Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

[Mott the Hoople]

Now it has to be a nation? It can't merely be political aims?

I guess we can keep moving the goalposts for awhile. Whatever makes everyone feel better about deliberately targeting civilians.

No one is moving goal posts. No one is saying that either war or terrorism isn't horrible, cruel, inhumane and most often unwarranted and illegitimate. The only distinction between the two is that terrorism is committed by groups of people with a political agenda and war is committed by nation States and their government.

 

[Darth Omar]

You know that you're playing the part of an excellent after the fact armchair General, so why don't you explain what you FEEL should have happened to end a war that had dragged on for around 6 years and had already resulted in a lost of an estimated 48 MILLION people (approximately 21 million civilians and 27 million military personnel).

That's a good question. It's one thing to sit out on the deck and engage in a bit of moral preening with your coffee and smart phone; and quite another to face the prospect of sending your sons or nephews off to die in the South Pacific or Japan or wherever. They called it a 'world war' for a reason.

No doubt, people just wanted to end the damn thing. It's unfortunate what happened at Hiroshima. But so was Pearl Harbor. Japan could have prevented Hiroshima by not attacking us in the first place.

It's kind of a bunny trail, supposing Japan didn't strike first it's possible the US would have stayed out of it and Europe would fallen to the Reich. Funny how things work out.

These little second-guessing ventures are interesting but it's all academic.

 

[tsuke]

That's a good question. It's one thing to sit out on the deck and engage in a bit of moral preening with your coffee and smart phone; and quite another to face the prospect of sending your sons or nephews off to die in the South Pacific or Japan or wherever. They called it a 'world war' for a reason.

No doubt, people just wanted to end the damn thing. It's unfortunate what happened at Hiroshima. But so was Pearl Harbor. Japan could have prevented Hiroshima by not attacking us in the first place.

It's kind of a bunny trail, supposing Japan didn't strike first it's possible the US would have stayed out of it and Europe would fallen to the Reich. Funny how things work out.

These little second-guessing ventures are interesting but it's all academic.

this is actually the reason why this is happening now. The generation that fought or sent their loved ones to fight are mostly dead or in retirement homes. If this was argued 20-30 years ago the people who actually experienced it would have stood up and said liberals were insane.

You have to wait till history becomes history to everyone instead of a memory to a few before you begin to rewrite it.

 

[moon]

So you would have been more in favor of the US invading and our troops shooting at waves of children and old people who were charging them in suicide waves?

Moronic troll.

 

[moon]

So a country that goes to war, to defend itself, is committing an illegal act?

Limited wars of self-defence are not illegal- but such ' self-defense ' must not constitute aggression in itself. That means that ' pre-emptive ' strikes are off the table, Polly. That will knock you off your perch, no doubt.

 

[Darth Omar]

Limited wars of self-defence are not illegal- but such ' self-defense ' must not constitute aggression in itself. That means that ' pre-emptive ' strikes are off the table, Polly. That will knock you off your perch, no doubt.

So, that means a country has to wait until it is attacked, even though the attack is imminent? Isn't that a recipe to get wiped off the map if the other country has nukes?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That's a good question. It's one thing to sit out on the deck and engage in a bit of moral preening with your coffee and smart phone; and quite another to face the prospect of sending your sons or nephews off to die in the South Pacific or Japan or wherever. They called it a 'world war' for a reason.

No doubt, people just wanted to end the damn thing. It's unfortunate what happened at Hiroshima. But so was Pearl Harbor. Japan could have prevented Hiroshima by not attacking us in the first place.

It's kind of a bunny trail, supposing Japan didn't strike first it's possible the US would have stayed out of it and Europe would fallen to the Reich. Funny how things work out.

These little second-guessing ventures are interesting but it's all academic.

after the horrors of the bombings of Japan and the near complete destruction of their military and civilian infrastructure and virtually all of their cities further horrors, including the atomic bombs, could have been avoided if they would have simply agreed to surrender yet they continued to fight desperately for a year when it was clear they would lose the war.

Let us not forget that they did surrender days after the bombs were dropped.

Let us not forget the legacy of WWII and the atomic bombs. Though we still have wars the death and destruction, relative to the total human population, due to war are at historically low levels that world has ever seen. The notion of total war is simply to horrible to contemplate given moder technology and its pursuit would probably spell the end of human civilization, if bot our species.

 

[moon]

So, that means a country has to wait until it is attacked, even though the attack is imminent? Isn't that a recipe to get wiped off the map if the other country has nukes?

You won't have to worry about it, will you, if either the US or the Russians detect an incoming.
Otherwise your assumption is correct, yes. It is illegal to initaite war- and that includes aggression under the guise of pre-emption.

 

[Darth Omar]

You won't have to worry about it, will you, if either the US or the Russians detect an incoming.
Otherwise your assumption is correct, yes. It is illegal to initaite war- and that includes aggression under the guise of pre-emption.

So, countries who lack nuke detection capabilities are kind of screwed lol? They're going to say screw that, if they're half way rational, anyway.

Which makes the legalities rather pointless.

 

[Legion Troll]

Deliberately targeting population centers filled with civilians is what Osama did. Nice to know that Hack Hussein thinks that's OK.

 

[Damocles]

the japanese people were prepaired to fight with sharpened sticks to the dead


everyman woman and child

Have you ever wondered how many Japanese would have died had we not dropped nuclear bombs? The argument is often how many American lives were saved... but I think that we probably saved a couple million Japanese people. Had we had to invade Japan there would have been far more civilian casualties. Warfare at the time had bombs dropping in the middle of cities...

