Originally posted by Montenegro
Maybe I'm a hopeless cynic, scalded by the do and dont's of mankind, but I pose this question: don't you fight wars, as tragic as they are, to win and win as expediently as possible? Personally, Dresden was what James Brown would call "the big payback, huh!" The fact that we hit civilian targets means nil---it was a friggin' war.
The problem with Dresden was the Western Allies knew that city was just days away from being taken by the Soviets. I have mixed feelings about this. Yes, civilians are often the targets, and not just modern times, but ancient times as well. However, when the death and destruction serve no purpose whatsoever, such as at Dresden, then its wrong, to some degree. The same is true for Japan. We had them isolated with a belt of US Gato/Balao subs around their islands. Few if any resources were getting to their factories or their dinner tables, so why did we keep fire bombing their cities (instead of specific bombing of important targets)? As with Dresden, the worst behavior came towards the end, when the outcome was pretty clear. The atrocities late in the war were a result of the continual dehumanization of the war; the longer the killing goes on, the less value a human life has. Dresden was a crime, it has to be, as to whether these other examples were war crimes too, or just ugly footnotes to the war, I'll have to let others decide.
P.S. To whoever mentioned Nagasaki: We know now the first bomb was not enough to force a surrender. It was the second bomb that gave the Japanese Emperer the "support" to force his military to quit fighting a hopeless cause. Given this we can't say that Nagasaki was totaly unnecessary.
Well, most of us. Well, some of us, at least. A few. 
