printStephen W. Browne’s letter is BAB’s Letter of the Week. Stephen is an academic, an English teacher, a writer, and an advocate for liberty. He writes:
This question your column raises is not abstract to me, nor can I “ revel in the joys of killing non-combatants. I visited Belgrade shortly after the bombing of that charming city, and while I was flabbergasted by the precision of the bombing, I found out that one stray had killed two little girls in a family close to me.
The question: Disturbing analyses of World War II seem to show that bombing of cities was militarily ineffective and probably did nothing to shorten the war (see Freeman Dyson’s memoirs of working in bomb damage assessment). But, does anyone want to win a war with their cities in rubble and the enemy’s intact? If one does, what prevents the enemy from being encouraged to gear up for another try later?
This is not a rhetorical question, I don’t know the answer. When I was young, I had all the answers to ethical dilemmas, now all I seem to have are disturbing questions. I miss those answers