[Gunrunner2]

There were. . .but the action was justified under the concept of "just war."

Just war permits this because of the rule of "proportionality."

This means the attack on Japan was allowed because the expected military gain was worth the expected civilian loss. Terror attacks aim to murder the innocent, not achieve a military gain. Terrorists intent to to harm the innocent, as that is their goal, whereas the attack on Japan had a military objective that was deemed to be proportionate when balanced against the expected civilian loss. It was not an attack with an evil aim, as is a terror attack.

Because it was anticipated that we would experience close to one million casualties if we invaded Japan, then the dropping of the bomb was justified. Just War by Tucker, Just and Unjust War by Walzer are excellent reads on the subject. Also, Just War Against Terror by Jean Bethke-Elshtain is timely and informative.

[stockpirate]

Thanks.

But objective is very subjective!

The Muslum Army could just say that the way to stop the government and military of that government is to get the "TAXPAYERS", to put pressure on their leaders.

For the taxpayers to be the target removes the far-awayness concept of a war. So it becomes more of a point of safety to them because they are on the frontline.

So, the choice of target is military because it could result in England, "Doing a Spain".