Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

[CFM]

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

Why do you insist on continuing to be a dumbass? It proves there are people that are too stupid to be educated.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Again - all you're saying is that in the case of Hiroshima, terrorism was acceptable, because it brought about a desirable result.

You're not saying anything about the act itself. Which was terrorism.

Which is why I am saying, leave nothing to doubt. Be above reproach from the idiot left, and avoid military engagement altogether.

 

[Phantasmal]

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.

I hope you are a victim of your own type of attitude towards others. It would be fitting.

 

[cancel2 2022]

I hope you are a victim of your own type of attitude towards others. It would be fitting.

I told you ages ago that he's a sociopath, that's why he loves Trollop so much!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Pretty straightforward question. Thoughts?

No it was not terrorism. It was an outright act of war.

Terrorism is an act of violence designed to influence or gain a political objective.

War is an act of violence designed to make another nation submit to your nations sovereignty.

 

[Darth Omar]

Again - all you're saying is that in the case of Hiroshima, terrorism was acceptable, because it brought about a desirable result.

You're not saying anything about the act itself. Which was terrorism.

And that result was the end of WWII.

If you're trying to draw a moral equivalence between that, and Islamic terrorism forget about it. Islamic terrorists kill innocents for thoroughly immoral objectives.

If you want to bark up that tree, all wars are acts of 'terrorism' since innocents are nearly always killed in them. Such thinking leads to extreme pacifism, and extreme pacifism just gets people killed.

Terrorism is such a broad term it's too easy to do mischief with...like what you're doing lol.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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

Define many? I'm reasonably sure that the vast majority of US Military were simply glad the war was over and the mission accomplished regardless.

As for the decision to drop the bomb...I knew people that fought against the Japanese in WWII and were stationed in Okinawa, Tawain and the Philippines, training for the Japnese invasion. They knew that Japan was in shambles but bitter ecperience had taught them that the Japanese would continue to fight even when it was apparent that to do so meant their utter destruction. The US had no way to know that the Japanese would surrender with certainty and keep in mind that the low level fire bombing of Japan killed far, far more civilians than the atomic bombs did.

That being the case these type of revisionist discussion made with 20:20 hindsight are silly.

The truth is without certain knowledge of an imminent surrender, by the Japanese, the soldiers who had fought in Iwo Jima and Okinawa knew their odds of surviving the war was low and had accepted that invading the Japanese mainland would probably mean viscous house to house urban fighting with a remote chance of survival.

That being the case, and this being total war, these arguments are, again, silly.

 

[cawacko]

No it was not terrorism. It was an outright act of war.

Terrorism is an act of violence designed to influence or gain a political objective.

War is an act of violence designed to make another nation submit to your nations sovereignty.

Well said.

All the bombings of London and the German cities would have to be described as acts of terrorism as well then right? And we were fire bombing Tokoyo before dropping the bomb which would be acts of terrorism as well.

 

[moon]

No it was not terrorism. It was an outright act of war.

Terrorism is an act of violence designed to influence or gain a political objective.

War is an act of violence designed to make another nation submit to your nations sovereignty.

Your view seems lodged in an age of chivalry. The slaughter of civilians is terrorism, plain and simple, whether the terrorists have uniforms, an air force or are state sponsored or not.

 

[Darth Omar]

Your view seems lodged in an age of chivalry. The slaughter of civilians is terrorism, plain and simple, whether the terrorists have uniforms, an air force or are state sponsored or not.

And your view is lodged in The Age of Aquarius lol.

You just, cannot, have a war without civilian casualties. It's hopeless. At best, you minimize it and this country gets an A+ in that category, over the long haul. In fact, one can argue that we do it to a fault in the present age.

How many wars have the rules of engagement cost us? We could have gone in and massacred ISIS any time we wanted to. But the country lacks the political will with regards to our casualties as well innocent Iraqis and Syrians.

And ISIS fully aware of our political situation with regard to us making war on them.

 

[Phantasmal]

And your view is lodged in The Age of Aquarius lol.

You just, cannot, have a war without civilian casualties. It's hopeless. At best, you minimize it and this country gets an A+ in that category, over the long haul. In fact, one can argue that we do it to a fault in the present age.

How many wars have the rules of engagement cost us? We could have gone in and massacred ISIS any time we wanted to. But the country lacks the political will with regards to our casualties as well innocent Iraqis and Syrians.

And ISIS fully aware of our political situation with regard to us making war on them.

When you target civilians to specifically target civilians, it is terrorism.

 

[moon]

And your view is lodged in The Age of Aquarius lol.

You just, cannot, have a war without civilian casualties. It's hopeless. At best, you minimize it and this country gets an A+ in that category, over the long haul. In fact, one can argue that we do it to a fault in the present age.

How many wars have the rules of engagement cost us? We could have gone in and massacred ISIS any time we wanted to. But the country lacks the political will with regards to our casualties as well innocent Iraqis and Syrians.

And ISIS fully aware of our political situation with regard to us making war on them.

You seem to have forgotten- or were never aware- that is was precisely the wanton slaughter of civilians which spawned resistance to occupation- and ultimately to ISIS- in the first place. Your methodology leads to an endless cycle of violence. Mankind is better than that.

 

[Phantasmal]

Define many? I'm reasonably sure that the vast majority of US Military were simply glad the war was over and the mission accomplished regardless.

As for the decision to drop the bomb...I knew people that fought against the Japanese in WWII and were stationed in Okinawa, Tawain and the Philippines, training for the Japnese invasion. They knew that Japan was in shambles but bitter ecperience had taught them that the Japanese would continue to fight even when it was apparent that to do so meant their utter destruction. The US had no way to know that the Japanese would surrender with certainty and keep in mind that the low level fire bombing of Japan killed far, far more civilians than the atomic bombs did.

