Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnbad | Hacker News Reader

Because they didn't learn their lesson from the 20th century that targeting civilians doesn't break resolve but reinvigorates it by making them hate you more.

Civilian targets are easier to hit because it doesn't matter what you're firing at specifically as the goal isn't destruction of specific targets but spreading terror. Hitting a military outpost needs to be much more precise because hitting an open patch nearby will do nothing but hitting a plaza or park will still inflict terror by maiming nearby civilians.

View on HN

I wonder if this was true in Germany or Japan during WW2 when the USA was firebombing cities (later nuking) and thereby mass murdering civilians. Did that strengthen the resolve of the German and Japanese people, or weaken it?

I remember reading something about how it didn't weaken resolve in Japan specifically because people were already prepared to fight until the last man. Presumably Ukranians are also prepared to do the same.

As for this specific attack, I wonder if the goal is to get global companies to fear operating in Ukraine, resulting in the same effects as if they'd been sanctioned.

Not sure about Germany or Japan, but I remember reading that bombing campaign didn't manage to hurt morale in Britain. As for Ukraine - can't speak for everyone - but personally I feel that it's preferable to die fighting than to give up my country and then perish in one of the waves of ethnic cleansing.

Japan being ruled autocratically, their civilian resolve might not have mattered much.

Blockade eliminating fuel imports had them ready to surrender already. The nukes were meant to scare Russia. But Russia already knew all about the nukes. So, in the end the nukes and the other civil firestorms were just war crimes. But the victor is not prosecuted.

> had them ready to surrender already.

Any citation? This is the first time I have heard this claim.

> This is the first time I have heard this claim.

Good, because the claim is false. When the emperor decided to surrender, he faced a coup attempt. This was after two atomic bombs and the Russian invasion of Manchuria ("the twin shocks").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

They were, in fact, out of fuel and unable to operate heavy industry, and faced disaster. That the generals had personal opinions they were empowered to act upon did not change the objective fact that as a nation they could no longer wage war, nukes or no nukes.

The emperor wanted to negotiate a surrender. They ended up with an "unconditional" surrender, but with an under the table promise to allow the emperor to keep his title.

Not true, Sherman proved it can work to great effect. In some cases like London, it strengthened the will of the civilians, in other wars it did not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com