Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

[Anvil Kasseri]

“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.

It's hard to see what law they would have violated.

I'm also pretty skeptical of the claim that our bombing raids killed 900,000 civilians.

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.

Morality is subjective. Justified killing is not immoral by my standards.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

Truman kept some cities from being fire bombed. Why? He and the military wanted to see what the bombs would do to a pristine city.

He and the military wanted Japan to see what the A-bombs could do to a pristine city.

It was a test and an experiment.

The test and experiment took place back in New Mexico.

It was going to happen no matter what.

Japan could have prevented it from happening by surrendering. They did in fact prevent the third A-bomb from being dropped when they offered to surrender.

As Ike said, the war was over. As Leahy said, the war was over . As many military leaders said, the war was over.

In reality, the war was not over. Japan had not yet offered to surrender.

The fact that we left some towns alone and saved then for experimentation, was revealing.

We saved them for the A-bombs so that Japan could be shocked into surrendering.

The bombs were going to be dropped no matter what.

Japan could have prevented it from happening by surrendering. They did in fact prevent the third A-bomb from being dropped when they offered to surrender.

If those cities were really military and needed to be razed, we could have done that.

We did do that. The A-bombs were quite effective.

We levelled many of them, often causing more deaths than an Abomb.

Not all that often. Tokyo probably had more fatalities than Nagasaki. But the second A-bomb was kind of a botched mission.

It was going to happen.

Japan could have prevented it from happening by surrendering. They did in fact prevent the third A-bomb from being dropped when they offered to surrender.

 

[ExpressLane]

Somewhere in the range of 150,000 to 200,000 people.



I'm not. I'm merely denying your untrue accusations.



My facts are all in order.



Perhaps. But such people are deeply confused about facts and reality.

The A-bombs were dropped on military targets. That is neither terrorism nor mass murder.



There were plenty of soldiers killed at Hiroshima. And one of the most important military headquarters in Japan was destroyed.

The intended target of the second A-bomb was Kokura Arsenal. Obviously quite a few bad decisions were made in that mission that resulted in a less than ideal outcome. But Kokura Arsenal was definitely a military target.

Nagasaki was a big manufacturer of Warships and munitions. And all men between 15-60 and women 17-45 were in the militia and were trained on weapons and on how to kill. These militia members would have killed American if we had invaded Japan.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

That's how you morally justify incinerating thousands of civilians?
Interesting.

The justification for dropping A-bombs on military targets was that it would possibly scare Japan's government into surrendering, and it would pave the way for invasion if they kept refusing to surrender.

I guess no one sees the slippery slope that so many of these borderline justifications can lead to.
Really, civilians are fair game anytime, w/ the logic being put forth here.
Is that what kind of nation we want America to be?

Civilians were not targeted. The A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

Nagasaki was a big manufacturer of Warships and munitions. And all men between 15-60 and women 17-45 were in the militia and were trained on weapons and on how to kill.

Yes, but the city was too long and thin to effectively demonstrate the power of the A-bombs. Some of the bomb's power was wasted on empty countryside. Plus the city is divided by a ridge that helps shield one part of the city from an explosion over the other part. The Targeting Committee protested the late orders to include Nagasaki on the target list, but they were overruled. Flattening Kokura Arsenal would have been a much more dramatic example of the power of the A-bombs.

Unfortunately we conducted a large conventional raid at Yawata just a few miles upwind of Kokura Arsenal the day before the second A-bomb mission, and the smoke from this raid prevented our bomber from getting a visual fix on Kokura Arsenal.

Additionally, Bockscar had a bad fuel pump that prevented the plane from using a lot of its fuel (but it still had to carry the weight of this fuel). Instead of taking the time to fix the pump or change to a different plane, we decided to launch the mission with a crippled plane. This gave the crew very little time to linger over Japan before running out of fuel.

Had we not made these two errors, it is likely that Kokura Arsenal would have been flattened, and the results of the second A-bomb would have been much more dramatic and shocking to the Japanese government.

Another error was not reserving Yokohama for the A-bombs. In addition to its industrial area being much more geometrically suited for a circular blast area, as it is a suburb of Tokyo the mushroom cloud would have been visible from the Imperial Palace. Yokohama should have been the alternate and not Nagasaki.

 

[moon]

Yes, but the city was too long and thin to effectively demonstrate the power of the A-bombs. Some of the bomb's power was wasted on empty countryside.

' Wasted ' was it ? You're clearly an insane degenerate attempting to defend the indefensible.


It was an act of terrorism and mass murder.
The perpetrators will never be forgiven.

 

[cancel2 2022]

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.

Let's not forget the documentation, where old men, women and children were being trained to attack the invading forces using farm tools and sharpened bamboo, in suicide attacks.

.

 

[cancel2 2022]

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.

The justification for dropping A-bombs on military targets was that it would possibly scare Japan's government into surrendering, and it would pave the way for invasion if they kept refusing to surrender. Oh and you can stop bullshitting about Alperovitz as well!!

Civilians were not targeted. The A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

You keep repeating the same old bullshit, Ike was present at Potsdam and made his feelings known to both Stimson and Truman!! Same goes with attempting to rubbish Alperovitz!

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/08/john-v-denson/the-hiroshima-myth-3/

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

' Wasted ' was it ?

