I, for one, would love to prevent desperation, crime, and abuse by paying losers to sit at home playing xbox and smoking weed staying out of my way and off of the streets..
Fantastic! Please start sending me money and I will gladly stop working and stay out of everyone's way.
Lets not be deluded. Killing 80 000 civilians in one go (and many many more because in the aftermath of the bomb ) is a war crime.
So the American war crimes started way before the atomic bomb was dropped then? Let's be consistent, the commanding generals of most of the air forces in WWII were war criminals is, I believe, what you are trying to say. The type of weapon is a red herring, the cities would have been burned to the ground anyway, with probably similar loss of life (see the firebombing of Tokyo). Most of the Japanese cities were already bombed or burned out, the only difference is with the weapons used. The only reason those cities remained at all was because they were slated for the atomic bombs. And make no mistake, the type of weapon used saved American lives on those two days, probably a few hundred in those raids alone. Prior bombing campaigns were conducted with massive numbers of bombers and some were always lost. This was done with just a few B-29s and no American airmen were lost.
Also note that in Japan war manufacturing was located in civilian population centers, much of which was distributed into the residential areas in mom and pop shops with only a few employees mostly to make small components that would feed the major factories. Japan knew full well what it was doing when it set up that way, they were trying to hide war production behind civilians.
Curtis LeMay was man enough to recognise that strategic bombing, that is the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets to break the will of the enemy was a war crime.
That is not what strategic bombing is. That is terror bombing. Strategic bombing is trying to destroy the economy, infrastructure, sources of raw material, and industry used to wage war. Civilian impact is incidental and caused by the intentional placement of war production in civilian areas. I'm not saying there wasn't some terror bombing going on from both sides, but there is a difference.
And he would have ended as a criminal had he not been on the victorious side. History and law is written by the victors always. And many times this skews the moral analysis of the events.
Of course he would have, so would a lot of other allied leaders.
If it has syntax, it isn't user friendly.