on the subject...[u]unless you are content to spray nonsense.

[Eran]

Xbow,
I commend you on your energetic use of underlines and the adjective "Ridiculous!".

I don't condemn the USA any more than I condemn any other person, group or organisation guilty of similar number of innocent killings. Japan, Germany, Russia and the UK were as guilty (or more) in their WWII operations. Terrorist groups before and after, while typically operating on a much smaller scale, are equally guilty.

I am attacking the US in this thread because of the specific topic.


Rather than address the various points, I will point out one tension in your narrative.

You point to the strategic value of Nagasaki to the Japanese war effort. Yet you never explained why (1) Nagasaki wasn't previously targeted, and (2) why it was specifically targeted using an A-bomb, rather than comparably-effective conventional weapons.

Actually, you do mention why:

Oppenheimer and Groves wanted intact cities to destroy instantly as a way of compelling the Japanese to surrender.

Clearly, the purpose of the Atomic bomb was to create "special fear" in the Japanese. NOT to destroy strategic resources. In other words, dropping an A-bomb on Nagasaki satisfied all the characteristics of a terrorist act - targeting civilians to induce terror so as to cause political action.

The destruction of the civilian population of Nagasaki using an A-bomb wasn't "collateral damage" but the means (through its anticipated and realised terror) of bringing political end to the war. It was arguably the largest (and perhaps most successful) terrorist attack in history.

[U184]

Beating your opponent over an over, with the same crap, over and over is rather childish. He already explained the despondent nature of the Japanese in regards to conventional bombing. He also explained what legitimate targets were selected and Nagasaki was always on the secondary strike list.

I don't condemn the USA any more than I condemn any other person, group or organisation guilty of similar number of innocent killings.

Fantastic, you hear nothing, you just wait until it is you turn to post again then go right back to where you started, is this what you consider debate?

Claiming a legitimate target is anything but, is like me suggesting that you murdered the man trying to kill you and your kids in your house at night. It just does not work like that.

Rather than demanding proof that America did not feel this way, or that way, why don't YOU show the PROOF that America was targeting civilians. By PROOF I mean PROOF, not your take, your feeling, your interpretation, but actual solid evidence... a smoking gun, as to real paperwork, or the facsimile thereof, that supports your claims.


Past this, I suggest that if you have such a closed mind to new information, you either have your ducks in a row and have data on hand in debates to back your stances, or stop "debating" issues to begin with.

[Eran]

Rather than demanding proof that America did not feel this way, or that way, why don't YOU show the PROOF that America was targeting civilians.

These are forums where people express their political views. We often back our views by evidence, but this is not a court, and nobody here is required to produce a proof.

Especially not proof regarding something as varied and illusive as people's intentions.

To substantiate my argument, I pointed to uncontroversial facts (like the fact that Nagasaki wasn't bombed previously), as well as his own narrative.

The United States wanted to bring about rapid Japanese capitulation. To achieve that goal, they chose to terrorise the Japanese nation using A-bombs. To maximise the effect of the bomb, they chose a largely-civilian target. Achieving a political goal (surrender) by pressuring the political establishment through targeting civilians is the very definition of terrorism. It is also the essence of the decision to using A-bombs against Japanese cities.

[U184]

Actually one is required to provide sources here on the forum and in regards to Countries... providing proof for their intentions is one of the easiest things in the world to do.

To achieve that goal, they chose to terrorise the Japanese nation using A-bombs. To maximise the effect of the bomb, they chose a largely-civilian target. Achieving a political goal (surrender) by pressuring the political establishment through targeting civilians is the very definition of terrorism.

Sure if your not at war, if your not hitting military targets, if your goals is to be a terrorist., etc. You make a lot of claims based on if's and can back none of them... or just refuse to do so. Rather it seems your more proficient at laying back and making unfounded, unprovable and completely false statements.

It is also the essence of the decision to using A-bombs against Japanese cities.

Please provide an instance of proof other than regurgitating the same tired argument, one that had no merit or truth, the first several times you claimed it.

Even were that the case and it is not, continuing to link the instance to legitimize terrorism, is insane. Japan started a war, we ended it by targeting military targets, period.

