MK262--
IMO, it is interesting that your tone is so markedly different when you write about the killing of civilians during the Second World War compared to your objections to inflicting civilian casualties today. By my reading, the crux of your argument is that it was okay to vaporize Japanese nationals and to incinerate Germans during the 1940s because of 'technological' limitations. As an example, you state:However, by 1945, the United States had the most powerful navy in human history while the Soviet Union had the world's greatest army. Are you suggesting that there was no application of the two that might have served as a viable alternative to using nuclear weapons?
Not that I could see. Can you suggest some alternatives with the technological limitations that existed at the time? Perhaps, set up a Navy blockade and siege of the cities and starve them into surrender? Not sure that would have been effective or doable at the time.
My point here is that then, as today, it was people, not machines, who made choices. If you're going to apply moral judgments now, why not also do so for historical figures?
I give historical figures more of a pass because they had less alternatives at their disposal.
Furthermore, I put more blame on the Germans and Japanese because they had a formal leadership that was responsible for their actions and for ensuring the safety of their people. No formal leadership exists in Islam to dictate and exert command authority over the Islamic world as a whole; to make the whole Islamic world responsible for the actions of a few seems totally unjust under such circumstances. The national command authorities of Germany and Japan had the will and legitimacy (well, in theory) to act on behalf of their people. Al-Queda and like groups can act on the behalf of no one but themselves.
Two other points. First, I think you are in error in your discussion of "MAD".IMO, this statement is debatable. It suggests that counter-force and counter value targets are mutually exclusive categories. What about the Alameda NAS? Do you think anyone in the navy believed the Soviets were not willing to vaporize Oakland in the hope of catching VP-9 off guard? As for the Soviets, given that they designated Moscow as one of the two areas defended by anti-ballistic missiles under SALT I, it clear they understood that a counter-force target (i.e. the Kremlin) could also be a counter value target.
Can you name such a target in the Muslim world that serves both as a counter-force and counter value target? If not, your point is somewhat moot in our context, at least in my opinion.
Second, your dating the start of "modern warfare" to "during the Cold War" stretches the "modern war" debate among military historians beyond recognition. Consequently, I must ask: In your view, what is "modern" war?
I had written out an answer to this part but my web session timed out. I lost it and will have to type it up again later. 