And that, sad though it is, is why civilized societies still needs policemen who carry guns — and why peace-loving nations still need soldiers, and tanks, and airplanes, and bombs. Because sometimes, it’s not your decision whether to fight; someone else has already decided that a fight will be happening. You said “always there is an alternative to fight”. Perhaps. But sometimes, the only alternative to fighting… is dying.

If you don’t understand this harsh reality, then aphorisms like “If you want peace, prepare for war” will seem nonsensical to you. But when you realize that it takes two to make peace, but only one to make war — then the saying will start to make sense.

The way to defend yourself in a war is to win that war. The only way to win a war is to a) destroy infastructure and b) (as way of a) destroy the enemies will to fight.

Its unfortunate that during WWII, no one had the technology to accurately target infastructure, and spare civilians. If you think the use of atomic weaponry was special in some way, compare the numbers of deaths to those in other bombing campaigns.

Everything seems so incredibly black and white to you. A casualty is a casualty is a causulty. Its just not the case.

The way to defend yourself in a war is to win that war. The only way to win a war is to a) destroy infastructure and b) (as way of a) destroy the enemies will to fight.

Its unfortunate that during WWII, no one had the technology to accurately target infastructure, and spare civilians. If you think the use of atomic weaponry was special in some way, compare the numbers of deaths to those in other bombing campaigns.

Everything seems so incredibly black and white to you. A casualty is a casualty is a causulty. Its just not the case.

Is there much dispute that Japan wasn’t going to back down without the US doing what they did? It was an awful lose-lose situation, and the US made a tough decision. I think any country could have found themselves in that situation, sadly; it wasn’t anything special about the US that created the conflict.

Except for the fact that the US refused to sell Japan the resources it needed to make its war on indochina.

“Is there much dispute that Japan wasn’t going to back down without the US doing what they did?”

Yes. General Eisenhower thought it was unnecessary. General MacArthur thought it was unjustified. Almost all of the scientists who developed the bomb thought that its use was immoral and an act of terrorism. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Non-sequitor. You did not demonstrate that casualties differ. Furthermore, just because Mr. Woerner believes that war is never justified does not mean that “everything seems so incredibly black and white” to him.

I’m much more worried by people justifying a war than the war itself.

Some people seem to be simply inlove with this “argument”, dug up from it’s 50-year old grave. Rock on.

Actually, war is good for the states. It speeds up their economy. They wouldn’t give a damn for the middle east countries otherwhise.

It’s sad, man.