Quote:
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I see two critical questions here - are there noncombatants in a "total war" (I assume that there are always moral issues in attacking noncombatants) and was the attack proportionate to the justifiable moral basis for that war.
WWII was a total war, and if attacks like these are justified anywhere it is in that war. It was terror, and terror to a much greater degree than the bombing of London, for example. At the end of the day, given the importance of winning that war against a genocideal enemy, I'm not sure I'm ready to second guess the morality of Dresden. On the other hand, historically, I believe it had the reverse effect of its goal, and that it did more to incite Germans to rally against the Allies than it did to break their will to fight.
|
To set the moral questions aside for the moment, advocates of air power have always suggested that it will demoralize (terrorize?) the enemy's population, but the opposite has been true, as you suggest.
There are always moral issues in attacking noncombatants, and I don't understand how someone could draw a meaningful decision between intentionally attacking noncombatants with strategic bombers and intentionally attacking them with the simpler weapons that contemporary terrorists use.
