Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

Century Deceiver said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's exactly right. Was dropping the atomic bomb on Japan cruel? Yes. Was it necessary? Possibly not but to those who are second guessing the act with 20:20 hindsight I suggest reading Sherman's letter to Atlanta. You cannot put a humane face on war and this is an important distinction as it serves to remind us of wars utter waste of resources and human life. War is not some adventure to be entered into casually and though now in peace I would share the last crust and offer to protect the Japanese from harm from all quarters I would never stand for the US apologizing for dropping the bomb on Japan. I can provide a list of unspeakable atrocities the Japanese committed during that war from Manchuria, to Nanking to Manila. A war they started without just provocation.

However, as Sherman correctly stated. These would be idle comparisons.

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/sherman/sherman-to-burn-atlanta.html
 
Last edited:
Darth Hussein Omar said:
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.
Click to expand...

My Lai wasn't an isolated incident. It was probably the most horrific - but it wasn't isolated.
 
Id just like to ask if our defintion of terrorism is targetting civilians what in ww2 was not terrorism?

If you attacked a city chances are civilians will get hit. If you bomb a factory civilians will get hit. If you pretty much make any move to the enemy civilians will get hit.

I agree with establishment here. If we want the moral high ground lets just get out of war altogether. After all the standards that libs want to run wars would make them pretty much unwinnable anyway. If were going to tie up our troops then send them out we may as well not send them out.
 
Since Tom has been annoyed with me for ignoring his precious link, I will give him this. While I defend the use of the atomic bombs against Japan, and feel that the war could not have ended otherwise except through a prolonged invasion (something none of the generals/secretaries could prove would have been avoided), I am surprised that Truman went ahead with the strikes in the face of opposition from his brass. Had I been president in 1945, and the most accomplished corps of generals and admirals in US history were all telling me not to proceed, there is no way I would have sent Paul Tibbets out on that mission. I still believe it would have proven disastrous for myself and the troops, and probably cost me the 1948 election that Truman ultimately prevailed in.
 
Thing1 said:
Or maybe vaporizing is the more appropriate descriptive there. Either way...as long as we win, right?
Click to expand...


So you would have been more in favor of the US invading and our troops shooting at waves of children and old people who were charging them in suicide waves?
 
Thing1 said:
I think that's immoral, as well.

Civilians should be kept out of warfare. I don't think there is a way to avoid civilian casualties in most wars - but deliberately targeting civilians is a completely different story.
Click to expand...

The idea of war is to make the other side lose the desire to continue.
WWII had been going on, for around 6 years.
It was known that the Japanese were going to resist any land invasion and were training civilians (old men and women and children) to do Kamikaze style attacks on any invaders, using sharpened bamboo poles, farm tools, etc.

If the US had invaded by land, it is very likely that there would be no Japanese civilization today.
Just take a look at how Japanese civilians reacted on Islands that we took from the Japanese.

How much longer would you have wanted the war to continue and how many losses were acceptable to you?
 
Thing1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

You know that you're playing the part of an excellent after the fact armchair General, so why don't you explain what you FEEL should have happened to end a war that had dragged on for around 6 years and had already resulted in a lost of an estimated 48 MILLION people (approximately 21 million civilians and 27 million military personnel).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top