The question is a minefield of debate.
Its a very easy thing to write it off as 'collateral damage' when your own military force goes on an intentional killing spree. If you do otherwise, you'll most likely be the next bit of collateral damage. Are you
going to prosecute an armed dangerous soldier, and put him in prison for life?
The end of world war II after the atom bombs, is an ideal example.
The individuals who make up armies most often originate from over-populated cities.
One would have to have very little choice in life, to voluntarily risk one's life to kill people on the other side of the world who you have never met.
War itself is terrorism, and yet, once the war has started, and if the only way to end it is with an atom bomb, well then that is what has to be done.
But its the way wars escalate
- before the atom bomb phase - where the choices made are most vital. Surely, Pearl harbour was a greater act of terrorism than Hiroshema? Its not just a matter of body count, but the context of the terrorism which must be accounted for. Even though I admittedly see this from a Western perspective, I have yet to hear even the vaguest justification for Pearl harbour, or for the Nazi invasion of Poland.
When you examine the Axis strategy during ww2, well, there was nothing vaguely viable about their war. They had no chance of winning. How could Japan possibly think it could defeat the US?
Did Germany really think that English speaking countries, like the US would side with it? No chance.
They say that ww1 started because of the assassination of one person. I don't buy that.
I think that war (aka terrorism) can be better understood by the K-factor.
When there are too many people in a limited space, they go crazy and start killing. They need 'lebensraum'.
So, much to the horror of the feminiists, the real terrorism is a lack of family planning more than anything else. The real terrorism is the bearing of children in poverty. Its the children of prostitutes who spark the k-factor. Its polygamy, and sexual predators. Its also believing that this can be prevented by dishing out condoms. If people do not have the sense to realise the sex brings children, and excess people destroy society, they will not have sense to actually use the condom effectively, if at all. If a birth control device is 98% effective, that just means a 3-month delay between children. Virtually worthless.
Sterilization? Enforced on unwilling overbreeders? How terrible!
no easy answers for this great question.