Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

[Dutch Uncle]

I guess no one sees the slippery slope that so many of these borderline justifications can lead to.

Really, civilians are fair game anytime, w/ the logic being put forth here.

Is that what kind of nation we want America to be?

We already did it. Remember how the Yankees on this forum were applauding Sherman burning his way across crops and homes to the sea? That type of Liberal morality led directly to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If you can morally justify one, you can do so to the other. It only stopped with the advent of nuclear weapons and mutual assured destruction. My Lai was an anomaly.

BTW, thanks to Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ for bringing us WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I guess Japan shouldn't have started a world war and committed atrocities right?

It would have been wiser for them to have not committed a surprise attack on the US starting the war. Man within their own government, including Yamamoto, advised against attacking the US. They knew that, in the long run, the US resources would probably crush them, as it did.

https://www.britannica.com/story/pearl-harbor-in-context
“In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain, I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.” -- Adm. Yamamoto Isoroku

 

[Truth Detector]

It would have been wiser for them to have not committed a surprise attack on the US starting the war. Man within their own government, including Yamamoto, advised against attacking the US. They knew that, in the long run, the US resources would probably crush them, as it did.

https://www.britannica.com/story/pearl-harbor-in-context
“In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain, I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.” -- Adm. Yamamoto Isoroku

Spot on! Calling the atomic bombing of Japan a terrorist act is the surreal realm of uneducated, dishonest lying loons.

 

[Truth Detector]

BTW, thanks to Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ for bringing us WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

I would disagree with this; they didn't bring us WWI, WWII or Korea. That was the Fascistic dictators of other nations. It was more Democratic incompetence that made those wars worse.

But Kennedy and Johnson did get us Vietnam.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I would disagree with this; they didn't bring us WWI, WWII or Korea. That was the Fascistic dictators of other nations. It was more Democratic incompetence that made those wars worse.

But Kennedy and Johnson did get us Vietnam.

WWI wasn't our problem but Wilson was eager to get into the war. Agreed the fascists brought about WWII, but partly self-induced by the Western Euros and the Treaty of Versailles. I'll give credit to Wilson for refusing to sign it. Korea was a failure Truman to nuke the Soviets before they stole the bomb.

Without the USSR, the PRC wouldn't have grown so powerful or bold.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Spot on! Calling the atomic bombing of Japan a terrorist act is the surreal realm of uneducated, dishonest lying loons.

It's typical college-level idealism and meme like "free college" and "all capitalism is bad".

 

[Truth Detector]

WWI wasn't our problem but Wilson was eager to get into the war.

Not really; He was a reluctant participant. It took America three years before they entered and only after an attack by a German Uboat.

With the outbreak of fighting in the “Great War” in Europe in August 1914, President Wilson appealed to Americans to remain strictly neutral. He believed that the underlying cause of the war, which would leave 14 million Europeans dead by 1917, was the militant nationalism of the major European powers, as well as the ethnic hatreds that existed in much of Central and Eastern Europe.

In May 1915, a German submarine—called a “U-boat,” which was a relatively fragile vessel that depended on surprise attacks from below the surface for its success—torpedoed the British liner Lusitania off the coast of Ireland, killing nearly 1,200 people, including 128 Americans. Wilson urged patience but demanded that Germany either halt or drastically curtail submarine warfare. Convinced that the president's policy would lead to an unnecessary war, Secretary Bryan resigned in June 1915.

In early in 1917, Germany resumed its submarine warfare. The Germans calculated that the move would force the United States into the war but not before they could mount a massive attack on Allied forces while destroying the British navy. After several American ships were sunk and the public release of the Zimmermann telegram outraged Americans, Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany. The Senate voted 82 to 6 to declare war on April 4, 1917; the House concurred on April 6 by a vote of 373 to 50.

https://millercenter.org/president/wilson/foreign-affairs

Agreed the fascists brought about WWII, but partly self-induced by the Western Euros and the Treaty of Versailles. I'll give credit to Wilson for refusing to sign it. Korea was a failure Truman to nuke the Soviets before they stole the bomb.

