Is it justifiable in war to target civilian populations because they may be providing some type of support for the army of their country or to simply make them desire an end to war that will influence the government?

I think there are plenty good examples of this in WWII the bombing of Britain, the bombing of Dresden, the bombing of Tokyo, and the use of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are all notable.

Is this always justifiable? Sometimes? Should we avoid it even if our enemy is using the same tactic?

No. That would then be genocide. You fight the oppositions military only. The bitch of it is with this modern war, that we're not at war with a actual sovereign nation.

KILL THEM ALL.

Kill everybody! I hate people!

I'm starting to think more and more like that everyday...it's depressing.

I just hate everyone. I am currently trying to kill everyone. Want to help me kill everyone? I got lots of death. I support firearms, first of all.
I hate gays. I hate different races.

Death to all infidels!

I don't think it's really as clear cut as your making it seem.

Is a factory that is producing weapons or vehicles being used to kill the people fighting for you a valid military target?

Tactics such as these can lead to a quicker end to the war. Which, will save the lives of those fighting in the war and those that could be drafted into military service had the war continued, as well as unintentional civilian deaths stretched over a longer period.

There are plenty situations were these should simply be frowned upon, but I think that this tactic can be used to positive effect. For example as horrible as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were I think that they were better than drawing the war out and having a land based invasion.

Well..first you'd have to think that war is a reasonable option. Which, I'd have to disagree. I see no value or point in needless destruction. And those weapons factories are usually military controlled, so I'm not sure if the workers in there are all actually civilians. But...what was a solider before he enlisted?

I do think that we are far too quick to rush to war. I think that war can be justified if you are either fighting to defend yourself, defend your allies, or to end an act such as genocide. Now of course if everybody followed these then we would have pretty much no problem because we wouldn't have the aggressors to start a justified war.

I don't know how it happens in most countries, but I know that in the US that factories that belonged to various companies were refitted for military purposes and there were plenty of civilians working in them during WWII.

In my opinion, if you sign up to make war heads, you know what you're getting into. So I'd still consider that an extension of the military. Lockheed Martin employs a lot of people, but it doesn't make what they do right.

Nothing is as clear cut as that however, like you said. Didn't the nazi's force the Jew's to work in their factories?

I think once you are committed to war you do what you have to do. The person who said war is Hell knew what he was talking about. We have just become to comfortable with war, or ideas of surgical strikes with lots of precision, where all goes as planned.I have never served in the military, but I am not aware of many successful war endeavors that escaped using this tactic , even bridges and other parts of infrastructure are targets.It is true that we should never utilize a a strategy to randomly and heartlessly kill people. Here in my hometown an Iraqi girl was flown to Shriners hospital by a charity to fit her with prosthetic legs, results of an air strike , and her brother died from the same strike . But in spite of these awful facts , once you engage you have already made a commitment to be ruthless. Just make sure you win so that the Nuremberg trial will pursue the others who lost and not you.Hiroshima and Nagasaki is difficult to fully understand, no doubt many innocents from all walks of life died. I have a son and an aging mother as well and it would be hard to be philosophical if they were wiped out in a similar fashion.But I have read estimates, that a ground invasion would have resulted in 350,000 Japanese casualties , and 120,000 American casualties in the first 90 days.A few other points Truman had to juggle.*"Yalta Conference (Feb. 1945), Stalin says Russia will help invade Japan with the Americans if given certain Japanese controlled islands and other concessions. Stalin expects some role in the occupation of Japan. By this time, Russia already occupied most of Eastern Europe and is within 50 miles of Berlin."*"From June to beginning of August 1945, the six members of Japan's ruling council are split (3 yes; 3 no) on whether to give unconditional surrender to Allies. Even after the Hiroshima bomb is dropped (Aug. 6), they are still split 3 to 3; 3 still insist must have Emperor's sovereignty after war. On Aug. 9, Emperor insists to council, Japan must surrender. (Also Aug. 9 - Nagasaki bomb dropped.) On Aug. 14, Emperor announces to Japan that they will surrender on Allies terms."In review I think it would be hard to blame Truman for his choice , a good argument could be made that less people died with the closure of the war.Unfortunate for the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who didn't get to vote on this choice , but our drafted soldiers didn't either.Note: the calculations I used came from a university webpage. *Two Paragraphs with quotes and * were copied and pasted from the same source , including the following notes of interest:Hamburg (Germany) Fire-bombing - (July 1943) - 60,000 to 100,000 killed. * Dresden (Germany) Fire-bombing - (Feb. 1945) - 75,000 to 175,000 killed * Tokyo Fire-bombing - (March 9, 1945) - 16 square miles destroyed, 200,000 killed. * Hiroshima - A-bomb - (Aug. 6, 1945) - 4 square miles destroyed 70,000 killed immediately.Sorry for the long post , I will try to be more concise in the future.*