Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

[Cancel 2020.1]

I guess there are only a few of us who think America should stand for more in the world. Most on this thread haven't addressed the original question. All I've heard is "they do it too" or "anything goes in a war, as long as you win."

Sad. Or, as Trump would say...sad!

 

[Legion Troll]

Meanwhile, the 'terrorists' think we are idiots. That argument isn't without some merit.

In your case, that is, lol.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

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.”

That last line goes right to the heart of the question in the OP.

They wanted to create terror. They weren't going after military targets. They wanted to terrorize.

 

[Legion Troll]

That last line goes right to the heart of the question in the OP.

They wanted to create terror. They weren't going after military targets. They wanted to terrorize.

They committed terrorism.

 

[christiefan915]

Well said.

All the bombings of London and the German cities would have to be described as acts of terrorism as well then right? And we were fire bombing Tokoyo before dropping the bomb which would be acts of terrorism as well.

^ Yes. And herding millions of Jews, Rom and other "undesirables" into extermination camps was terrorism within the context of war. Because those people were innocent civilians.

 

[christiefan915]

And your view is lodged in The Age of Aquarius lol. You just, cannot, have a war without civilian casualties.

Does this include those who were shipped off to death camps just because they weren't Aryan?

 

[Legion Troll]

^ Yes. And herding millions of Jews, Rom and other "undesirables" into extermination camps was terrorism within the context of war. Because those people were innocent civilians.

They were in many cases citizens of the nation that terrorized them.

Have you noticed that some people never seem to have any original thoughts? They just copy other peoples threads.

Why is that?

 

[christiefan915]

And Mott - are you saying that something like Dresden is okay in that respect? How about My Lai?

And Tiger Force.

 

[christiefan915]

I couldn't agree more. How do you look back under the urgency of war, and pick it apart?
What would Harry S do?

Well, you can look at the Just War Theory for starters.

 

[cancel2 2022]

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.”

Hiroshima was chosen as the primary target since it had remained largely untouched by bombing raids, and the bomb's effects could be clearly measured. While President Truman had hoped for a purely military target, some advisers believed that bombing an urban area might break the fighting will of the Japanese people. Hiroshima was a major port and a military headquarters, and therefore a strategic target. Also, visual bombing, rather than radar, would be used so that photographs of the damage could be taken. Since Hiroshima had not been seriously harmed by bombing raids, these photographs could present a fairly clear picture of the bomb's damage.

Before Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima, Leo Szilard at Met Lab in Chicago tried to stop its use. Ironically, Szilard had led atomic bomb research in 1939, but since the threat of a German bomb was over, he started a petition to President Truman against bombing Japan. With 88 signatures on the petition, Szilard circulated copies in Chicago and Oak Ridge, only to have the petition quashed at Los Alamos by theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer.

When General Leslie Groves learned of the petition, he polled the Met Lab scientists and learned that only 15 percent wanted the bomb used "in the most effective military manner." While 46 percent voted for "military demonstration in Japan to be followed by a new opportunity for surrender before full use of the weapon is employed," somehow the figures were manipulated to suggest that 87 percent of the Met Lab scientists favored some sort of military use. Ultimately, Groves sat on Szilard's petition and the poll until August 1, and then had them filed away. President Truman never saw them.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/twocities/hiroshima/page4.shtml

 

[christiefan915]

They were in many cases citizens of the nation that terrorized them.

Have you noticed that some people never seem to have any original thoughts? They just copy other peoples threads.

Why is that?

You answered your own question. They don't have any original thoughts.

 

[Darth Omar]

I guess there are only a few of us who think America should stand for more in the world. Most on this thread haven't addressed the original question. All I've heard is "they do it too" or "anything goes in a war, as long as you win."

Sad. Or, as Trump would say...sad!

See, I told you you were up to mischief lol. The OP is a loaded question. Without a doubt, an atomic bomb terrorizes people with a political objective in mind; therefore, it satisfies the requirements to rank as an act of terrorism.

Hence, the US is no better or different than terrorists or terrorist nation states.

To which, I call bullshit.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

See, I told you you were up to mischief lol. The OP is a loaded question. Without a doubt, an atomic bomb terrorizes people with a political objective in mind; therefore, it satisfies the requirements to rank as an act of terrorism.

Hence, the US is no better or different than terrorists or terrorist nation states.

To which, I call bullshit.

Right. Because we're the "good guys."

That's your standard. Mine is this: when you decide to vaporize innocent women in children, you're no longer the "good guys."

Is there any kind of line for you? Were we the "good guys" at My Lai? Is America always above reproach?

 

[Legion Troll]

American exceptionalism?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

There is that "love it or leave it" mentality that I'll just never agree with.

I love America, but that doesn't mean I check logic at the door, or think we're mistake-free. If we commit atrocities, we should be able to call those out, and try to work on our flaws.

I'm embarrassed for those who think anything we do is okay, since there is always someone doing the same or worse. Who think that any criticism we have of our country automatically means we're "apologizing for our enemies."

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

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.

Sorry but you are just making up your own definitions:

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.




nothing in that definition about innocent people. War is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. you are broadly defining terrorism to the point where it is meaningless. Again, because you want to circlejerk about hiroshima.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

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.

additionally because WWII was 'total war' there is a lot of debate over how innocent civilians were when nearly all civilians were supporting the war effort in some way. The Japanese in particular would have had 'innocent civilians' in the millions fighting us if we were to invade.

 

[Legion Troll]

additionally because WWII was 'total war' there is a lot of debate over how innocent civilians were when nearly all civilians were supporting the war effort in some way. The Japanese in particular would have had 'innocent civilians' in the millions fighting us if we were to invade.

Like the rebellious colonists fought the Brits? Like that?

 

[christiefan915]

Like the rebellious colonists fought the Brits? Like that?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Sorry but you are just making up your own definitions:

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.




nothing in that definition about innocent people. War is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. you are broadly defining terrorism to the point where it is meaningless. Again, because you want to circlejerk about hiroshima.

And Bin Laden didn't have political aims on 9/11?

Okay. Thanks for clarifying.