Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

Century Deceiver said:
If the atom bomb was terrorism than nearly all war is terrorism. Terrorism doesn't necessarily have to involve innocent victims. So if you want to call terrorism any act of violence to bring about political ends, all war is terrorism, which fine, good for you, you aren't really describing anything meaningful. You are trying to make a point specifically about Hiroshima but if you are so broadly defining terrorism then focusing on just Hiroshima doesn't make a lot of sense, other than merely wanting to circlejerk.
Click to expand...

Yet most politicians and military leaders at the time considered it both unnecessary and totally immoral to use those weapons against Japan. You, like so many others subsequently, have bought into the mythology.
 
Establishment said:
I'm disappointed we accomplished Victory over Japan. Imagine how much better-off today Asia would be with Imperial Japan in charge, running things like a good society that clearly didn't deserve to get nuked.
Click to expand...

i dont think we would have anime though if japan didnt get nuked :(
 
Century Deceiver said:
The word terrorism carries with it certain colluqial connotations. I would only define it as terrorism if you want to call most war terrorism. Which, you could, but then you lose your nuance.

WWII was total war. Most of society in that time was involved in the war effort one way or the other, on all sides. National will and the willingness to fight are perfectly legitimate targets in those circumstances.

Japan started it, we finished it. We gave them the opportunity to unconditionally surrender, they said no. They had a military coop and were so fanatical they even overthrew their god emporer in the final days. They were fanatics, we offered them surrender terms, they turned it down, they made their own bed.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't the military/political elite who ' refused surrender ' who were incinerated by the hundreds of thousands. It was civilians who were incinerated by the hundreds of thousands. What else could that be but a barbaric act of terrorism ?
 
Century Deceiver said:
If the atom bomb was terrorism than nearly all war is terrorism. .
Click to expand...


All war is , indeed, illegal- ( we actually learned something from WW1 ) although the laws forbidding war were not consolidated in practice until after 1945 with the creation of the United Nations and the International
Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, Those that promote war today really are criminals.
 
Last edited:
Establishment said:
Well, in the interest of not being terrorists, we should make it a policy to just let the world burn from now on. No more stepping-in to thwart ethnic cleanings, conquests, and so forth. If China wants Taiwan, and a little payback against Japan, no problem. If North Korea wants to try overrunning South Korea, at least America won't be accused of terrorism by the left.
Click to expand...

Now you are just being a prick, don't do that!!
 
I think the main point of contention here is whether or not japan was on the point of surrender.

The people who say it was terrorism believe that since the emperor offered to surrender before the US could have granted him all his demands and he would have made the army surrender.

The people who say it was not terrorism but rather necessary believe that the emperor was not fully in command and the army and its generals were who were not advocating surrender.

I guess the real question is who was in effective command at the time? If it was the emperor why did he have to hide his meetings about discussing the surrender from army leadership. Surely they should be part of any discussion.
 
Celticguy said:
They were not informed ? Seriously ?
And surrender means you do not keep your job. There is punishment to pay for that crime.
They were lucky to be warned.
Click to expand...

You are ignorant of history, Hirohito was allowed to continue to rule, the very terms of his surrender were met.
He was later exonerated.
 
anatta said:
Target Committee , Russian delays ( which I have serious doubts) notwithstanding the war had to end. On US/allied terms.
Given that bottom line fact what was the best way to do it from an allied point of view?

Something that wouldn't cost American lives ( the Americans were going to do the invasions - not Brits, not Russians),
and would be effective in surrendering Japanese society ( bushido) as well as the Japanese military,
as quickly as possible were the criteria.

The bomb accomplished all these goals. War is hell.
Click to expand...

War most definitely is hell. But second-guessing them decades later to prop up the proposition that this country kind of sucks, isn't.

It's kind of cushy and cozy, actually.
 
moon2012 said:
But it wasn't the military/political elite who ' refused surrender ' who were incinerated by the hundreds of thousands. It was civilians who were incinerated by the hundreds of thousands. What else could that be but a barbaric act of terrorism ?
Click to expand...

It is extremely rare for a people to overthrow their military and political leaders in such circumstances. Of the three Axis leaders, this only happened to Mussolini, who was actually expelled from power two years before his assassination, and only was restored due to German interference.
 
Century Deceiver said:
If the atom bomb was terrorism than nearly all war is terrorism. Terrorism doesn't necessarily have to involve innocent victims. So if you want to call terrorism any act of violence to bring about political ends, all war is terrorism, which fine, good for you, you aren't really describing anything meaningful. You are trying to make a point specifically about Hiroshima but if you are so broadly defining terrorism then focusing on just Hiroshima doesn't make a lot of sense, other than merely wanting to circlejerk.
Click to expand...

Sorry - that's a total crock of shit.

War is war. It's hell, but there are rules. One of those rules is that you do not deliberately target innocent civilians.

Targeting innocent civilians? That's terrorism. That's what the people who we call "terrorists" do.
 
Establishment said:
Well, in the interest of not being terrorists, we should make it a policy to just let the world burn from now on. No more stepping-in to thwart ethnic cleanings, conquests, and so forth. If China wants Taiwan, and a little payback against Japan, no problem. If North Korea wants to try overrunning South Korea, at least America won't be accused of terrorism by the left.
Click to expand...

Again - all you're saying is that in the case of Hiroshima, terrorism was acceptable, because it brought about a desirable result.

You're not saying anything about the act itself. Which was terrorism.
 
Establishment said:
It is extremely rare for a people to overthrow their military and political leaders in such circumstances. Of the three Axis leaders, this only happened to Mussolini, who was actually expelled from power two years before his assassination, and only was restored due to German interference.
Click to expand...

Sure- but a humanitarian and compassionate society- such as the US purported to be- would know that and respect civilian life. Ignoring that and incinerating civilians is tantamount to terrorism of the very worst order.
The Brits had no need to firebomb Dresden. We have to accept that our own Western military and political ' leadership ' is just as callous and rotten as everybody else's. Once we recognize that we can deprive them of power over us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top