 

[Legion Troll]

We had to destroy the village in order to save it....

 

[Damocles]

We had to destroy the village in order to save it....

Really there were three options. To invade, to give up, or to see if we could get a quicker surrender... Giving up really wasn't an option, so now we're left with two. The question is which was the better option? Which way saved the most lives? Did we pick the right one? I really don't know but we know that the Japanese were prepared to continue that war for much longer...

Do I think that it was an "act of terror"? No. I think it was warfare, and an introduction of a new technology. Generally the technology of war goes in the direction of killing more people quicker.

Realizing the numbers of deaths, both civilian and military, in more conventional warfare during that time period pretty much tells me that many lives were saved by the choice the US made. It seems contradictory, but in reality many lives, both Japanese and American, were saved.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Again - the discussion has veered from the original question.

Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was an act of terror. It was meant to inspire terror.

All I'm hearing from anyone is that terrorism is okay, as long as it brings about the desired end result. Actually, all I'm hearing from anyone is that ANYTHING is okay, as long as the results are achieved.

The arguments that are being set forth here for dropping the bomb could be used for anything: any chemical weapon or WMD; torture; abandoning all Geneva convention protocols; deliberately targeting civilians; even mass rape campaigns, which some cultures use in warfare. There is no discussion on here about the actual means; just the results.

And if we accept those things, how again is America different from those we criticize and condemn? What exactly do we stand for the world?

 

[Darth Omar]

Deliberately targeting population centers filled with civilians is what Osama did. Nice to know that Hack Hussein thinks that's OK.

Since we're apparently no better than the Taliban according to your reasoning, why don't you go ahead and move to Afghanistan?

And don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, lol.

 

[Darth Omar]

Again - the discussion has veered from the original question.

Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was an act of terror. It was meant to inspire terror.

All I'm hearing from anyone is that terrorism is okay, as long as it brings about the desired end result. Actually, all I'm hearing from anyone is that ANYTHING is okay, as long as the results are achieved.

The arguments that are being set forth here for dropping the bomb could be used for anything: any chemical weapon or WMD; torture; abandoning all Geneva convention protocols; deliberately targeting civilians; even mass rape campaigns, which some cultures use in warfare. There is no discussion on here about the actual means; just the results.

And if we accept those things, how again is America different from those we criticize and condemn? What exactly do we stand for the world?

As mentioned previously, we helped rebuild Japan after we bombed them. And not only them but parts of Europe as well. Is there any other country on the face of the planet that does that?

And if not, isn't that 'American Exceptionalism'? Or should this country just be defined by Hiroshima and leave it at that?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

As mentioned previously, we helped rebuild Japan after we bombed them. And not only them but parts of Europe as well. Is there any other country on the face of the planet that does that?

And if not, isn't that 'American Exceptionalism'? Or should this country just be defined by Hiroshima and leave it at that?

I don't think we should be defined by Hiroshima. I'm talking about what we're willing to accept.

You tell me: If you grow up in Japan, and watch Americans vaporize women & children in 2 of your cities...how do you feel about them when they're helping you rebuild? Are they then the good guys for doing so? Are you grateful for the exceptionalism they're displaying?

 

[Damocles]

Again - the discussion has veered from the original question.

Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was an act of terror. It was meant to inspire terror.

All I'm hearing from anyone is that terrorism is okay, as long as it brings about the desired end result. Actually, all I'm hearing from anyone is that ANYTHING is okay, as long as the results are achieved.

The arguments that are being set forth here for dropping the bomb could be used for anything: any chemical weapon or WMD; torture; abandoning all Geneva convention protocols; deliberately targeting civilians; even mass rape campaigns, which some cultures use in warfare. There is no discussion on here about the actual means; just the results.

And if we accept those things, how again is America different from those we criticize and condemn? What exactly do we stand for the world?

Almost all of what you are talking about were in the treaties signed in 1949. Are you saying that double jeopardy should apply because you want to define that act as "terror"?

I answered the OP question in the previous post.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Almost all of what you are talking about were in the treaties signed in 1949. Are you saying that double jeopardy should apply because you want to define that act as "terror"?

I answered the OP question in the previous post.

Not double jeopardy - just a standard as a nation. And nothing in my post said anything about abandoning those conventions at the time. My point was that if the ends justify the means, why would we hesitate to abandon them today, if the results could be achieved? That's all anyone is arguing.

And I thought your answer about "new technology" and "killing more people quicker" was kind of lame. We targeted civilians intentionally. We weren't using something that could kill more enemy soldiers more quickly. We were using something that killed civilians, and was designed to kill civilians.

 

[Darth Omar]

I don't think we should be defined by Hiroshima. I'm talking about what we're willing to accept.

You tell me: If you grow up in Japan, and watch Americans vaporize women & children in 2 of your cities...how do you feel about them when they're helping you rebuild? Are they then the good guys for doing so? Are you grateful for the exceptionalism they're displaying?

If had grown up there I would have been living under an Emporer dictatorship, and as a male, he'd likely get me killed in one of his hair-brained military ventures. They gave us the kamikazes, right? So let's keep that in mind.

That makes the question a lot more complicated. Since it's a purely academic exercise, allow me to introduce a time machine lol. So Japanese Darth travels ahead in time 30-40 years and sees a Japan that is way better off than it was during WWII or in the decades prior.

I would judge Hiroshima as a very dark time, but one the Japanese rulers very much played a roll in. And in retrospect, I wouldn't change anything.