It began with this...
I'm pointing out that TODAY, Dresden Hiroshima Nagasaki would be contrary to existing US policy on "targeting civilians", the media would **** kittens sideways, and half the population of the USA would call the bombing and all involved babykilling fascists.
Only if we remove all context! In the same context, we do the same thing. Nothing has changed.
And ends with this...
I never said we had improved, far from it.
How is this your next sentence?
Public attitudes have certainly changed, far more people take issue with "collateral damage" than was the case in 1945.
It seems to me that being concerned with collateral damage is a good thing.
You are aware that the concept of warfare changed after WW2? That the "total war" concept gave way to the "limited war" concept, a paradigm we're still using today?
Yes, and you were trying to claim that using events from the total war and putting them as unacceptable "TODAY" has meaning. You are comparing apples and oranges. Total war and today. If we were in total war today and all things being equal we would do the same today. The things that we did do not violate any modern convention or war-time behavioral expectations. Nothing has changed. If we had reason to bomb Tehran, we would - we might.
Which goes back to my original statement that you took issue with. Humane treatment of the enemy is a luxury we indulge in when we are not terrified that our very existence or way of life is about to be extinguished. When the latter applies, we tend to be much less concerned with being humane and much more concerned with survival and victory.
And I take issue with this. It is incorrect. Inhumane behavior is not the result of desperation, it is the result of ideology.
I also stated that we would go back to wholesale bombing and accepting massive civilian collateral damage if things got to the point that we feared for our existence again.
Of course, because under the circumstances it is humane. There are no different levels of humanity here, through which we transition according to desperation. We have and always will do what is necessary to create the most good for the most people. Right now, limited war is necessary; that might change and our values remain entirely intact.
For the life of me I can't figure out why you disagree with me so vehemently... unless you think that policy, strategy, tactics and public opinion have not changed at all since 1945?
First, I do not think that policy, strategy or tactics have changed appreciably since 1945. The changes that have occured result from technology and mission, not morals or ethics.
Second, I disagree with these statements specifically:
Humane behavior towards the enemy is a luxury, that you can only afford when the survival of all that you hold dear is not at stake.
False. Our humanity is the result of ideology, not desperation or luxury.
If our fear was greater, we'd be less squeamish.
False. Fear does not determine one's level of humanity.
Our capacity for humanity is indeed a show of our strength... and much of it would vanish like snowflakes on an oven if we were on the verge of extermination.
False. Our humanity is not rooted in fear or domination. It is rooted in what we believe in, our ideology.
It may be strategically justified; it may be necessary; it may be for the hope of a quick end to a terrible war and a return to normalcy; but we should never pretend that it is humane.
Ending a terrible war with minimal casualties and suffering is, in fact, humane. Lack of seeing the bigger picture - a myopic illusion - is the only way to believe otherwise.
Also (side bickerings)...
If the Axis wasn't stopped, they wouldn't stop until they ruled the world with a system and a methodology most of us would find abhorrent.
Japan didn't have a shot at ruling the world at that point, but their government still needed to be overthrown for the good of humanity.
In short, humanity took a backseat to survival.
No, our survival was not at stake when we dropped the bombs. But doing so provided the most good for the most people.
Ultimately, we do not target civilians. Not then, not now, not ever. It is inhumane to murder and never in the history of the US has targetting civilians been considered acceptable by a duly elected government of the people. Officers go insane, and mistakes happen; however, our values in the humane treatment of people have not altered since 1945. We do what is needed to help the most people while causin as little harm as possible. Today, this takes the form of limited war; tomorrow, we will have the same value of humane treatment and could be in total war.
You seem to think that total war is humanely different than limited war. It is not. Both are based on doing the most good AND the least harm. Further, to consider us as having changed our level of humanity or humane treatment of others, we would need to engage in acts that were deemed unacceptable previously (context intact, of course... merely changing the date). Fact is, you cannot demonstrate that our humane treatment has changed or will change.
We have never targetted civilians, we have always done the least harm possible. Circumstances may change, but our humanity remains the same.
Any loss of humanity is not the result of changing circumstances, but changing beliefs. If the US was on the losing end of the war on terror tomorrow, we would not start targetting children.