DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Unconditional Surrender & Civilian Casualites

**Rounteetepehryn** · 04-03-2011, 03:01 AM

I am reading a book where the commander took it on his own to refuse to negotiate any terms of surrender. The only time I knew of seeking unconditional surrender among civilized nations was during WWII. Given how many lives may be saved on both sides, under what conditions do you think it is justified to push on to unconditional surrender?

Another question has to do with the civilian population. "Limited war" is a relatively new idea. Again using WWII as a basis of comparison, both the Allies and the Axis powers relentlessly bombed civilian populations. Indeed, the only atomic weapons every used in combat was against civilian populations. Under what conditions do you think it is justified to deliberately attack civilian populations?

My father was a navigator on a B-24. He flew 42 missions out of Europe, mostly over Berlin. He survived even though most bombers didn't make it. He thought the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral. He thought we could have beaten the Japs without it. My mother was living in London when they were getting hammered. She thought it was the greatest thing ever. They never agreed on it, and it was difficult to get my Dad to talk about it. I'm going with my Dad on this one.

04-03-2011, 03:01 AM	#7
Rounteetepehryn Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 349 Senior Member	I am reading a book where the commander took it on his own to refuse to negotiate any terms of surrender. The only time I knew of seeking unconditional surrender among civilized nations was during WWII. Given how many lives may be saved on both sides, under what conditions do you think it is justified to push on to unconditional surrender? Another question has to do with the civilian population. "Limited war" is a relatively new idea. Again using WWII as a basis of comparison, both the Allies and the Axis powers relentlessly bombed civilian populations. Indeed, the only atomic weapons every used in combat was against civilian populations. Under what conditions do you think it is justified to deliberately attack civilian populations? My father was a navigator on a B-24. He flew 42 missions out of Europe, mostly over Berlin. He survived even though most bombers didn't make it. He thought the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral. He thought we could have beaten the Japs without it. My mother was living in London when they were getting hammered. She thought it was the greatest thing ever. They never agreed on it, and it was difficult to get my Dad to talk about it. I'm going with my Dad on this one.
	Quote