Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

christiefan915 said:
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
Click to expand...

I actually got a little queasy reading that.

I mean, really - if there's a hell. The 1st thing I thought of was Dylan's "Masters of War" (that song is so spot on about guys like this, & the architects of Vietnam & Iraq).
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, there is shock and awe. If THAT isn't terrorism, then what the fuck is your definition? Okay, I do admit that Cheney was talking 'shock and awe' before the launch of a remote (by Maher's definition, pussy) attack on Iraq. But to kill people from afar is not actually scaring them more than it is simply pissing them off.

If North Korea lobbed a missile at us, we would shoot it down before it broke the clouds, but that is because we have the latest technology. Terrorism is the subject of actual fear. We actually don't give a flying fuck about North Korea.

No, there are no rules about new weapons, but there are accords that say that bio-agents are banned, that nukes are can not be used for skirmishes, and that my ex-wife can not be contacted. But I digress.
 
anatta said:
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.
Click to expand...

nobody ever brings up the effects of an invasion on japan. If the US invaded and the japanese resisted like they did in okinawa and iwo jima then so many of them would have died that the nation would have effectively died as well.

Liberals are ok with this for some reason.
 
Rana said:
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.
Click to expand...

liberals always fail to mention that while the common people were in awe of the emperor the military officers had control. In fact it is documented that to even discuss surrender the emperor and his other ministers had to do so in secret for fear of military execution.

People always assume that the Japanese culture is one where they place undue value on the emperor. To some extent this is true but you have to remember that they are also the culture which kept the emperor around as a puppet the longest. At the time of WW2 they werent even 100 years into the Meiji restoration so culturally they were still very open to the idea of a figurehead emperor controlled by the military (a.k.a. shogun)

But go ahead and keep believing that the emperor could have called for surrender if his officers didnt want to.

Im sure you dont consider he could have suffered a vince foster like accident and one of his sons could have taken over if he did :)
 
tsuke said:
nobody ever brings up the effects of an invasion on japan. If the US invaded and the japanese resisted like they did in okinawa and iwo jima then so many of them would have died that the nation would have effectively died as well.

Liberals are ok with this for some reason.
Click to expand...

Leftists must secretly wish for the genocide of the Japanese...
 
mogur said:
Well, there is shock and awe. If THAT isn't terrorism, then what the fuck is your definition? Okay, I do admit that Cheney was talking 'shock and awe' before the launch of a remote (by Maher's definition, pussy) attack on Iraq. But to kill people from afar is not actually scaring them more than it is simply pissing them off.

If North Korea lobbed a missile at us, we would shoot it down before it broke the clouds, but that is because we have the latest technology. Terrorism is the subject of actual fear. We actually don't give a flying fuck about North Korea.

No, there are no rules about new weapons, but there are accords that say that bio-agents are banned, that nukes are can not be used for skirmishes, and that my ex-wife can not be contacted. But I digress.
Click to expand...

Since there has now been an admission that there is no rule that says you have to inform the enemy, when we have a new weapon; what was the point?? :dunno:
 
tsuke said:
nobody ever brings up the effects of an invasion on japan. If the US invaded and the japanese resisted like they did in okinawa and iwo jima then so many of them would have died that the nation would have effectively died as well.

Liberals are ok with this for some reason.
Click to expand...

This is not the first "discussion" on JPP, about Hiroshima, and the idea of the US invading Japan has been part of that.
Unfortunately, the liberals won't accept the facts of what an invasion of Japan would have cost both sides.
The deny that there has been historical evidence that the Japanese civilian population were being trained to do suicide attacks on an invading force, using nothing more then farm implements and sharpened bamboo.
 
Thing1 said:
Pretty straightforward question. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

The word terrorism carries with it certain colluqial connotations. I would only define it as terrorism if you want to call most war terrorism. Which, you could, but then you lose your nuance.

WWII was total war. Most of society in that time was involved in the war effort one way or the other, on all sides. National will and the willingness to fight are perfectly legitimate targets in those circumstances.