Sending planes into a strict civilian area, with no war, is terrorism, period. One is nothing like the other, no matter how much you want it to be.

.

[Eran]

continuing to link the instance to legitimize terrorism, is insane.

It would be, but that is not what I am doing. I am de-legitimising the targeting of civilians, by any organisation and for any reason.


I have quoted Xbow who wrote: "Oppenheimer and Groves wanted intact cities to destroy instantly as a way of compelling the Japanese to surrender". He also agreed with me that the American intention was to bring Japan to its knees quickly.

If the intention was to force a quick Japanese capitulation, clearly the loss of the kind of industrial and military resources present in Nagasaki wasn't in itself the point. If it were, an earlier traditional bombing would have been attempted.

Rather, the point was to scare the Japanese into submission. I really don't think this is controversial.

Scaring a government into submission through the indiscriminate murder of civilians is terrorism. Pure and simple.


To be perfectly honest, as I defined it, while the bombing was clearly an act of terrorism, it could still be one of those rare cases of justified terrorism. Was it?

To argue that it was justified, proponents typically give estimates (not proof, mind you, just estimates) of the casualties that would have been suffered in the process of complete occupation of the Japanese islands. They assert (with no proof, merely conjectures) that such occupation would have been necessary to secure Japanese unconditional surrender. The claim that such unconditional surrender was essential, and justified the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is implicit. It is never justified.

The American action could only have been justified if credible, good-faith efforts to end hostilities through a negotiated surrender have failed. Given uncertainties associated with predicting enemy action, there could be no certainty that such efforts were doomed to failure. Consequently, any action which sacrificed hundreds of thousands of innocent lives prior to making such credible effort is, on its face, unjustified.

Comparable or even worse crimes by the Japanese authorities cannot justify the murder of thousands of innocents.

[Xbow]

Xbow,
I commend you on your energetic use of underlines and the adjective "Ridiculous!".

I thought underlines were necessary since you fail to grasp even the most basic ideas and Ridiculous describes the content of your mumbling tripe perfectly. Would you prefer something like 'mind-numbingly stupid' instead?

I am attacking the US in this thread because of the specific topic.

Attacks by a critter than can only argue with his uninformed opinions mean nothing.

You point to the strategic value of Nagasaki to the Japanese war effort. Yet you never explained why (1) Nagasaki wasn't previously targeted, and (2) why it was specifically targeted using an A-bomb, rather than comparably-effective conventional weapons.

I did so on two occasions.

Clearly, the purpose of the Atomic bomb was to create "special fear" in the Japanese. NOT to destroy strategic resources. In other words, dropping an A-bomb on Nagasaki satisfied all the characteristics of a terrorist act - targeting civilians to induce terror so as to cause political action.

You think like a rather dull child...the world isn't really black and white. In almost all cases military actions have multiple OBJECTIVES and one objective that is always present is demoralizing the opposition. And as I said before Eran during WW-II the civilian populations in Japanese military-industrial cities were intentionally placed close to the centers of production as a method of control and as an extension of feudalism.

If I were prone to absurd magical thinking as you are I could say that the Japanese placed them there as human shields. But that simply isn't true..so I won't.

But the fact remains in those days it would be impossible to destroy Japanese industrial centres without killing a bushel of civilians. Just because civilians are killed in an attack does not make that attack an act of Terrorism.

The destruction of the civilian population of Nagasaki using an A-bomb wasn't "collateral damage" but the means (through its anticipated and realised terror) of bringing political end to the war. It was arguably the largest (and perhaps most successful) terrorist attack in history.

That is your opinion but let us not confuse your uninformed opinions with anything that approaches reality.

If I were to admit that the Hiroshima/ Nagasaki were Terrorist attacks (which I do not) I would have to point out that you would be wrong on that account as well.

"The Romans razed the city of Carthage to the ground and over 450,000 of its inhabitants were put to the sword."

Eran, this exceeds the civilian death toll of Hiroshima, Nagasaki & Tokyo combined. And are you aware of the fact that reading is a wonderful way to get information?

