Am I the only one bothered by the targeting of 'wooden houses' of Tokyo

Actually, what bothers me most was the intention, not just the number. I know the Japanese committed worse acts during the war, but we should have done better.

I could care less if they killed 10 million Japanese soldiers, because they were soldiers. Men with arms are fair games. Civilians should never be the MAIN target at any war, any where, any time. I have no doubt the highest casualty in fires are small children, since they don't know where to run.

Pearl Harbor was actually also planned and staged by the same people...It's been declassified. another inside job.

<<targeting city's is against the geneva convention, yet in world war two the allies and axis actively engaged in bombing campaigns on civilian populations including cities.>>

The articles of the Geneva Convention were not entered into force until 1950.

The word "bothered" should be an understatement. It's an event that killed hundreds and thousands of people. Insects and typos should bother. Acts of war should disgust.

>>While I don't wish to defend McNamara, I'd like to point out that Japan also targeted civilians when they bombed and plundered Asia. The difference is that Japan could have stop their being bombed by surrendering, while the people of Asia could not.<<

As far as the theory of surrender, the Japanese-American war situation was nowhere near that black and white. It's best to see this movie after doing some homework. I felt the need to do so, especially in regards to Vietnam.

Excellent movie though. Makes you think about where the line needs to be drawn in wartime.

errand,
just wanted to tell you that I went back to my original message and tried to edit it to include the idea that is was JP civilians vs. US military, but it wouldn't take my edit for some reason. But I did agree with you about the civilians.
Take care.

Atrocities of all magnitudes are committed in all wars but, I strongly suspect, you would find the US military at the very low end of the spectrum were an accurate accounting ever possible.

The horror that was the destruction of a number of Japanese cities during the Second World War is/was not hidden and has been the subject of history and any number of works by various authors in a number of mediums.

Probably the most important fact to note, that is VERY often overlooked is the massive fleet that stood offshore of the mainlands in preparation for an amphibious assault had the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki failed to deter the Japanese. Estimates vary but one half million casualties is often cited at the low end and a LARGE proportion of these would have been US servicemen fighting a tough military force defending it's sacred homeland. The "bare earth" strategy which brought Japan to it's knees was an impossibly difficult course to undertake but it SAVED untold numbers of American lives and, in all likelihood, many more Japanese civilians than the number of lives that were taken in the fire and nuclear bombings.

I've often wondered why there are rules to war. For centuries, we wrote them up and then abided by or broke them. Then I figured out something that made sense to me: winners make the rules that losers play by. It's unfortunate. Who can kill, who they can kill, when, how many, and by what means...

I don't think I agree with what you've said about having reasons for going to war; I don't see 'reasons' as being very good. It's in our nature to be territorial when it comes to geography, breeding rights and food supply, so we get aggressive. We ally ourselves along political lines and we go at it. We make up excuses (i.e. "The Jewish Question") and we're off like a rocket. We either start wars for these 'reasons' or react to them and get involved. Or we stand by and get called cowards. Meh.

I don't put much stock into the reasons given for killing. Not by any country. I don't put much into 'justice' during war, either. Not from a democracy, autocracy or whatever. The US government is not likely to punish its own soldiers if what was done is beneficial to them. I would surmise that's why Bush has no interest in the world court, nor is his administration likely to sign that little treaty banning landmines. Sure it wouldn't make landmines disappear, but it's a good start from a major producer.

Our leaders are often not held accountable for their actions. For example, Reagan got a away with a lot more than he might have. They make mistakes, sure, and I'm not talking about that, as long as they're well-intended. It's not just the US, I know; I can think of handful after handful of nations and leaders willing to dome pretty awful things. I'm using them as an example here because, well, that's where McNamara's coming from, and that's where you're from, I'm guessing.

I guess the upshot- for me at least- is that war is best avoided, though not at all costs, and if you choose to lay down your life (or someone else's,) then I hope you really believed in what you were doing. I don't ever want to be in the situation of having to kill to survive.

Wars don't generate capital that's true but people, corporations involved in the armamentist bussines do benefit from this. Why do you think the USA has been involved in so many wars? the latest ones initiated by the US itself without having real reasons to fight them, wich is clearly evident in the actual Iraqi war. The militar-industrial complex has gone way out of hand and as long as people continue to benefit by weapon sales there isn't going to be any improvement in the world.
Im not saying that this is the only reason why goverments fight wars but if you have some common sense you will notice that every dispute is tied to economical interests. The elite sectors of societies knows that but as long as they keep the masses dumb and ignorant (please read Edward Bernay's book "Propaganda") they will continue to get away with acts such as this one.
Peace.

The bombing of civilians was absolutely unnecessary to end the war. To argue that is insane. Look at the bombing of Germany and Japan. Despite the bombings, both German and Japanese moral remained very high throughout the war. The intention of the bombing was to break their will to fight - which it clearly did not.

If we examine secondary objectives, the strategic bombing of CIVILIAN targets was a complete failure. Sure, the US bombed out over 1/2 of Tokyo and left millions of people without homes, but those people were still willing to fight and to go to the factories to produce the weapons of war. Japanese production didn't slow because US bombers destroyed the factories, it fell because US subs sunk over 75% of their merchant marine and strangled the economy.

In Germany, strategic bombing didn't hurt German production and didn't start really hurting the economy until the US began targeting the Achilles heal of the Wehrmacht, oil refineries. On top of that, Germany committed a vast number of 88 mm guns and about 1 million troops to anti-aircraft duty - men who could have been used on the Eastern Front. So, in that sense, strategic bombing paid off but notice that the bombing of civilian targets was not productive. It did not break the will of any participant in the war - it only hardened it. In every case that it was used, against England, Japan, and Germany it did not bring about the surrender of the enemy, with the exception of the atomic bomb.