Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Pretty straightforward question. Thoughts?
Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?
- Thread starter Cancel 2020.1
- Start date
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I think that many in the US military were pissed off that Germany capitulated before they were able to deploy nuclear weapons. A case could be made for deploying a uranium bomb on Hiroshima, but Nagasaki was basically a field test for a plutonium bomb. On a side-note, I have a souvenir from the 40's of Trinitite from the first atomic test.
http://www.unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=2_11
http://www.unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=2_11
Last edited:
Are you for real? I mean you must be way out there. Blame the Emperor. He so loved being Emperor that three days after Hiroshima, he still refused to surrender and spare the Nagasaki the devastation it deserved. Even after Nagasaki, the Emperor still balked at surrendering.
Did you ever meet a survivor of the Japanese 2nd Imperial Army?
No, and neither did anyone else, since they were all killed during the bombing of Hiroshima.
And how is it morally different than the fire-bombing of Tokyo?
The US killed more people in the fire-bombing of Tokyo than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. So if the US fire-bombs Hiroshima and kills 100,000 troops and civilian collaborators, that's okay?
Was the rape of Nanking terrorism? Did the Japanese ever apologize for the atrocities they committed during the war?
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
No
Yes, Japan was never informed that the US had a new weapon when the warned Japan of total destruction.
The Emporer was planning to surrender, he only asked for immunity for the royal family and that they have the right to rule to maintain the rule of law in Japan.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The truth is that the US had actually run out of viable military targets, those bombs were intended for Germany. General Grover et al were incredibly pissed off about that. Read American Prometheus: Triumph and Tragedy of Robert Oppenheimer, it's all there!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/American-P...43&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=ameriacan+prometheus
They were not informed ? Seriously ?
And surrender means you do not keep your job. There is punishment to pay for that crime.
They were lucky to be warned.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The US wanted to warn the Russians to not attack Japan and they needed to test the effects on humans.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Most def it was. I'm just going to link an article here, rather than quote all the reasons why it was terrorism.
The Bureaucrats Who Singled Out Hiroshima for Destruction
How committee meetings, memos, and largely arbitrary decisions ushered in the nuclear age
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
What a dolt
cancel2 2022
Canceled
[h=2]The third bomb[/h]The question often arises: did the United States have a third bomb ready to drop on Japan, following the Little Boy uranium device that destroyed Hiroshima on August 6 and the Fat Man plutonimium bomb that destroyed Nagasaki three days later?
http://www.warbirdforum.com/third.htm
http://www.warbirdforum.com/third.htm
Target Committee , Russian delays ( which I have serious doubts) notwithstanding the war had to end. On US/allied terms.
Given that bottom line fact what was the best way to do it from an allied point of view?
Something that wouldn't cost American lives ( the Americans were going to do the invasions - not Brits, not Russians),
and would be effective in surrendering Japanese society ( bushido) as well as the Japanese military,
as quickly as possible were the criteria.
The bomb accomplished all these goals. War is hell.
Given that bottom line fact what was the best way to do it from an allied point of view?
Something that wouldn't cost American lives ( the Americans were going to do the invasions - not Brits, not Russians),
and would be effective in surrendering Japanese society ( bushido) as well as the Japanese military,
as quickly as possible were the criteria.
The bomb accomplished all these goals. War is hell.
And we were terrorists when Britain tried to fight a 'proper' war with us. But we decided that wearing blue uniforms and standing in line didn't get us very far. So we wore normal clothing and ambushed the British whenever we could. It worked. But it certainly would be called 'terrorism' by anyone with more than three brain cells. Didn't matter to us. We won.
Now, consider the Japanese war effort. It was do or die. We wanted to demoralize them. Killing them softly didn't work. Slaughtering them wholesale did work. It WAS war. But it was also terrorism. Whether it was justified doesn't affect the fact that it was terrorism.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Where in any rules anywhere does it say that one Government has to inform a Government that they're at war with, that they have a new weapon??
This is definitely a new spin on this.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
This is the correct answer.
We deliberately targeted civilians in a war. Of course it was terrorism.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
If you don't think Hiroshima was terrorism, you don't know what the word terrorism means. It was exactly that - designed to cause terror. It doesn't matter what the ultimate goal was.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
So, because the Japanese 2nd Imperial Army was killed too, it was okay?
Because others target civilians, it's okay for America? Bin Laden did that, too. How are we different from him if we do the exact same thing? How is his action terrorism, but ours isn't?
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
What about Dresden?
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Same basic concept - though in that case, they "said" that they weren't deliberately targeting civilians.
To me, that's what America should stand for in the world - we don't purposefully target civilians, ever, period. It doesn't seem like a controversial concept that would warrant debate anymore in this country, particularly when we find terrorism so abhorrent.
When you target civilians, you are no different from a terrorist. If someone can explain the difference, I'd love to hear it.