(B2431) wrote in message ...

I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the legitimate targets in Nagasaki
and Hiroshima using only weapons available in WW2?

The same way that all previous legitimate targets were taken out
during WWII.

While I'll admit that the firebombing of German metros led to civilian
casualties approaching the same number of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, there is
no comparison between the destruction of architecture as women and
children huddle underground - and the bright shining incineration of
all life within miles, poisoning the land for a generation.

With humblest respect for your past service to our country, I must
admit that the question you pose illustrates the main problem behind
why the Bomb was used: Because no one knew a "better" way. This
represents a militarily trained, "any-means-necessary" bias.

But the anti-atomic crowd believes in a specific philosophical
principle: that regardless of what "gets the job done", atomic/nuclear
weaponry crosses a moral and humanitarian line that should never be
breached. It exists outside the "any means necessary" category as a
unique horror above and beyond conventional warfare.

Pragmatists poo-poo such a distinction, chalking atomic weaponry up as
just another advance in defense technology. The fallacy behind
"Burning the village to save it" may work for military-trained
strategists, but when we're talking about a strategy capable of wiping
out the entire human race, this villager refuses to concede any moral
authority to the pro-atomic position.