Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

Nordberg said:
Nope. The behind the scenes deal was already nearly finished. Japan was done, as Ike and Leahy said. But what do they know compared to you? We could have leveled those cities like we did the others and not used nukes. We owned the skies. We firebombed many. many cities and in some cities, killed more than the Abomb could have. It was a show of strength and a scientific experiment. They spent over a trillion dollars making those 2 bombs and were not going to skip seeing what they could do.
I know you want to believe that stuff, but it just isn't true. It is what the victor says when it is over. They write the history. That is why we say we did not torture, but we did. We say we did not gun down unarmed citizens and children, but we did.
Click to expand...

christiefan915 said:
Is there a question in this? My response was about Israel, not Hiroshima. The comment was "I think he is anti Zionist, as am I and pro Palestinian people, as am I. There is a big difference" and my response was "me, too."
Click to expand...

No, I posted to the wrong thread and removed it.
 
moon said:
You're an established liar already.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. Everything that I've said is true.

Hiroshima was a huge military port with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers awaiting deployment to resist our invasion of Kyushu.

Hiroshima was also the military headquarters responsible for repelling our invasion of Kyushu.

Kokura Arsenal was a huge (4100 feet by 2000 feet) weapons manufacturing complex.


moon said:
Move on.
Click to expand...
I prefer to stay and make sure the truth has a voice.
 
moon said:
That's what all established liars say.
Click to expand...
The truth isn't a lie, no matter how inconvenient you find it.

Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focusing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)

Kokura Arsenal - This is one of the largest arsenals in Japan and is surrounded by urban industrial structures. The arsenal is important for light ordnance, anti-aircraft and beach head defense materials. The dimensions of the arsenal are 4100' x 2000'. The dimensions are such that if the bomb were properly placed full advantage could be taken of the higher pressures immediately underneath the bomb for destroying the more solid structures and at the same time considerable blast damage could be done to more feeble structures further away. (Classified as an A Target)

Niigata - This is a port of embarkation on the N.W. coast of Honshu. Its importance is increasing as other ports are damaged. Machine tool industries are located there and it is a potential center for industrial dispersion. It has oil refineries and storage. (Classified as a B Target)

http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html


moon said:
Thank you. I'll make sure that it's loud and frequent.
Click to expand...
So far all you have done is try to undermine the truth.


moon said:
The nukes were butchery, used to terrorize. No other description is accurate.
Click to expand...
Terrorists target civilians. The A-bomb targets were military ports and heavy war industry.
 
The nukes were butchery, used to terrorize. No other description is accurate.
Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. It will never be forgiven.
 
moon said:
Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed.
Click to expand...

Do you have an estimate of how many people would have been killed, on both sides, if the US had gone ahead and invaded Japan "conventionally"? That was the original plan.

The only alternative would have been a total blockade of Japan until they capitulated. How many years and how many lives for that? Hell, it could still be going on.

It was an incredibly difficult question but Truman made the right decision. He also made the right decision later when he refused to use nukes in Korea.
 
moon said:
The nukes were butchery, used to terrorize. No other description is accurate.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. Terrorists target civilians. The A-bombs were dropped on military targets.


moon said:
Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed.
Click to expand...
Tens of thousands of enemy soldiers were killed. The military headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion was destroyed. Large weapon factories were smashed.


moon said:
It will never be forgiven.
Click to expand...
Are you under some kind of illusion that there is anything here that requires forgiveness?

America is proud of the A-bombings. All those enemy soldiers and war factories wiped out in an instant. What would we need to be forgiven for?
 
“We burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo — men, women and children,” Mr. McNamara recalled; some 900,000 Japanese civilians died in all. “LeMay said, ‘If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.’ And I think he’s right. He — and I’d say I — were behaving as war criminals.”

“What makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?” he asked. He found the question impossible to answer.
 
moon said:
How many did the bombs kill, immediately and afterwards ?

How many fried children have you seen ?
Click to expand...

The seemingly insoluble solution is achieved by understanding that morality, correctness and practicality are not the same.
Deciding to save 100,000 of your own from the consequence of the immoral decision of your enemy to kill them by killing 100,001 of your enemy is a practical decision and the right decision if it works.
But it is also an immoral decision. Killing people on purpose, even one, is immoral. Everyone who kills on purpose is immoral in that instant. Now let's get past that
and decide which is correct.
 
Micawber said:
The seemingly insoluble solution is achieved by understanding that morality, correctness and practicality are not the same.
Deciding to save 100,000 of your own from the consequence of the immoral decision of your enemy to kill them by killing 100,001 of your enemy is a practical decision and the right decision if it works.
But it is also an immoral decision. Killing people on purpose, even one, is immoral. Everyone who kills on purpose is immoral in that instant. Now let's get past that
and decide which is correct.
Click to expand...

So pro abortion people are immoral. Is this something new to you?
 
Micawber said:
The seemingly insoluble solution is achieved by understanding that morality, correctness and practicality are not the same.
Deciding to save 100,000 of your own from the consequence of the immoral decision of your enemy to kill them by killing 100,001 of your enemy is a practical decision and the right decision if it works.
But it is also an immoral decision. Killing people on purpose, even one, is immoral. Everyone who kills on purpose is immoral in that instant. Now let's get past that
and decide which is correct.
Click to expand...
Why is killing people on purpose immoral? Would it be moral or immoral of me to shoot a man preparing to ax a baby?

IMO, the morality is determined partially by the innocence or guilt of the person being killed. In short, yes, it's okay for me to shoot the ax murderer but wrong for me to shoot the baby.

What if I shoot the baby by accident instead of the murderer? Moral or immoral? Still moral IMO since the scenario still justifies the attempt to save an innocent from harm.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Why is killing people on purpose immoral? Would it be moral or immoral of me to shoot a man preparing to ax a baby?

IMO, the morality is determined partially by the innocence or guilt of the person being killed. In short, yes, it's okay for me to shoot the ax murderer but wrong for me to shoot the baby.

What if I shoot the baby by accident instead of the murderer? Moral or immoral? Still moral IMO since the scenario still justifies the attempt to save an innocent from harm.
Click to expand...


Were Japanese civilians guilty, or innocent?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Why is killing people on purpose immoral? Would it be moral or immoral of me to shoot a man preparing to ax a baby?

IMO, the morality is determined partially by the innocence or guilt of the person being killed. In short, yes, it's okay for me to shoot the ax murderer but wrong for me to shoot the baby.
Click to expand...

Semantic. You've made the correct and practical decision but not a moral one. You could subdue the axe dude. Killing people is immoral. You disagree. I accept that.
In your hypo I simply label your decision as "correct" assuming no alternative not involving killing exists. If you wish to make it even more extreme I will simply persist in my
position involving semantic distinction. It's a thou shalt not kill sort of thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top