>>>>>>>Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military complex.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Our atomic bombs killed over one hundred thousands civilians including women and children.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's sad you can't see the difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Again, attacks. If you'd like to discuss this, go right ahead, but I hold myself to a certain level of decorum and I refuse to stoop to your level. I look forward to Viv's response.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're funny. You sling with the best of them then pretend that you don't when the trail is here to see. Wow.
>>>>
>>>>I do admit that I often resort to frustration after trying to make my point, but you default to frustration. You haven't even attempted to make one point, but expect to be taken seriously?
>>>
>>>Really? How is this not a valid point:
>>>
>>>Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military complex.
>>>
>>>Our atomic bombs killed over two hundred thousand civilians including women and children.
>>
>>Hi Brandon
>>
>>does that mean your would have opposed any bombing in WWII.
>>
>>I support it as I think it degraded the economies and manufacturing abilities of the AXIS powers. As precision bombing was pretty much a joke it inevitably involved heavy civilian casualties.
>>
>>OTOH I have read some discussion of wether the benefit was outweighed by the effort necessary to produce the bomber fleets on our side.
>>
>>The atomic bombs did speed Japanese surrender but you could say the biggest contributor to the huge casualties towards the end of the war was the Allies insistence on unconditional surrender.
>
>We haven't done the unconditional surrender type wars since.
>
>Great outcomes, huh.

Interestingly (for me :-)) I was thinking about this today and wonder how much the success of post war Germany and Japan as reformed societies was down to their almost complete destruction by the end of the war. So while in the short term it greatly incresed the loss of life maybe it had long term benefit.