On 12 Feb 2004 03:29:23 GMT, (David Hall) wrote:

Dresden, I dunno. I'm not as familiar with the rationale there, but it
almost
certainly was felt to be necessary at the time.

Dresden was an acknowledged terror attack, carried out with the same
rationale and justification as the attacks on the WTC. In retrospect
all the terror tactics of WWI and WWII backfired. Perhaps that is
something that today's crop of terrorists need to realize - that
terror tactics have historically done more damage to the perpetrators
than to the victims. The German air attacks on London, intended to
instill terror in the people and bring about capitulation, instead
hardened the resolve of a nation that was on the brink of seeking a
compromise. In many ways you can say that Germany's defeat in WWII was
a direct result of their terror attacks. Terrorism as a means of
breaking the will of a group of people has failed virtually every time
it has been used.

Tim Douglass

Seemed to work on Japan.

I suppose that's true in a way, but I see a terror attack as an
attempt to cow the people through attacks that are focused entirely on
civilians to create an atmosphere of fear and doubt. The atomic bomb
attacks were not really intended to undermine the morale of the
civilian population but to demonstrate to the Japanese military that
we had the means to totally destroy them. It may not be a real
distinction, but it is sort of a contrast between attacking from
weakness and attacking from strength. Terrorism is normally used when
you are attacking from a weak position.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com