Originally posted by Viper61
I have read the prince and it's not about true leadership and politics. . . it's a resume. If you want a job, you tell your interviewer just what they want to hear. If you are a sadistic, unethical, the "ends justifies the means" person and the person in power "thinks" he/she needs that kind of person to have control, guess what's going to happen? Whatever that person writes is going to sound like the word of God (almost used that c-word everyone seems to like on the board).
By the way, both the A-bomb and the T-bomb were very neccesary evils. Yes I did say evil.
Yes and no. Primarily, the second atomic bomb (the plutonium "Fat Man") was dropped on Nagasaki because the Japanese did not immediately agree to surrender terms. Several members of the Japanese War Department urged the Emperor to continue fighting, even after the first bomb was dropped, and Truman wanted to make it clear that they had no other option -- surrender unconditionally, or be utterly destroyed.Originally posted by Battler Hawke
on the A-bomb the second was a message to Stalin that we can make more.
I ansver no, morally it is never right to make war crimes to win the war.
Originally posted by Skyfire
Non realism might have made the rule disappear, but that didn't take rules from war entirely. I'm only using that as an example.
As for the Thirty Years War, the same could be said for nearly every ancient (or at least older) war, as most countries didn't take into count the ideal of preserving the peasantry. While it is true that they would raid to rape/pillage, etc. it is also true that most battlefields were carefully selected, and moved, to have battles at. Except for raids/seiges, battles were placed away from civilians so as not to endanger them. (Whether this was for commerce reasons, or simply to have people to rule, that's another story.) It wasn't until the Napoleonic/American Civil War age that people really began seeing the populace as a valuable asset to harm the military.