That being the case these type of revisionist discussion made with 20:20 hindsight are silly.

The truth is without certain knowledge of an imminent surrender, by the Japanese, the soldiers who had fought in Iwo Jima and Okinawa knew their odds of surviving the war was low and had accepted that invading the Japanese mainland would probably mean viscous house to house urban fighting with a remote chance of survival.

That being the case, and this being total war, these arguments are, again, silly.

It is not silly, it is how we learn from our mistakes. What would we be like as a society if we didn't discuss our past actions.

 

[Teflon Don]

This is the correct answer.

We deliberately targeted civilians in a war. Of course it was terrorism.

That is how you end and prevent war. Make more people pay a price

 

[Legion Troll]

Islamic terrorists kill innocents for thoroughly immoral objectives.

I wonder if the Brits said that about the Minutemen, lol?

 

[Teflon Don]

It is not silly, it is how we learn from our mistakes. What would we be like as a society if we didn't discuss our past actions.

But it wasn't a mistake to drop the bomb. This is why liberal women shouldn't be in positions of power. They lack the judgement

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

Except we didn't know this. People who make these kinds of arguments, without an understanding of how Japan prosecuted the war, are guilty of 20:20 hindsight.

This was war and total war at that. You don't prosecute a war on what actions are justifiable. In total war the only justification for any action is that which will win the war with the least casualties for your side.

Does this lead to horrific, inhumane and utterly ruthless decision being made? Absolutely it does and this should stand as a completely shocking reminder of the horrors of war.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Define many? I'm reasonably sure that the vast majority of US Military were simply glad the war was over and the mission accomplished regardless.

As for the decision to drop the bomb...I knew people that fought against the Japanese in WWII and were stationed in Okinawa, Tawain and the Philippines, training for the Japnese invasion. They knew that Japan was in shambles but bitter ecperience had taught them that the Japanese would continue to fight even when it was apparent that to do so meant their utter destruction. The US had no way to know that the Japanese would surrender with certainty and keep in mind that the low level fire bombing of Japan killed far, far more civilians than the atomic bombs did.

That being the case these type of revisionist discussion made with 20:20 hindsight are silly.

The truth is without certain knowledge of an imminent surrender, by the Japanese, the soldiers who had fought in Iwo Jima and Okinawa knew their odds of surviving the war was low and had accepted that invading the Japanese mainland would probably mean viscous house to house urban fighting with a remote chance of survival.

That being the case, and this being total war, these arguments are, again, silly.

I am referring to the top brass of course, if you read this excellent article from the Mises Institute it is all explained. Eisenhower, Churchill, Leahy, Marshall and many other were in total opposition to the use of those weapons. If they were targetting military installations then why was the Hiroshima bomb dropped in the centre of the city rather than where they were located on the periphery?

Great controversy has always surrounded the bombings. One thing Truman insisted on from the start was that the decision to use the bombs, and the responsibility it entailed, was his. Over the years, he gave different, and contradictory, grounds for his decision. Sometimes he implied that he had acted simply out of revenge. To a clergyman who criticized him, Truman responded testily,
.

Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.2
.
Such reasoning will not impress anyone who fails to see how the brutality of the Japanese military could justify deadly retaliation against innocent men, women, and children. Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."3
.
​

This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the US Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.

On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the US Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city — and escaped serious damage."4 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn't like the idea of killing "all those kids."5 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people … all those kids.

Moreover, the notion that Hiroshima was a major military or industrial center is implausible on the face of it. The city had remained untouched through years of devastating air attacks on the Japanese home islands, and never figured in Bomber Command's list of the 33 primary targets.6

Thus, the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency — that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that had been needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost.7 The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll — nearly twice the total of US dead in all theaters in the Second World War — is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb "spared millions of American lives."8

"The rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication — that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives."

Still, Truman's multiple deceptions and self-deceptions are understandable, considering the horror he unleashed. It is equally understandable that the US occupation authorities censored reports from the shattered cities and did not permit films and photographs of the thousands of corpses and the frightfully mutilated survivors to reach the public.9 Otherwise, Americans — and the rest of the world — might have drawn disturbing comparisons to scenes then coming to light from the Nazi concentration camps.

The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur.10 The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman's own chief of staff, was typical:
.

the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. … My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.11
.
The political elite implicated in the atomic bombings feared a backlash that would aid and abet the rebirth of horrid prewar "isolationism." Apologias were rushed into print, lest public disgust at the sickening war crime result in erosion of enthusiasm for the globalist project.12 No need to worry. A sea change had taken place in the attitudes of the American people. Then and ever after, all surveys have shown that the great majority supported Truman, believing that the bombs were required to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American lives, or, more likely, not really caring one way or the other.
.
​

Those who may still be troubled by such a grisly exercise in cost-benefit analysis — innocent Japanese lives balanced against the lives of Allied servicemen — might reflect on the judgment of the Catholic philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe, who insisted on the supremacy of moral rules.13 When, in June 1956, Truman was awarded an honorary degree by her university, Oxford, Anscombe protested.14 Truman was a war criminal, she contended, for what is the difference between the US government massacring civilians from the air, as at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Nazis wiping out the inhabitants of some Czech or Polish village?

https://mises.org/library/harry-truman-and-atomic-bomb

 

[moon]

But it wasn't a mistake to drop the bomb. This is why liberal women shouldn't be in positions of power. They lack the judgement

The promotion of bombing is despairingly dumb- to all sensible folk, women included.

 

[CFM]

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.

And? Are we supposed to tell the enemy what we are using in WAR?