Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

Cypress said:
The rape of Nanking and the brutal Japanese occupation of China happened in the 1930s, well before the outbreak of WW 2. And even though Americans had reports of what was going on in occupied China and Korea, we were totally isolationist and committed to staying out of direct participation in the war. In the 1930s there was not the slighest hint Americans wanted to wage war on Japan because of the atrocities of the Imperial Japanese Army and the Kwangtung Army.

Therefore, it is disingenuous to point to Japanese atrocities in East Asia as a justification for incinerating two of their cities.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that we embargoed our oil sales in response to the genocide that Japan was committing, and that embargo lead to the attack on Pearl Harbor.


Cypress said:
I am on record that the nuclear attacks may have been the least bad option, given the strategic goals of the war.

I also have direct knowledge of life under the Japanese occupation of Manchuria. My grandparents, father, aunt had their house confiscated by the Japanese Army and bore witness to the occupation of Harbin. So I have some skin in the game.

Even so, that does not prevent me from reflecting on what happened to civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By any conventional use of the word, those attacks were terrorist in nature...they were immoral and were intended to terrorize Japanese. Even if they may have been strategically warranted
Click to expand...
Terrorists target civilians.

The A-bombs were dropped on military targets.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed to an extent; the extent is that when American lives are dying needlessly for years to come or end the war this week, I'll choose "this week".
Click to expand...

So, we're no different from anyone else. A principle is a principle.

I think the most troubling thing is that you had "no problem" with dropping the bomb. I can understand thinking it was the correct action - but to not be troubled by it?
 
BartenderElite said:
That's trolling to the extreme.

Used to respect you as a poster, Dutch. What lameness.
Click to expand...

Dude, you're just proving your youth by whining about this. The fact remains you condemn the US without saying a single cross word about Japan and their atrocities; the very people our nation was fighting to stop.

Another fact is that you are proving too young and/or immature to understand the Trolley Problem previously posted. It was brutal war that had cost each nation dearly. It would be negligent to let it continue one day longer if a solution was known to stop it.

What, in your opinion, is the difference between killing 100,000 people with firebombing and killing 100,000 with an atomic bomb. This is total deaths; radiation, concussion, everything. Is it worth killing 100,000 to save a million?
 
BartenderElite said:
So, we're no different from anyone else. A principle is a principle.

I think the most troubling thing is that you had "no problem" with dropping the bomb. I can understand thinking it was the correct action - but to not be troubled by it?
Click to expand...

You mean no different than any mature, intelligent adult who understands the difference between 100,000 dead and 1,000,000 dead? Yes, I'm not different.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Dude, you're just proving your youth by whining about this. The fact remains you condemn the US without saying a single cross word about Japan and their atrocities; the very people our nation was fighting to stop.

Another fact is that you are proving too young and/or immature to understand the Trolley Problem previously posted. It was brutal war that had cost each nation dearly. It would be negligent to let it continue one day longer if a solution was known to stop it.

What, in your opinion, is the difference between killing 100,000 people with firebombing and killing 100,000 with an atomic bomb. This is total deaths; radiation, concussion, everything. Is it worth killing 100,000 to save a million?
Click to expand...

You're equating Japanese civilians w/ what their military & leadership did and condoned. I read the "Rape of Nanking." Absolutely horrific. But I don't lump innocent Japanese civilians in w/ what they did.

You seem incapable of discerning the difference.

I have principles. Never target civilians. I'll never waiver on that.
 
BartenderElite said:
You're equating Japanese civilians w/ what their military & leadership did and condoned. I read the "Rape of Nanking." Absolutely horrific. But I don't lump innocent Japanese civilians in w/ what they did.

You seem incapable of discerning the difference.

I have principles. Never target civilians. I'll never waiver on that.
Click to expand...

Japan would have gotten to that, eventually.

Think that prospect might have factored in?
 
BartenderElite said:
You're equating Japanese civilians w/ what their military & leadership did and condoned. I read the "Rape of Nanking." Absolutely horrific. But I don't lump innocent Japanese civilians in w/ what they did.

You seem incapable of discerning the difference.

I have principles. Never target civilians. I'll never waiver on that.
Click to expand...

So, you are willing to kill a million on a principle. The principle of never risk harming a civilian. Awesome. Thankfully, wiser minds prevailed.
 
Anvil Kasseri said:
Keep in mind that we embargoed our oil sales in response to the genocide that Japan was committing, and that embargo lead to the attack on Pearl Harbor.



Terrorists target civilians.

The A-bombs were dropped on military targets.
Click to expand...
We were not willing to risk open war to prevent the atrocities being committed by the Japanese Army in Korea, Manchuria, China, which had been going on since the early 1930s.

So you do not actually get to point to atrocities in East Asia as justification for vaporizing two Japanese cities.


