"Teribus, I think that if the people of Pyongyang had been of European descent, the U.S. would have been far more reluctant to bomb it with such devastation."

You have got to be joking haven't you!!

In January 1951 when these raids took place most of Germany was still a massive bomb site.

In Jack's link a statement is made that before the raid the population was around 500,000 and that after the raid the population that remained in the city was around 50,000. That infers casualties of 450,000 which of course is nonsense - Germany was bombed for at least five years on an almost continual basis by thousands of aircraft and the resulting death toll was ~600,000. Are you really trying to tell me that 82 aircraft killed 450,000 people in three raids? In the newspaper article that you posted Curtis LeMay's figure of 3 million North Koreans dying (20% of the population) is incorrect highest estimate for casualties North and South is 2.5 million with a population in the North of 9.5 million and a population in the South of 25.9 million in 1951.

As to your statement about US reluctance had the targets been in Europe - New York Times, 22nd October, 1981:

Mr. Reagan was questioned about these European concerns. He was asked if he thought there could be a limited exchange of nuclear weapons in Europe or whether it would inevitably grow into a war directly involving the United States and the Soviet Union.

''I don't honestly know,'' Mr. Reagan said. He added that with each side having equal forces, ''I could see where you could have the exchange of tactical weapons against troops in the field without it bringing either one of the major powers to pushing the button.''

See any sign of reluctance there Joe? I can't, and throughout the time I served in the armed forces during the Cold War it was taken as read that IF Soviet or Warsaw Pact forces deployed and used their Chemical or Bacteriological weapons NATO's response would be tactical nuclear attacks on Soviet formations and the Soviets were made aware of that in no uncertain terms.

By the way Kevin I asked you how you could achieve what you suggested in time of war, I see by your response that you haven't got the foggiest notion, your suggestion is nothing more than meaningless waffle that in time of war would result in your troops dying.

Three quotes from Curtis Lemay:

1: "We're at war with ....... We were attacked by ........... Do you want to kill the ........, or would you rather have Americans killed?"

2: "Apply whatever force it is necessary to employ, to stop things quickly. The main thing is stop it. The quicker you stop it, the more lives you save."

3: "it's more immoral to use less force than necessary, than it is to use more. if you use less force, you kill off more of humanity in the long run, because you are merely protracting the struggle."