Does shortening a war to save lives justify killing civilians?

Answer 1

I know exactly what you are talking about. It depends. The United States used two nuclear bombs on Japan to end the Second World War, causing widespread devastation, the death of thousands of civilians, and the surrender of Japan.

This is a matter of opinion. I believe, earnestly, that the actions of the United States here were completely justified. Don't get me wrong. I think it's terrible that human beings have to go through such horrors as this. But I have read too many accounts of American prisoners of the Japanese, too many stories of the Death March and other Japanese cruelty (both sides committed atrocities, but the USA tended to treat POWs much better. In the final days of the European war, Germans flocked to the American lines and fled from the Russians). The war needed to end as soon as possible, and an attack on the Japanese homeland (which was defended by fanatic Japanese, civilians and soldiers alike) was out of the question for a nation that had a nuclear weapon. Most historians will probably agree that to try to take the Japanese homeland using conventional methods would have extended the war by months and years, caused much more bloodshed than the bomb did (the bomb just demoralized them) and used thousands and millions of tons of material more. I honestly believe that the USA was justified, though wars should never even have to start....