Legal word games amount to a distinction without a difference. The entire point of vaporizing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to terrorize and traumatize the people of Japan. Period. End of story.

That makes it both terrorism and immoral.

Many immoral things happen in war.

It may be that the nuclear attacks were the least bad option to achieve our strategic war objectives. Maybe it was a strategic decision which prevented a larger conflagration. That does not prevent us from recognizing the immorality and inhumanity of vaporizing two cities.
 
Cypress said:
We were not willing to risk open war to prevent the atrocities being committed by the Japanese Army in Korea, Manchuria, China, which had been going on since the early 1930s.

So you do not actually get to point to atrocities in East Asia as justification for vaporizing two Japanese cities.

Legal word games amount to a distinction without a difference. The entire point of vaporizing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to terrorize and traumatize the people of Japan. Period. End of story.

That makes it both terrorism and immoral.

Many immoral things happen in war.

It may be that the nuclear attacks were the least bad option to achieve our strategic war objectives. Maybe it was a strategic decision which prevented a larger conflagration. That does not prevent us from recognizing the immorality and inhumanity of vaporizing two cities.
Click to expand...

FDR, you know, the Democrat, was willing to stop the genocide but most Americans were isolationist and content to hide behind the wall of two great oceans...until Pearl Harbor proved the Pacific ocean wasn't big enough.

Isolationism is where the Libertarian party and I part ways. We agree the US isn't and shouldn't be the world's policeman, but there is a lot of space between isolationism and being a Global Cop.

It's not just the humanity of stopping a genocide, it's also a matter of surviving "the end game". Where were the Empire of Japan and the Third Reich going with all this? Where would things eventually end up? If the outlook was bad, then it's smart to get involved in stopping it while there were enough people to do it.

Pastor Martin Niemöller, a concentration camp survivor, said it best IMO:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.​
 
Dutch Uncle said:
What about hijacking an airplane and committing mass murder by slamming it into innocent people? Do you justify that over ending WWII?
Click to expand...

That's some dumbass divergence. Still- bin Laden certainly didn't think that the targets were ' innocent people '. The targets were, we are told- the World Trade Center, the White House and the fucking Pentagon.

..................none of which has any remote connection to the mass murder of Japanese civilians by American madmen.
 
moon said:
That's some dumbass divergence. Still- bin Laden certainly didn't think that the targets were ' innocent people '. The targets were, we are told- the World Trade Center, the White House and the fucking Pentagon.

..................none of which has any remote connection to the mass murder of Japanese civilians by American madmen.
Click to expand...

Translation: What's wrong with slamming a capitalist pig airplane into a tower full of Jew-loving American pigs?

Your defense is both noted and expected.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
FDR, you know, the Democrat, was willing to stop the genocide but most Americans were isolationist and content to hide behind the wall of two great oceans...until Pearl Harbor proved the Pacific ocean wasn't big enough.

Isolationism is where the Libertarian party and I part ways. We agree the US isn't and shouldn't be the world's policeman, but there is a lot of space between isolationism and being a Global Cop.

It's not just the humanity of stopping a genocide, it's also a matter of surviving "the end game". Where were the Empire of Japan and the Third Reich going with all this? Where would things eventually end up? If the outlook was bad, then it's smart to get involved in stopping it while there were enough people to do it.

Pastor Martin Niemöller, a concentration camp survivor, said it best IMO:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.​
Click to expand...

The leadership of FDR and Truman in those years speak for themselves.

We are living in the world which owes its legacy to FDR and the alliance against the Axis powers.

There should be a moral dimension to U.S. foreign policy: to stand for human rights and democratic principles. I align with Jimmy Carter in this respect.

My position on the bomb is quite simple:

The nuclear attacks on cities was utterly immoral, but there is a plausible case that it was nonetheless strategically warranted.

One can always quibble the details (aka, a demonstration explosion in an unpopulated area of Japan, more warnings to civilians)
 
Cypress said:
The leadership of FDR and Truman in those years speak for themselves.

We are living in the world which owes its legacy to FDR and the alliance against the Axis powers.

There should be a moral dimension to U.S. foreign policy" to stand for human rights and democratic principles.

My position on the bomb is quite simple:

The nuclear attacks on cities was utterly immoral, but there is a plausible case that it was strategically warranted.

One can always quibble the details (aka, a demonstration explosion in an unpopulated area of Japan, more warnings to civilians)
Click to expand...

Agreed on the leadership, disagreed that it was immoral. No more immoral than the war itself.

You seem to be agreeing that sometimes war is necessary. It would be completely irresponsible to go to war without the intent of winning it. To go to war and not do everything to both be victorious and humane in doing so. Dropping the atomic bomb wasn't a flippant decision. It was a struggle but I think the right decision was made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top