Before we can determine whether it is correct, we first need to determine why Rome destroyed Carthage.

Rome destroyed Carthage because the second Punic War, that is, the war against Hannibal, left a huge mark on the psychology and society of the Romans. With his superb tactics, Hannibal destroyed more than 3 Roman legions in the whole war.

remember, the strength of one legion is 5,, so the strength of 3 legions exceeds 15,! In the Battle of Canny, Hannibal killed nearly 8, Roman soldiers, which made the Romans panic in a short time.

Therefore, a Roman politician named Cato the Elder hoped to completely destroy Carthage, so that it would not try to challenge Rome again. Why did Cato (the elder) have such a view when Carthage had been weakened and had little strength to resist Rome?

Because Carthage was deprived of its Iberian/Spanish territory after the Second Punic War, it had to pay 5 years' war reparations to Rome (which we now call reparations), and it was not allowed to wage war without Rome's permission.

Carthage, although it lost its silver mine in Iberia/Spain, paid Rome's 5-year reparations in less than half the time. This surprised the whole Roman Senate, so Cato thought that the Carthaginians would be able to use their wealth again to rebuild their army and resist Rome again.

Cato's main argument is to attack the Carthaginian dragon when it declines and is weakened. Scipio Africanus, the key figure who won the Second Punic War, opposed the total destruction of Carthage. Scipio believes that Carthage and its resistance are the reasons for Rome's strength; His view is similar to the proverb in the Bible: "Iron grinds iron", and there is no reason to destroy Carthage, because Carthage itself cannot defeat Rome and its countless allies.

Another thing to remember is that old Cato and Scipio Africanus are veterans of the Second Punic War. Cato thinks that the strength of Carthage comes from its wealth, some of which is true, but not complete. Scipio in Africa knows that wealth is not a successful military, especially when most of your military are mercenaries, and they will never be loyal to a country than a member of it.

Unfortunately for Carthage, the Carthaginian Senate thought that since they had paid the war reparations, the treaty of the Second Punic War was invalid. During this period, the Numidians under the rule of Masinisa were invading and attacking the Carthaginian territory. When Carthage opposed the attack and negotiated with Rome, the Romans usually sided with the Numidians.

The Carthaginians therefore formed an army to fight the Numidians, but they were defeated. The Numidians then protested to Rome that the Carthaginians went to war without Rome's permission. In order to meet all the demands of Rome, the Carthaginians handed over more than 3 noble children to Rome and even gave up all their weapons.

When Rome demanded that the city be destroyed, and all the residents had a 4-kilometer coastline, the Carthaginians thought that the Romans intended to destroy them, destroy their trade or them, and decided that it was better to die in battle, and the rest was history:

So the question is as you asked, was it right for Rome to destroy Carthage?

unfortunately, when it comes to these political and military decisions, there are no "right" or "wrong" decisions. Rome had to make a decision. They chose this choice. Although the Carthaginians brought them a lot of trouble, it was better to make Carthage disappear.

In fact, Rome has several options: allow Carthage to remain as an independent dependency, which means being wary that Carthage may resist Roman rule or try to form an alliance with Carthage in the next few years.

The latter is not feasible because it is obvious that Carthaginians have a strong and unique identity like the Romans, not to mention it is difficult to maintain a long-distance alliance. The former may be the best choice, but it requires Rome to exercise military control over Carthage and call itself the protector of Carthage.

This is not feasible, because it is similar to the American troops trying to keep peace in Iraq: Iraqis only think that the American troops are occupiers, and Carthaginians will also think that Roman soldiers are occupiers.