Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

1.Since the atomic bomb was expected to produce its greatest amount of damage by primary blast effect, and next greatest by fires, the targets should contain a large percentage of closely-built frame buildings and other construction that would be most susceptible to damage by blast and fire.

2.The maximum blast effect of the bomb was calculated to extend over an area of approximately 1 mile in radius; therefore the selected targets should contain a densely built-up area of at least this size.

3.The selected targets should have a high military strategic value.

4.The first target should be relatively untouched by previous bombing, in order that the effect of a single atomic bomb could be determined.


Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. To quote a Japanese report, "Probably more than a thousand times since the beginning of the war did the Hiroshima citizens see off with cries of 'Banzai' the troops leaving from the harbor."

The center of the city contained a number of reinforced concrete buildings as well as lighter structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small wooden workshops set among Japanese houses; a few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city. The houses were of wooden construction with tile roofs. Many of the industrial buildings also were of wood frame construction. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.
The Selection of the Target
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp5.shtml
+
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military as well as civilian targets, and both amendable to fire damage after the blast.
One (primary) goal of the bomb was to end the war without a US invasion.

So there was the "shock and awe" . If you want to call it terror - so be it. It was a freaking World War and Japan
had already attacked us and would enslaved us just as they did China given the chance.

No holds barred, save as many US military lives as possible, and defeat the Japanese Empire.
Looking at it that way, the atomic bomb served it's purpose. That's the only way to look at it-thru the perspective of the time itself.
 
Uh-oh, Rana and Christi have now been caught in the wrath of Desh

This thread is as nakedly partisan as desh gets. She really represents the most extreme form of partisanship - that "my party can do no wrong" thing. I was actually surprised to see her stance on dropping the bomb, but in retrospect, I shouldn't have been.
 
This thread is as nakedly partisan as desh gets. She really represents the most extreme form of partisanship - that "my party can do no wrong" thing. I was actually surprised to see her stance on dropping the bomb, but in retrospect, I shouldn't have been.

BAC and others took her to task when she was supporting O-BOMB-YA bombing Syria a few years ago.
 
Pretty straightforward question. Thoughts?

What idiocy. Terrorists do not inform their "victims" of what's coming...giving them a window of opportunity to comply with the demands from the winning side in a Congressionally "DECLARED" WAR. Acts of terrorism might be using PEOPLE as guided missiles while shouting to their "pagan god". The US engaged targets that were supplying Japan's WAR MACHINE....and even dropped leaflets before the bombings informing the innocents exactly what was coming and how to avoid almost certain death if the warning was not given serious consideration. Not only was this warning in writing...the US was broadcasting the same message from Saipan via radio to the Japanese people.



The better question might be....was it "constitutional" to round up naturally born US CITIZENS and place them in CAMPS (wink, wink) simply because of their RACE...like KING ROOSEVELT did during WW II.
 
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?

My Lai was an isolated incident. As someone brought up, how innocent were the Japanese civilians? It's ironic, that you're the one wanting the world to be black and white. I also think it's telling that the US is the only country that would go in and help rebuild a conquered country---and then turn it loose, as opposed to making it part of an empire.

That's makes us exceptional in the larger picture. Morally, exceptional.
 
And Bin Laden didn't have political aims on 9/11?

Okay. Thanks for clarifying.

as I have said earlier in this thread, if you want to so broadly define terrorism, the word itself becomes meaningless. All war is terrorism by your definition. You just want to circlejerk about hiroshima.
 
The better question might be....was it "constitutional" to round up naturally born US CITIZENS and place them in CAMPS (wink, wink) simply because of their RACE...like KING ROOSEVELT did during WW II.

That was wrong.

Now Teflon Don Trump says Muslims should be forced to wear special identification.

Is that wrong, too?
 
You're really psychotic.

If it was a Republican, you'd hate the idea of vaporizing women & children. But because it's a Dem, no problem - and anyone who doesn't think it's okay hates the country.


Just ban her, Leon and Legion Trollop. You know it makes sense.
 
Are we commiting terrorism with our drone program today? Technically we are targeting terrorists but innocents are collateral damage all the time.
 
Thing, you can't just make up your definitions as you go.

What’s The Difference Between War And Terrorism?

War: An organized, armed, and often a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties.

Terrorism: The French word terrorisme in turn derives from the Latin verb terreō meaning “I frighten.” Although “terrorism” originally referred acts committed by a government, currently it usually refers to the killing of innocent people by a non-government group in such a way as to create a media spectacle.

http://newsone.com/1810005/whats-the-difference-between-war-and-terrorism/

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=terrorism+vs+war
 
What idiocy. Terrorists do not inform their "victims" of what's coming...giving them a window of opportunity to comply with the demands from the winning side in a Congressionally "DECLARED" WAR. Acts of terrorism might be using PEOPLE as guided missiles while shouting to their "pagan god". The US engaged targets that were supplying Japan's WAR MACHINE....and even dropped leaflets before the bombings informing the innocents exactly what was coming and how to avoid almost certain death if the warning was not given serious consideration. Not only was this warning in writing...the US was broadcasting the same message from Saipan via radio to the Japanese people.



The better question might be....was it "constitutional" to round up naturally born US CITIZENS and place them in CAMPS (wink, wink) simply because of their RACE...like KING ROOSEVELT did during WW II.

Hasn't ISIS used social media to announce they intend to attack America and other countries?
 
My Lai was an isolated incident. As someone brought up, how innocent were the Japanese civilians? It's ironic, that you're the one wanting the world to be black and white. I also think it's telling that the US is the only country that would go in and help rebuild a conquered country---and then turn it loose, as opposed to making it part of an empire.

That's makes us exceptional in the larger picture. Morally, exceptional.

I think you should read up on Tiger Force.
 
Back
Top