Trust me, they do.
If it’s twisted logic, then it certainly belongs in a discussion about the nature of war.
The US government would love for us to believe that military conflicts are exclusively exchanges between representative military forces, but the real world is little more muddy than that - especially when one side has no clearly defined military.
With equally twisted logic one might argue that the citizens of a dictatorship are implicit in: paying taxes, providing an economic base which allows that nation’s military to exist, not overthrowing the evil dictator, following the dictator, etc, etc…
If you don’t care about logic and are actually fighting a war, you might hope that such attacks would be demoralizing. Or, as in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, provide some sort of demonstration as a deterrent measure.
Oh No! Not another Hiroshima and Nagasaki post!
-
Both were legitimate military targets.
-
Look at the situation and the alternative.
-
ARRRRGGGHH!!! Every time I think I’m out, they pull me back in!
Haha, no i don’t want to start an argument that forces people to admit wiping two cities off the face of the earth is legitimate. Those kinds of conclusions usually end in a prayer or a flag rally.