Yes. One of the goals was to overwhelm Japan's government with the threat of the A-bombs. That required showing them the effects of the A-bombs' massive power.

You're clearly an insane degenerate attempting to defend the indefensible.

Wartime strikes on military targets are perfectly defensible.

It was an act of terrorism and mass murder.

That is incorrect. They were strikes against military targets, and therefore were neither terrorism nor murder.

The perpetrators will never be forgiven.

They did nothing that requires forgiveness.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

You keep repeating the same old bullshit,

Sorry, but no. Facts and reality are not BS.

Ike was present at Potsdam and made his feelings known to both Stimson and Truman!!

That is incorrect. Ike told only Stimson.

Even if Ike had managed to be convincing (and he was far from convincing) he would have been too late to stop the A-bombs anyway.

Ike expressed his views only after Stimson had already sent the final orders to drop the bombs out to the military and departed the Potsdam Conference.

Stimson did not meet with Truman again until after Hiroshima was bombed. And it's safe to assume that he didn't bother to pass along Ike's views even then.

Truman never heard any sort of opposition from any person whatsoever before the A-bombs were used.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/08/john-v-denson/the-hiroshima-myth-3/

Gar Alperovitz is a known fraud who is infamous for his many falsehoods.

If he says something, it can reasonably be assumed that the exact opposite is true.

Same goes with attempting to rubbish Alperovitz!

It is reasonable to discount the lies of frauds like Gar Alperowitz. Facts and reality are far more preferable.

 

[cancel2 2022]

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.

Sorry, but no. Facts and reality are not BS.



That is incorrect. Ike told only Stimson.

Even if Ike had managed to be convincing (and he was far from convincing) he would have been too late to stop the A-bombs anyway.

Ike expressed his views only after Stimson had already sent the final orders to drop the bombs out to the military and departed the Potsdam Conference.

Stimson did not meet with Truman again until after Hiroshima was bombed. And it's safe to assume that he didn't bother to pass along Ike's views even then.

Truman never heard any sort of opposition from any person whatsoever before the A-bombs were used.



Gar Alperovitz is a known fraud who is infamous for his many falsehoods.

If he says something, it can reasonably be assumed that the exact opposite is true.



It is reasonable to discount the lies of frauds like Gar Alperowitz. Facts and reality are far more preferable.

You just pluck shit out of your arse without anything to substantiate it.

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

As I understand it, the Japanese were already prepared for surrender negotiations, and all these civilians were killed as a warning demonstration to the USSR.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

You just pluck shit out of your arse without anything to substantiate it.

Charming, but no. What I do is post verifiable facts that are backed up by history and historians.

If you'd like a good thorough debunking of Gar Alperovitz and his many lies, I recommend the book "Weapons for Victory: The Hiroshima Decision Fifty Years Later" by Robert James Maddox.

Since it's no longer 50 years later I believe the reprints are now merely titled "Weapons for Victory: The Hiroshima Decision".

It looks like Mr. Maddox was interviewed here:
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/55076

Based on the interview, it appears that his book "The Myths of Revisionism: Hiroshima in History" might also be good for discrediting Gar Alperovitz.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

As I understand it, the Japanese were already prepared for surrender negotiations, and all these civilians were killed as a warning demonstration to the USSR.

At the time that the A-bombs were dropped, Japan had not presented any surrender offers to the US.

The purpose of dropping the A-bombs was to force Japan to surrender.

Additionally, the A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

 

[Micawber]

As I understand it, the Japanese were already prepared for surrender negotiations, and all these civilians were killed as a warning demonstration to the USSR.

We were taught otherwise. That Hiro Hito ordered his flock to die to the last man fighting, that his people believed we would torture and rape them if they surrendered, and so forth.

 

[Micawber]

the A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

Dubious at best. Call entire cities military targets if you wish...

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

At the time that the A-bombs were dropped, Japan had not presented any surrender offers to the US.

The purpose of dropping the A-bombs was to force Japan to surrender.

Additionally, the A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

No - they were prepared for discussions, and the threat would almost certainly have done. There seem to have been an awful lot of people on these military bases! The purpose, looking back, is pretty obvious.

 

[Micawber]

The pentagon is a military target, bomb it with a hydrogen bomb and you've committed a war crime.

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

We were taught otherwise. That Hiro Hito ordered his flock to die to the last man fighting, that his people believed we would torture and rape them if they surrendered, and so forth.

Weren't we all? You should have heard about the wonders of the British Empah! (I used to burn the flag on Empire Day while it was still observed, just to show how well-educated I was!). There is plenty of evidence of Japanese readiness to negotiate, so I understand. I read a great many books and take very few notes, which is a nuisance when one's memory has got bored with its work!

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

Dubious at best. Call entire cities military targets if you wish...

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 in charge of repelling our invasion of Kyushu.

The second A-bomb was intended for Kokura Arsenal, a massive (4100 feet by 2000 feet) arms production complex. Things went wrong with that raid, but the A-bomb still took out the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works and the Mitsubishi Torpedo Works.

The pentagon is a military target, bomb it with a hydrogen bomb and you've committed a war crime.

That's unlikely. Which law of war would be violated?

Someone doing such a thing would have committed an act of nuclear war against the United States military however.

The response would be swift and not to their liking. And it probably wouldn't involve war crimes tribunals.