Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

Thing1 said:
There has been some discussion on this thread. For years, the feeling was that the only alternative would have been a prolonged and much more destructive land invasion of Japan.

But there is pretty intense debate about that today. Others have said that the Japanese were close to surrendering anyway because of the effects of the blockades & conventional bombing of military targets.

It's hard to know what to trust. The victors tend to write the textbooks.
Click to expand...

By conventional bombing of military targets, I take it you mean Tokyo?
 
Thing1 said:
I brought up My Lai, and Mott brought up Sherman's march in the beginning of the thread.

We weren't able to win the Vietnam war w/ conventional means. If we knew 100% we could have won w/ the strategy we used at My Lai, should we have continued to prosecute the war in that fashion?
Click to expand...

Sherman's March = Good
My Lai = Bad
 
Thing1 said:
You're talking about matters of law, basically. I don't have to be an absolutist to take an absolute position on murder, or on human rights, or on many matters of law. Sometimes there is right & wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't want to change the topic, but before abortion becomes a matter of law, a baby is killed in the mothers uterus. You've seen the arguments: abortion is always murder even though it's permitted by law; it should never occur even in cases of incest rape...etc etc.

Nuking civilians is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances...it's a direct parallel. Both are absolutist positions. And unless you like losing debates, you should avoid taking them lol.
 
Establishment said:
Sherman's March = Good
My Lai = Bad
Click to expand...

I wanted to go to the Sơn Mỹ Memorial but didn't get the chance, next time!

my-lai_0.jpg
My Lai">
 
Last edited:
Rana said:
When you target civilians to specifically target civilians, it is terrorism.
Click to expand...

No, it's war.

Thing1 said:
Should we specifically target civilians in a time of war, or not?
Click to expand...

Yes. Civilians are accomplices to war. Civilians are accessories to war both before and during the war. Civilians aid and abet the war and war effort. Civilians are complicit in war.

Why should civilians get a pass?

If it wasn't for civilians, there wouldn't be any wars.

Civilians elect or support the government that goes to war. Civilians support the war effort every step of the way. Why should civilians get a pass?

They shouldn't.

Civilians need to understand that actions have consequences.
 
Mircea said:
No, it's war.



Yes. Civilians are accomplices to war. Civilians are accessories to war both before and during the war. Civilians aid and abet the war and war effort. Civilians are complicit in war.

Why should civilians get a pass?

If it wasn't for civilians, there wouldn't be any wars.

Civilians elect or support the government that goes to war. Civilians support the war effort every step of the way. Why should civilians get a pass?

They shouldn't.

Civilians need to understand that actions have consequences.
Click to expand...

Easy to say when the USA didn't really suffer any civilian casualties in WW1, WW2 and the Korean War.
 
Mircea said:
Civilians elect or support the government that goes to war. Civilians support the war effort every step of the way. Why should civilians get a pass? They shouldn't. Civilians need to understand that actions have consequences.
Click to expand...

So terrorist attacks on Americans are entirely justifiable. Good to know.
 
Thing1 said:
It's kind of a useless question. I'm not a military strategist, and I'm not going to pretend to be one. You shouldn't pretend to be one either.

The whole idea of this thread is whether we should have standards of conduct as a nation, or not. As you have basically stated, you feel that the ends justify the means. And as I have stated, you could apply that to any behavior, no matter how despicable.

I don't think we should ever intentionally target civilians. Is your argument that we should, if it achieves our goals more rapidly or efficiently?
Click to expand...

So you're no strategist, you have no clue how you would have ended WWII, and it's apparent that you just want to bitch and moan.

You're dismissed; because no one can debate feelings.
 
Thing1 said:
Who cares what the reasons where? You're drawing meaningless distinctions.

We're either a country that targets civilians, or not. We're either a country that tortures, or not. We're either a country that uses chemical weapons and WMD's, or not.

It's not - we don't use WMD's, except when....
Click to expand...

So if a country we're at war with has a munitions factory in a civilian area, we're just supposed to let it continue manufacturing.
 
Thing1 said:
Who cares what the reasons where? You're drawing meaningless distinctions.

We're either a country that targets civilians, or not. We're either a country that tortures, or not. We're either a country that uses chemical weapons and WMD's, or not.

It's not - we don't use WMD's, except when....
Click to expand...

Reasons for Selecting Hiroshima

By the end of the war, most of Japan's major cities had been destroyed by U.S. air attacks. Hiroshima was still intact. The reasons Hiroshima was chosen as the target for the A-bombing are assumed to be the following.
• The size and the shape of the city was suited to the destructive power of the A-bombs. Because Hiroshima had not been bombed, ascertaining the effects of the A-bomb would be relatively easy.
• Hiroshima had a high concentration of troops, military facilities and military factories that had not yet been subject to significant damage.
 
cawacko said:
I apologize for asking this if it has already been answered and discussed. I haven't gone through every post in this thread. For my understanding what would have been the appropriate way for the U.S. to fight Japan and not use terrorism?
Click to expand...

Thing1 won't answer; because he's not a strategist. :palm:
 
Damocles said:
Have you ever wondered how many Japanese would have died had we not dropped nuclear bombs? The argument is often how many American lives were saved... but I think that we probably saved a couple million Japanese people. Had we had to invade Japan there would have been far more civilian casualties. Warfare at the time had bombs dropping in the middle of cities...
Click to expand...

^ No, because it's all supposition. It's the argument people make to defend the bombing.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
As mentioned previously, we helped rebuild Japan after we bombed them. And not only them but parts of Europe as well. Is there any other country on the face of the planet that does that?

And if not, isn't that 'American Exceptionalism'? Or should this country just be defined by Hiroshima and leave it at that?
Click to expand...

I'm sure all those Japanese who lost family and friends in the bombings did an about-face and paid homage to America for rebuilding their freaking houses.
 
Mircea said:
No, it's war.

Yes. Civilians are accomplices to war. Civilians are accessories to war both before and during the war. Civilians aid and abet the war and war effort. Civilians are complicit in war.

Why should civilians get a pass?

If it wasn't for civilians, there wouldn't be any wars.

Civilians elect or support the government that goes to war. Civilians support the war effort every step of the way. Why should civilians get a pass?

They shouldn't.

Civilians need to understand that actions have consequences.
Click to expand...

What a dumb argument. You think citizens have any say-so when their government wants to go to war?

Tell that to the Iraqi citizens and all the people in the world who opposed the Iraq war.
 
christiefan915 said:
I'm sure all those Japanese who lost family and friends in the bombings did an about-face and paid homage to America for rebuilding their freaking houses.
Click to expand...

OH FUCKING BOO HOO; because you're not capable of debate and just want to weep liberal tears.
Any creditability you had, just went straight out the fucking window.
 
christiefan915 said:
What a dumb argument. You think citizens have any say-so when their government wants to go to war?

Tell that to the Iraqi citizens and all the people in the world who opposed the Iraq war.
Click to expand...

if the japanese citizens were so strongly opposed to war then no one would have signed up for their army or worked to produce munitions and other war goods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top