Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

USFREEDOM911 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I love your "feels" thing. Because I know you think it's clever.

It's about standards, USF. You either think it's okay to target civilians, or you don't. Period.

You do.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, and we almost never have. We have selectively hit these kinds of strategic targets, and there are civilian casualties, which the military calls "collateral damage."

Obviously awful, but not nearly the moral equivalent of deliberately targeting innocent civilians. I can't believe we're this far into this thread, and you still don't comprehend that distinction. At all.
 
Thing1 said:
No, and we almost never have. We have selectively hit these kinds of strategic targets, and there are civilian casualties, which the military calls "collateral damage."

Obviously awful, but not nearly the moral equivalent of deliberately targeting innocent civilians. I can't believe we're this far into this thread, and you still don't comprehend that distinction. At all.
Click to expand...

If you could have ordered the invasion instead, and a handful of American troops plus Japanese civilians (give or take) had died in unpleasant circumstances, would you be issuing an apology to those of us who would care (non-leftists)?
 
Thing1 said:
I love your "feels" thing. Because I know you think it's clever.

It's about standards, USF. You either think it's okay to target civilians, or you don't. Period.

You do.
Click to expand...

When you dismount from your high horse, try putting your "hindsight" to answering the two questions I've posed.
1 - What do you think the US should have done, to end the war with the Japanese?
You don't have to be a strategist to answer; because you're condemning the bomb, without being a strategist.

2 - 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?

And I don't think referring to your "feels" is clever; because it's an apt description. even if you don't like it.
 
Thing1 said:
No, and we almost never have. We have selectively hit these kinds of strategic targets, and there are civilian casualties, which the military calls "collateral damage."

Obviously awful, but not nearly the moral equivalent of deliberately targeting innocent civilians. I can't believe we're this far into this thread, and you still don't comprehend that distinction. At all.
Click to expand...

What I find amazing is that you can't comprehend that Hiroshima was also a military target; because the Japanese was using Hiroshima as a communications center for the military, a storage point for munitions and supplies for the military, and an assembly area for troops; plus it was a major army base that housed the headquarters of the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters.

You also seem to be avoiding the fact that due to the dropping of the bomb, Japanese lives were saved; as Japan finally surrendered, instead of using the entire civilian population to try and defend Japan from an invasion by US troops.
If we had invaded, we could very well be sitting here discussing how terrible it is that almost the entire population of Japan is no more and with them went a culture.

Which target should have been selected and why, since you object to it being Hiroshima?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
What I find amazing is that you can't comprehend that Hiroshima was also a military target; because the Japanese was using Hiroshima as a communications center for the military, a storage point for munitions and supplies for the military, and an assembly area for troops; plus it was a major army base that housed the headquarters of the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters.

You also seem to be avoiding the fact that due to the dropping of the bomb, Japanese lives were saved; as Japan finally surrendered, instead of using the entire civilian population to try and defend Japan from an invasion by US troops.
If we had invaded, we could very well be sitting here discussing how terrible it is that almost the entire population of Japan is no more and with them went a culture.

Which target should have been selected and why, since you object to it being Hiroshima?
Click to expand...

Well that fact is there were very few targets left anyway, Hiroshima was picked specifically because it was intact. The Target Committee that chose the targets considered Hiroshima primarily because it was in a valley surrounded by hills which would magnify and maximise the damage to the city and its population.

The original prime target was Kyoto but Henry S. Stimson, the US Secretary of War had his honeymoon there and didn't want such a beautiful place destroyed. My youngest son was there recently and can attest to that fact.

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/08/08/kyoto-misconception/

http://beforeitsnews.com/strange/20...-the-prime-target-for-the-a-bomb-2454650.html
 
Last edited:
Establishment said:
If you could have ordered the invasion instead, and a handful of American troops plus Japanese civilians (give or take) had died in unpleasant circumstances, would you be issuing an apology to those of us who would care (non-leftists)?
Click to expand...


Read;

American Casualties of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program

When Americans think about nuclear weapons, they comfort themselves with the thought that the vast, nuclear destruction of human life has not taken place since 1945 — at least not yet. But, in reality, nuclear weapon-related destruction has taken place, with shocking levels of U.S. casualties.

This point is borne out by a recently-published study by a team of investigative journalists at McClatchy News. Drawing upon millions of government records and large numbers of interviews, they concluded that employment in the nation’s nuclear weapons plants since 1945 led to 107,394 American workers contracting cancer and other serious diseases. Of these people, some 53,000 judged by government officials to have experienced excessive radiation on the job received $12 billion in compensation under the federal government’s Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. And 33,480 of these workers have died.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-wittner/american-casualties-of-th_b_8908530.html
Click to expand...

Now accept that you're wrong, apologize and fuck off.
 
Nuclear power plants (as well as the numerous health hazards brought about by military nuclear testing during the 1950s) have got nothing to do with the use atomic bombs in WWII. Yes, we are all aware that there were lingering effects on Japan from the fallout for many years after, as well.
 
All of which, again, is unrelated to the specific topic of Hiroshima. Ironically, the American left was pissed at the Japanese over Fukushima...
 
Establishment said:
All of which, again, is unrelated to the specific topic of Hiroshima. Ironically, the American left was pissed at the Japanese over Fukushima...
Click to expand...

It's relevant because you introduced it in post #304. Your position is that Americans would have died during an invasion. It's blindingly obvious- from the information you reject- that Americans died anyway. Also hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. Anybody supporting that is an ass. Fuck off.
 
Seahawk said:
Your whole point of the thread was to change the meaning of terrorism. Every bombing over all the cities in WWII is terrorism with your definition.
Click to expand...
To me what is silly about this argument on war and terrorism is that though there is a significant difference between war and terrorism from a political standpoint, the former by nation States and the later by politicized groups of people, there is little, if any, distinction between war and terrorism from a moral and ethical standpoint.

The distinction we make between the two are man made. Either way you are killing people.
 
Thing1 said:
"Dominican Today" has the definitive description of terrorism, eh?

That article talks about civilians as collateral damage. They were not that w/ Hiroshima; they were the targets.

Your entire point basically ends there.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is a point to be made here at all. Other than the difference in political organization what is the difference between war and terrorism?

So targeting non combatants or dropping the bomb on Hiroshima were acts of war and not terrorism based on the definitions of those words but big whoop! Either way people die.
 
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...
I guess we are then cause that's what we have done in all our wars.
 
Thing1 said:
Should we specifically target civilians in a time of war, or not?
Click to expand...
That's the wrong question cause history has shown that we will do that. That is why we should only ever go to war when another nation is a clear and present danger to our national security. Cause we will target non combatants if that is required to destroy that nations ability to wage war and that is so horrible to contemplate that the "clear and present danger" standard is the only rational justification to go to war.
 
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...
By definition we couldn't. Japan and the United States are nation States. People here are confusing terror, as a weapon of war, with Terrorism. We certainly used atrocious and brutal acts to terrorize the Japanese but because those acts were between nation States they were act of war and not terrorism.
 
cawacko said:
I'm probably not thinking through everything here but it seems knowing that answer would be an important part of the equation here. I guess I see it as one thing to say we shouldn't have used nukes as a stand alone argument vs. we shouldn't have used nukes because we didn't need to and here is why.

I don't write that to start a 'fight' but as if I was sitting at a bar with a buddy having a beer and having this conversation.
Click to expand...
It's an artificial distinction. From a moral and ethical standpoint what's the difference between the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fire bombings of Tokyo and other major Japanese cities?
 
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...
Agreed. If you don't want civilians to die in war then don't go to war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top