[sangnoir]

Added additional context to your question:

> Say as an armed soldier, you're about to be shipped out to run up a hill and killed by Japanese machine guns.

> Wouldn't you prefer Truman use a super weapon on civilians to end the war ?

I know WWII blurred the lines on what counts a legitimate target (military installations, civilian-manned factories, entire towns like the firebombing of Dresden). As a soldier, would you be able to justify indiscriminate targeting of unarmed civilians? I suspect some Americans lack empathy on that part because the US homeland has never had a hot war in a very long time to the extent that is not imaginable.

[ksou32]

Most of the men in WW 2 were drafted.

In that case I see no difference between a solder and a civilian. Truman's duty is to American boys who are dying in a war Japan started. He's wasn't the president of Japan

You also have to factor in with any negotiation Japan may of argued they still owned Korea, as they'd had since 1910

In the Battle of the Bulge children were drafted,they magically become disposable war machines.

[sangnoir]

> In that case I see no difference between a solder and a civilian.

Surely even when you're drafted, being trained and armed sets you apart from civilians? This WWII vet[1] is of the opinion that even unarmed soldiers (AKA ejected pilots who no longer have access to arms) are not legitimate targets, let alone civilians.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8LVlYJ5eJU

[nihonde]

Truman's duty was to humanity, not "American boys".

[ksou32]

Keep in mind millions of people are dying in Asia due to Japanese occupation during this time.

Shouldn't those lives count as well.

Ether way Truman was president of AMERICA, not the greater good