Maybe the aliens can get off their butts and beam us plans for an economical fusion reactor along with the wormhole machine, instead of just judging us from afar. *Borat voice* Assholes aliens. — Marchesk
I'm pretty sure I got this part right. Hitler hoped for a truce so didn't want to attack civilian targets. There were civilian deaths of course but as collateral damage and I think only a few bombing runs went (purposefully?) wrong. The Blitz still targeted docks and war effort manufacturing. It was Churchill who went for the jugular. — Benkei
The points I think to learn is that we weren't heroes, or if we were, more anti-heroes. I don't forgive Churchill for wilfully targeting innocents; I do prefer Churchill over Hitler though.
Second is that targeting civilians hasn't been effective in breaking moral. If you're going to do it, it apparently takes a nuke. But that's problematic for other reasons so really : don't target civilians. — Benkei
Yeah, once the other side has done it, that makes it justifiable. Yet a weapon system like the V2, successful in hitting a target as large as London is hardly a weapon of pinpoint accuracy. And when you call them reprisal weapons you hardly take humanity into consideration.That Germany ever carpet bombed in the UK indiscriminately before the British did - and I'm now even certain they did so in retaliation after Churchill did. — Benkei
I'm mainly just confused about why you would make such shit up. No, they didnt do as well contemporary bombers. They 1940s technology and they flew in the dark.That's why bombers flew relatively low and were dependent on intelligence as well. They did better than many "modern" air forces considering the means they had at their disposal. — Benkei
Anyway, the details don't matter so much as long as everybody understands Churchill was a war criminal too. — Benkei
Perhaps it's an apparent contradiction, someone says there is little accuracy in the targeting of bombs and another says the bombs are only aimed at certain targets, which can't be done if there is little accuracy in the targeting of the bombs.↪Where's the contradiction? There's a difference between targeting a legitimate target and accepting collateral damage and purposefully targeting civilians.
Anyway, the details don't matter so much as long as everybody understands Churchill was a war criminal too. — Benkei
In a civil, and presumably a moral, setting. Part of the framing of that war was uncivil and immoral. It's up to you to argue the requirement that it be a tea-party in a pigsty. Not whether it's desirable or nice or whether it is or is not a choice, but the requirement.The end doesn't justify the means. The criminal intent was to target civilians instead of military targets. — Benkei
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.