Acceptable Acts of War

In the act of war, the general assumption is that forces are dispatched to fight other forces of similar or equal skill; but, in some cases, that is not so. Durinf World War II, Hitler engaged in bombings, raids, and blitzkrieg (lightning war) on civilian areas, including major cities, in order to impose his will and instill fear among the population, in order to crush any resistance in his way. In the case of the Battle of London, Hitler was hoping to knock Great Britain out of the war, for Fr4ance was already gone, and then he would have access to almost all of Europe. The question of whether this tactic is justified or not, is a contraversial matter. If there was to be an attack on a civilian area, then it should be with the least amount of casualties, but have the largest impact in order to crush all morale and resistance. Hitler, or his approach to it, wan not justified in this mannor. He tried to bomb major cities for two months, with no avail. If her was to succeedc at his goal, he should've targeted places of more worth, such as landmarks and high morale locations, instead of the cities themselves. We utilized a similar strategy as Hitler when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the atomis bomb; we targeted those cities, but we made a big enough impact that we forced the surrender of Japan, with the threat that we would continue if they would not back down. But if, theoretically, there was ever a need to attack any non-combatant habitations, one would want to have the least amount of casualties, coupled with the largest impact, in order to attain the intended effects.