Eran, do you really think that parroting your demonstrably false claims as you have will eventually make them come true? That's magical thinking sport. But I urge you to continue to ignore reality and historical facts and keep up your repetitive spray of sophomoric nonsense.

[The One.]

Asking this question is much like asking whether or not WWII should have been fought by the US in the first place.

Had Imperial Japan had the means, Washington or LA would have happily been nuked.

You do what you have to do to win with as little effort on your side. Anything short of this is moronic romanticism for an era bygone or naive pacifism.

[Xbow]

Asking this question is much like asking whether or not WWII should have been fought by the US in the first place.

Had Imperial Japan had the means, Washington or LA would have happily been nuked.

You do what you have to do to win with as little effort on your side. Anything short of this is moronic romanticism for an era bygone or naive pacifism.

Very well said and I agree 100%. The Japanese were already trying to figure out how to 'happily' deliver anthrax to the American civilian population. That's what Unit731 was all about. And the calm saintly Emperor Hirohito was on the ground floor of the Japanese biological warfare program as a staunch but quiet backer of General Shirō Ishii the founder and driving force behind it.

In the days before the industrial revolution, before the mass production of steel implements of war and mechanization a civilian work force was not a viable target for annihilation except in cases where genocide was desired. But with mass production and mechanization this changed. Since the mechanization of warfare the soldier represents only the capstone of a pyramid that consists of dozens of industrial and farm workers. You can replace soldiers and machines quickly as long as the industrial/agricultural and labor force that is devoted to war production remains intact. In order to win a war you must kill the roots not just trim the leaves. This seems to be obvious to all except the naive pacifists you spoke of.

[Rich]

Excellent points by Xbow and The One.

I've long wanted to take the logic a bit further, because I feel so many of problems of today and the later 20th century have their roots in the first world war. WWI was a kind of intermediate stage. The homelands were essentially safe from destructive bombing campaigns, but the soldier had come to represent the capstone of a pyramid of industrial and farm workers as XBow put it. In this situation America's claimed neutrality when they were trading with Britain and defying the German blockade of Britain while respecting the British blockade of Germany was essentially fraudulent. This is a meme that would recur: America claiming at least implicitly to be an impartial arbitrator above the petty selfishness and prejudice of other nations and groups. Of course America must always fail to match this impossible standard.

But furthermore WWI was a war that no country could afford to lose. They could barely afford to win it. For Germany losing was just not an acceptable option. Britain and France had huge empires and the world market to draw on. The united States was abundant in quality land, natural resourses and natural transportation links as well as having an informal empire in Latin America. It was kind of inevitable then that German would seek to balance these huge advantages by the ruthless exploitation of the European lands over which it controlled. Germany's harsh treatment of Europeans was then absolutely nothing to do with some sort of special flaw in the German character, but purely a product of the unique circumstance that Germany found itself in among the five great powers (Britain, France, the US and Russia being the others.) The Nazis were undoubtedly unsavoury nasty brutish, to a large extent ignorant, thugs, but it was also true that they were from another perspective merely taking total war to its logical conclusion.

To a considerable degree, we have a world government. Its called America. The US for good or bad takes on both the responsibility and privileges of a world government. This situation causes considerable resentment to say the least. The patriots of inter-war Germany and Japan were prescient. They saw an American dominated world was coming down the pike unless something radical was done and quick. should we be so horrified that they tried to stop it, or that they felt forced to use the most extreme methods in their causes.

[Xbow]

I've long wanted to take the logic a bit further, because I feel so many of problems of today and the later 20th century have their roots in the first world war.

Excellent post Rich!


The WW-I thing fascinates me. This was a war that the USA should have stayed out of completely and remained a neutral. The USA's function in that war was to break the deadlock on the western front. In hindsight it was a stupid thing for the USA to do.

I feel that if the USA had not supported the allies the War would have ended in stalemate around mid 1919 with all combatants almost completely expended and on the verge of insolvency. There would have been no Treaty of Versailles just an armistice and I doubt that the conditions that gave rise to the Nazi party in Germany would have come to pass. And from that it is also unlikely that WW-2 would have happened at all or at least not on the scale that it did. For my money Hitler was spawned by the German defeat but even more so by the crippling Treaty of Versailles. Without that the little corporal ends his career blowing gas in a beer hall.

