Originally Posted by TK-8252
If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets then why were the vast majority of the casualties civilians?
I say that any attack that kills more children than armed men is fundamentally flawed and immoral. Yes, even I, a godless heathen, have morals. One of those is that you don't indiscriminately kill despite what your justification may be. There are better ways to do things than kill and destroy.
Just because more civilians than military personnel were killed doesn't mean it wasn't a military target. The atomic bomb, no matter how closely it would have struck to the military bases, would have damaged Hiroshima and Nagasaki greatly anyway.
I agree though, more concern should have been put over how many civilians would be killed. But you mention that an attack that kills more children than military men is flawed and immoral. I see no distinction towards killing thousands of children in a nuclear explosion, and letting hundred of thousands of children slowly starve and die in a drawn out war. The only difference is in numbers killed and the method of delivery.