Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

Thing1 said:
What is "my definition"?

Again, the gist is that Hiroshima specifically targeted civilians. I don't know why you keep trying to equate that to bombings of military targets that resulted in civilian casualties.

It's weird.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously claiming the Allies didn't target cities they knew civilians were in? Also, you're being untruthful about targeting civilians, unless you're just too dumb to know that Hiroshima was targeted because of its military value. If we wanted only civilians we would have chosen another city.
 
I brought up My Lai, and Mott brought up Sherman's march in the beginning of the thread.

We weren't able to win the Vietnam war w/ conventional means. If we knew 100% we could have won w/ the strategy we used at My Lai, should we have continued to prosecute the war in that fashion?
 
Seahawk said:
Are you seriously claiming the Allies didn't target cities they knew civilians were in? Also, you're being untruthful about targeting civilians, unless you're just too dumb to know that Hiroshima was targeted because of its military value. If we wanted only civilians we would have chosen another city.
Click to expand...

No - I think there were a lot of unwarranted bombings in WWII. I also think there were a lot of times where they were going after military targets, and there were inadvertant civilian casualties.

Stop moving the goalposts. You're trying to play the "gotcha" game, which is boring.
 
Thing1 said:
No - I think there were a lot of unwarranted bombings in WWII. I also think there were a lot of times where they were going after military targets, and there were inadvertant civilian casualties.

Stop moving the goalposts. You're trying to play the "gotcha" game, which is boring.
Click to expand...

How am I moving the goal posts? You're the one moving the post by now claiming those bombings were simply unwarranted vs. terrorism. And Hiroshima was a military target. Stop whining because you can't prove your opinion and can't cite a single source to back it up.
 
Thing1 said:
Who cares what the reasons where? You're drawing meaningless distinctions.

We're either a country that targets civilians, or not. We're either a country that tortures, or not. We're either a country that uses chemical weapons and WMD's, or not.

It's not - we don't use WMD's, except when....
Click to expand...

Do you ever criticize social conservatives for making everything black and white?
 
Thing1 said:
And you can't answer my question. Like I said - read the links that christie posted. If you think we bombed Hiroshima for military targets, I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

Nothing, because you're ignorant. Were there other more populous cities in Japan?

I don't believe the citizens were specifically targeted. The military base was, tragically, the bomb destroyed much more and it ended the war, likely saving hundreds if not millions of lives.
 
Seahawk said:
How am I moving the goal posts? You're the one moving the post by now claiming those bombings were simply unwarranted vs. terrorism. And Hiroshima was a military target. Stop whining because you can't prove your opinion and can't cite a single source to back it up.
Click to expand...

Seriously, if you're going to continue to bury your head in the sand about why we targeted Hiroshima, there is no point in continuing to discuss this.
 
christiefan915 said:
They were so cold-blooded and they absolutely meant to take out citizens. If there's a hell I hope these people are front and center in it.

"...aircrews should “endeavor to place … [the] gadget in [the] center of selected city.” They were quite explicit about this: The plane should target the heart of a major city. One reason was that the aircraft had to release the bomb from a great height—some 30,000 feet—to escape the shock wave and avoid the radioactive cloud; that limited the target to large urban areas easily visible from the air. Captain William “Deak” Parsons, associate director of Los Alamos’s Ordnance Division, gave another reason to drop the bomb on a city center: “The human and material destruction would be obvious.”
Click to expand...

It doesn't get too much plainer than this.
 
Previous heavy bombing raids had always spared the first atomic targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata and Kyoto.

These centers had been left virtually free of heavy bombing for just this purpose, so the effect of atomic destruction could be seen on "virgin targets".

There is no other reason why military-industrial cities like Kokura, Hiroshima and Niigata were ignored.

US demands for Japanese unconditional surrender were always unrealistic – and deliberately so. This intentionally prolonged the war for the sole purpose of testing the atomic bomb on real cities. These attacks killed thousands, as did delaying the peace.

This also allowed Stalin to take Manchuria, and Soviet triumph there inadvertently helped Chairman Mao to seize China, a move that later killed millions. This inevitably led to the Korean War.

It is difficult to think of a less desirable set of consequences.




http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/phil-strongman-hiroshima-is-a-war-crime-that-haunts-my-family-67-years-on-8008821.html
 
I apologize for asking this if it has already been answered and discussed. I haven't gone through every post in this thread. For my understanding what would have been the appropriate way for the U.S. to fight Japan and not use terrorism?
 
cawacko said:
I apologize for asking this if it has already been answered and discussed. I haven't gone through every post in this thread. For my understanding what would have been the appropriate way for the U.S. to fight Japan and not use terrorism?
Click to expand...

There has been some discussion on this thread. For years, the feeling was that the only alternative would have been a prolonged and much more destructive land invasion of Japan.

But there is pretty intense debate about that today. Others have said that the Japanese were close to surrendering anyway because of the effects of the blockades & conventional bombing of military targets.

It's hard to know what to trust. The victors tend to write the textbooks.
 
Thing1 said:
There has been some discussion on this thread. For years, the feeling was that the only alternative would have been a prolonged and much more destructive land invasion of Japan.

But there is pretty intense debate about that today. Others have said that the Japanese were close to surrendering anyway because of the effects of the blockades & conventional bombing of military targets.

It's hard to know what to trust. The victors tend to write the textbooks.
Click to expand...

I'm probably not thinking through everything here but it seems knowing that answer would be an important part of the equation here. I guess I see it as one thing to say we shouldn't have used nukes as a stand alone argument vs. we shouldn't have used nukes because we didn't need to and here is why.

I don't write that to start a 'fight' but as if I was sitting at a bar with a buddy having a beer and having this conversation.
 
Thing1 said:
Sometimes. Are you really suggesting that there is grey area in using torture or chemical weapons, or targeting civilians?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm really suggesting that. It's ironic; your logic is identical to extreme pro-lifers who advocate that abortion is always murder; ergo, it should be made illegal even in the case of incest or rape.

You only substitute nukes and torture for abortion.
 
cawacko said:
I'm probably not thinking through everything here but it seems knowing that answer would be an important part of the equation here. I guess I see it as one thing to say we shouldn't have used nukes as a stand alone argument vs. we shouldn't have used nukes because we didn't need to and here is why.

I don't write that to start a 'fight' but as if I was sitting at a bar with a buddy having a beer and having this conversation.
Click to expand...

Yeah - and that's what it comes down to, really. Do we have that standard as a country, or not? Because if there are circumstances where people think it's okay, then we really don't have that standard.

I'm against specifically targeting civilians, 100%. It's not something I have a compromising mindset on, or a "well, except for these circumstances" qualification.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Yes, I'm really suggesting that. It's ironic; your logic is identical to extreme pro-lifers who advocate that abortion is always murder; ergo, it should be made illegal even in the case of incest or rape.

You only substitute nukes and torture for abortion.
Click to expand...

With all due, that just isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top