And in the aftermath the USA could have cleaned up economically and been free of the $350,000,000,000 debt that participation in WW-1 cost (2012 dollars)

However war against Japan for the United States, The UK, France and Germany might have been inevitable. So the only question is how would the Soviet Union have figured into that post WW-I world?

[Eran]

Had Imperial Japan had the means, Washington or LA would have happily been nuked.

How is that relevant? By your logic below, didn't the US have a right to drop a nuclear bomb on Tokyo, regardless of whether Imperial Japan was likely to do the same or not?

You do what you have to do to win with as little effort on your side. Anything short of this is moronic romanticism for an era bygone or naive pacifism.

You are describing a normative system in which wars are excluded from the domain of normal morality. It is one option ("Real Politics") with Pacifism being an opposite extreme.

In-between you have both traditional "Just War Theory" which, to a great extent, informs modern conventions regulating behaviour in war, and the libertarian alternative I advocate (which prohibits any intentional harming of innocents, restricting military actions to purely and clearly defensive measures). Neither is the same as pacifism (naive or not).

[Xbow]

By your logic below, didn't the US have a right to drop a nuclear bomb on Tokyo, regardless of whether Imperial Japan was likely to do the same or not?

We absolutely had that right. But Tokyo was a tinder box city hence there was no need to waste plutonium on it when 350 B29s laden with 3000 tons of conventional ordinance composed of 30% high explosive and 70% incendiary bombs would do the trick. We could have done the same thing to Hiroshima and Nagasaki with conventional stuff. But the shock effect of a nuclear weapon is more pronounced and better able to bring a group of intractable assholes to the surrender table. But for those in the target zone the method of death is meaningless. Dead is dead and the dead don't care how they got that way.

the libertarian alternative I advocate (which prohibits any intentional harming of innocents, restricting military actions to purely and clearly defensive measures).

That is just not how the REAL world functions. Obviously if only defensive measures were used by all there would be no war and that is unrealistic. If history has shown us anything nations will always go to war against each other. And when they do go to war each side wants to WIN the conflict.

A country that is attacked and invaded will first want to defend itself and eject the invaders. Once that has been accomplished the goal will be to take the fight to the enemies home ground and eliminate his ability to ever invade again. The next phase is retribution and the exploitation of the enemies homeland and resources to pay for the war right down to making the children of the enemy slaves that work on collective farms to pay off their debt with interest. That is human nature, that is reality. Civilized warfare is impossible because people are not perfect in their motivations for it or in their conduct of it and never will be.

[Eran]

Obviously if only defensive measures were used by all there would be no war and that is unrealistic. If history has shown us anything nations will always go to war against each other. And when they do go to war each side wants to WIN the conflict.

If every nation was dominated by libertarians, there would be no war.

If every nation was dominated by well-intentioned but trigger-happy people like you, wars would start out all the time, with the side starting the war justifying his actions as "pre-emptive".

I am not a pacifist. If your country is invaded, by all means, fight the invaders. If you have a chance to assassinate the president of the aggressor, or any member of their political and military elites, by all means, do so.

But I reject the notion that any means are justified towards the end of winning the war. In real life, massive actions against civilians rarely have the positive effect perceived by those who initiate them. The Blitz comes to mind.

A country that is attacked and invaded will first want to defend itself and eject the invaders. Once that has been accomplished the goal will be to take the fight to the enemies home ground and eliminate his ability to ever invade again.

Not at all costs.

That is human nature, that is reality.

We are not having a historic discussion. We are having a normative one. Whether that is how things actually happened or not, we can still discuss whether such actions have been justified.

Civilized warfare is impossible because people are not perfect in their motivations for it or in their conduct of it and never will be.

On the contrary, warfare in the pre-modern era was much more "civilised" than it is today.

[Iriemon]

Regardless of the reason, dropping a nuclear bomb on a largely civilian population makes you a war criminal. If Harry Truman isn't considered a war criminal then by that standard who can actually be considered a war criminal?

If that is the standard, which nation and leader in WWII, including Japan and its imperialist leadership, were *not* war criminals?

[The One.]