Japan started it, we finished it. We gave them the opportunity to unconditionally surrender, they said no. They had a military coop and were so fanatical they even overthrew their god emporer in the final days. They were fanatics, we offered them surrender terms, they turned it down, they made their own bed.
 
Rana said:
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.
Click to expand...

he was in no position to dictate terms. And towards the end of the war there was a military coop against him.
 
liberals are such pussy losers, always needed to wring their hands with guilt. It disgusts me that the gene pool has produced such obvious malformed individuals. They would be the first ones dead in any almost any natural setting where the streets weren't paved with concrete.
 
Century Deceiver said:
liberals are such pussy losers, always needed to wring their hands with guilt. It disgusts me that the gene pool has produced such obvious malformed individuals. They would be the first ones dead in any almost any natural setting where the streets weren't paved with concrete.
Click to expand...

But that's the rub, isn't it? They are paved w/ concrete. We live in a civilized age, where there are rules of engagement.

If you prefer a rule-less world of savagery, that's fine. But call a spade a spade. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was terrorism. Why is that so challenging to just come out & say, without all of this nuance & insult? If you want a savage existence, revel in it. Don't make excuses & try to spin.
 
anatta said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yet just about everybody who was in a position to know considered the dropping of those bombs to be totally unnecessary.

We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz:

Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.

***

Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.

***

The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.
Click to expand...

http://www.zerohedge.com/contribute...on-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan
 
Last edited:
I'm disappointed we accomplished Victory over Japan. Imagine how much better-off today Asia would be with Imperial Japan in charge, running things like a good society that clearly didn't deserve to get nuked.
 
Establishment said:
I'm disappointed we accomplished Victory over Japan. Imagine how much better-off today Asia would be with Imperial Japan in charge, running things like a good society that clearly didn't deserve to get nuked.
Click to expand...

Not sure what this sarcasm is intended for.

The ends justify the means is basically what you're saying, then. You're not making a judgment about whether dropping the bomb was terrorism or not. You're just saying that terrorism was okay in this instance, because it ended a war.
 
Thing1 said:
Not sure what this sarcasm is intended for.

The ends justify the means is basically what you're saying, then. You're not making a judgment about whether dropping the bomb was terrorism or not. You're just saying that terrorism was okay in this instance, because it ended a war.
Click to expand...

Well, in the interest of not being terrorists, we should make it a policy to just let the world burn from now on. No more stepping-in to thwart ethnic cleanings, conquests, and so forth. If China wants Taiwan, and a little payback against Japan, no problem. If North Korea wants to try overrunning South Korea, at least America won't be accused of terrorism by the left.
 
Thing1 said:
But that's the rub, isn't it? They are paved w/ concrete. We live in a civilized age, where there are rules of engagement.

If you prefer a rule-less world of savagery, that's fine. But call a spade a spade. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was terrorism. Why is that so challenging to just come out & say, without all of this nuance & insult? If you want a savage existence, revel in it. Don't make excuses & try to spin.
Click to expand...

on the time scale of humanity's existence our current state is a drop in the bucket. Liberals have a deficiency that would normally be weeded out by natural selection.
 
Thing1 said:
But that's the rub, isn't it? They are paved w/ concrete. We live in a civilized age, where there are rules of engagement.

If you prefer a rule-less world of savagery, that's fine. But call a spade a spade. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was terrorism. Why is that so challenging to just come out & say, without all of this nuance & insult? If you want a savage existence, revel in it. Don't make excuses & try to spin.
Click to expand...

If the atom bomb was terrorism than nearly all war is terrorism. Terrorism doesn't necessarily have to involve innocent victims. So if you want to call terrorism any act of violence to bring about political ends, all war is terrorism, which fine, good for you, you aren't really describing anything meaningful. You are trying to make a point specifically about Hiroshima but if you are so broadly defining terrorism then focusing on just Hiroshima doesn't make a lot of sense, other than merely wanting to circlejerk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top