You are describing a normative system in which wars are excluded from the domain of normal morality. It is one option ("Real Politics") with Pacifism being an opposite extreme.

In-between you have both traditional "Just War Theory" which, to a great extent, informs modern conventions regulating behaviour in war, and the libertarian alternative I advocate (which prohibits any intentional harming of innocents, restricting military actions to purely and clearly defensive measures). Neither is the same as pacifism (naive or not).

There is no such thing as innocents in war.

The very fact of knowingly supporting a criminal makes you as much as a criminal then he. Staying is implied support for the ruling regime.

If your country is about to get bombed and you are not willing to suffer for it, you should leave the country, and go to Canada (not the US because they have very aggressive taxation) or perhaps Chile, Singapore or Dubai. Let your country become a battleground and you live la dolce vita.

[Eran]

There is no such thing as innocents in war.

The very fact of knowingly supporting a criminal makes you as much as a criminal then he. Staying is implied support for the ruling regime.

Of course there are innocents in war. Children, for example. Or those objecting to the war. Many are unable to move. Canada didn't allow European refugees to come in during WW II. Plus, your safety from murder shouldn't be conditioned on having to leave your home.

[The One.]

Of course there are innocents in war. Children, for example. Or those objecting to the war. Many are unable to move. Canada didn't allow European refugees to come in during WW II.Plus, your safety from murder shouldn't be conditioned on having to leave your home.

If you want to stay with an invading army and not fight, then you're crazy and the only person you can blame is yourself if you die.
Your children can blame you.

What you are suggesting is akin to staying in a Hells angels bar (which is not a good place to be in) when you know the Rock machines are coming.

You have two choices:

Pain and death on one hand for a regime you don't believe in.
and
la dolce vita on the other (albeit perhaps with bending a few immigration laws)

I know what I choose. All others should be cleansed from the gene pool.

As soon as you hear:
"Weathermen forecast in the coming months 45% chance of precipitation in the forms of bombs and other ordinance" well, what does an innocent man do?

[Xbow]

The One, that's a couple of good posts there. Although I do believe there are innocents in war I agree with your position that civilians that support an aggressive government in its quest for the produce of foreign nations can not by definition be innocent. But when we come to the aged, infirm and the very young they can be considered innocents but when their governments place them near military targets as Japan did as human shields their loss is both tragic and regrettable but also completely unavoidable.

If every nation was dominated by libertarians, there would be no war.......If every nation was dominated by well-intentioned but trigger-happy people like you, wars would start out all the time, with the side starting the war justifying his actions as "pre-emptive".

Wars DO start all the time but it is the fault of the primary human motivations of greed and avarice and people/nations like YOU/yours that present weakness and draw aggression from those that detect it. Have you heard the term, 'peace through superior firepower?' That just happens to be a real world axiom.

And I find your characterization of me as a 'well-intentioned but trigger-happy' bloke that is in favor of "pre-emptive" warfare at the slightest provocation to be both shallow and too shabby to be called cheap. But I understand your 'need to win at any cost'.

We are not having a historic discussion. We are having a normative one. Whether that is how things actually happened or not, we can still discuss whether such actions have been justified.

That is entirely an artificial parameter that you are attempting to establish for your own purposes and I reject your attempt to control the conversation. Especially since you do not feel the need to be bound by the limits you wish to establish for other participants.

Then there is the fact that your attempt to banish history is patently absurd because this is a discussion of a historical event that happened 67 years ago. Any attempt to separate that event from its historical context would amount to a spray of sewage and a meaningless exercise in mental masturbation.

But I reject the notion that any means are justified towards the end of winning the war. In real life, massive actions against civilians rarely have the positive effect perceived by those who initiate them. The Blitz comes to mind."

If we are still taking about the Pacific War in general and Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically and not the virtues of Libertarianism then you can be assured that 'victory by any means' was not put into action by the USA at any point in the war. At that time the USA had large quantities chemical weapons. All of the Island campaigns against such targets as Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Tinian, Okinawa and many more were taken the hard way via amphibious assault that involved large numbers of US casualties. They could have been prepped with chemical agents and our casualties could have been reduced by a full order of magnitude. And since Hirohito had authorized the use of Phosgene gas 375 times on Chinese soldiers & civilians in 1938 alone The United States would have been justified in gassing the living fuck out of the Japanese in any of those campaigns.

"On the contrary, warfare in the pre-modern era was much more "civilized" than it is today."

You've got to be kidding right? Eran, the Pre-Modern Era is the medieval period before the the Renaissance say from 1066 to 1500. Notable events of that era:

AD1099 Slaughter of Muslims (men women and children) at the Al-Aqsa Mosque Jerusalem by the Crusader army, +10,000 killed in an afternoon. Overall the siege of Jerusalem from 7 June 1099 to July 14 1099 cost the Muslim forces 70,000 dead the Christian forces lost ~8 thousand and you can toss in a few thousand Jews and Eastern Christians into that for a total of +90,0000 in 47 days. And many of the Muslims were split open to search for jewels and gold they might have swallowed. VERY CIVILIZED!

AD1405 The Mongols under Tamerlane rounded up 90,000 captives (Men women children POW etc) beheaded all of them and built a pyramid of heads at the gates of Deli to show the Indians they meant business. VERY CIVILIZED INDEED!

AD 1453 The 53 day Siege Of Constantinople by The Ottoman Turks under Mehmed II inflicted 8,000 military casualties on the Byzantines and an estimated three times that number of Christian civilians that were hunted down and beheaded or impaled once the walls were breached. A TRULY ENLIGHTENED ERA!

AD1462 In that Year Vlad Țepeș (the Impaler) conducted a night attack against the Ottomans and killed ~15,000 Turkish soldiers while they slept in a few hours (along with a large number non combatants). Later that year Vlad emptied out the prisons, labor camps and a number of villages and impaled 20,000 people in an open field near Târgoviște to shock the Turkish Army. It worked they left Romania for a year. In the winter of 1462 Vlad's army crossed the Danube into Bulgaria and disguised as Turks devastated the region, butchered an additional 24,000 Ottomans and an equal number of Christians from Serbia to the Black Sea. OH! YEAH THAT'S SOME CIVILIZED STUFF THERE.

I have just touched on the 'civilized' Pre-Modern Era but seriously I could go on all day about it.

PS. Eran, although I do appreciate and even admire your Libertarian belief system I can't for the life of me understand how it is relevant to this topic

[Eran]

Wars DO start all the time but it is the fault of the primary human motivations of greed and avarice and people/nations like YOU/yours that present weakness and draw aggression from those that detect it. Have you heard the term, 'peace through superior firepower?' That just happens to be a real world axiom.

I don't have a problem with owning superior firepower. Only with using it against innocents.

And I find your characterization of me as a 'well-intentioned but trigger-happy' bloke that is in favor of "pre-emptive" warfare at the slightest provocation to be both shallow and too shabby to be called cheap.

I accept your protest, and will take it back. You may well be a considered and far-from-trigger-happy bloke, and I had no right to assume otherwise.

I have ignored the line between pre-emptive wars and anti-civilian actions taken within an existing war. I view both as immoral, but I can see you only advocated the latter, not the former. Again, my apologies.

Eran, the Pre-Modern Era is the medieval period before the the Renaissance say from 1066 to 1500. Notable events of that era:

Point taken. But pre-modern battles often involved only the professional armies arrayed against each other. The events you mention tend to be tangential to the war, rather than an integral part of it. They are the subsequence of the defeat of the losing side, rather than means used by the winning side to establish victory.

In fairness, a pre-modern exception is the practice of slaughtering (or enslaving) the citizens of walled cities who resist capture, while offering a much more lenient treatment for cities who chose to capitulate. When that slaughter is used as a deterrent to other cities, rather than just as an act of revenge, it would constitute modern-like use of civilians to affect the outcome of the war.

Eran, although I do appreciate and even admire your Libertarian belief system I can't for the life of me understand how it is relevant to this topic

My libertarian belief system extends to the normative treatment of all uses of force. The topic of this thread is "was the nuclear strike... justifiable". It thus clearly involves both use of force (the nuclear strike) from a normative perspective ("justifiable").

How can libertarianism NOT be relevant?