Without the USSR, the PRC wouldn't have grown so powerful or bold.

 

[Earl]

I would disagree with this; they didn't bring us WWI, WWII or Korea. That was the Fascistic dictators of other nations. It was more Democratic incompetence that made those wars worse.

But Kennedy and Johnson did get us Vietnam.

Indeed.

 

[Truth Detector]

It's typical college-level idealism and meme like "free college" and "all capitalism is bad".

It is a tragedy how our leftist controlled educational establishment is so woefully failing educating our children.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Not really; He was a reluctant participant. It took America three years before they entered and only after an attack by a German Uboat.

With the outbreak of fighting in the “Great War” in Europe in August 1914, President Wilson appealed to Americans to remain strictly neutral. He believed that the underlying cause of the war, which would leave 14 million Europeans dead by 1917, was the militant nationalism of the major European powers, as well as the ethnic hatreds that existed in much of Central and Eastern Europe. ....

Wilson was an idealist and looked for entering the war for that reason not because the US was under direct threat. Yes, u-boats shot at anyone supplying their enemies. The US was supplying Britain. Wilson declared neutrality but his actions and inactions said otherwise.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt1287m9t.13?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_entry_into_World_War_I
While the country was at peace, American banks made huge loans to the Entente powers, which were used mainly to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Wilson made minimal preparations for a land war but he did authorize a major ship-building program for the United States Navy. The president was narrowly re-elected in 1916 on an anti-war ticket.

 

[Truth Detector]

Wilson was an idealist and looked for entering the war for that reason not because the US was under direct threat. Yes, u-boats shot at anyone supplying their enemies. The US was supplying Britain. Wilson declared neutrality but his actions and inactions said otherwise.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt1287m9t.13?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_entry_into_World_War_I
While the country was at peace, American banks made huge loans to the Entente powers, which were used mainly to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Wilson made minimal preparations for a land war but he did authorize a major ship-building program for the United States Navy. The president was narrowly re-elected in 1916 on an anti-war ticket.

Wkipedia? Mkay, carry on.

 

[Tranquillus in Exile]

The original purpose of the Manhattan Project was to develop nuclear weapons for possible use on GERMANY. If the Nazis had kept going for another six months, that could have happened, depending on the situation on the ground and whether Truman authorized it. Then instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we might be talking about Frankfurt and Munich.

How would people feel about that? At the very least, I think it would have had big implications for the postwar world.

[I knew a physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project. He was volksdeutsch - sort of German, a refugee from the former Habsburg Empire, but not Jewish. He must have believed that if nukes were used, they would be used on Germany. I never asked him how he felt about that at the time.]

 

[Nordberg]

It also ended the war. In Texas we call that a "Twofer!"

As Ike said, the war was over. As Leahy said, the war was over . As many military leaders said, the war was over. The fact that we left some towns alone and saved then for experimentation, was revealing. The bombs were going to be dropped no matter what. If those cities were really military and needed to be razed, we could have done that. We levelled many of them, often causing more deaths than an Abomb. It was going to happen.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

As Ike said, the war was over. As Leahy said, the war was over . As many military leaders said, the war was over. The fact that we left some towns alone and saved then for experimentation, was revealing. The bombs were going to be dropped no matter what. If those cities were really military and needed to be razed, we could have done that. We levelled many of them, often causing more deaths than an Abomb. It was going to happen.

I think you are conflating comments made to encourage Americans because there's light at the end of the tunnel versus, as you are asserting, that they believed the invasion of Japan wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The original purpose of the Manhattan Project was to develop nuclear weapons for possible use on GERMANY. If the Nazis had kept going for another six months, that could have happened, depending on the situation on the ground and whether Truman authorized it. Then instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we might be talking about Frankfurt and Munich.

How would people feel about that? At the very least, I think it would have had big implications for the postwar world.

[I knew a physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project. He was volksdeutsch - sort of German, a refugee from the former Habsburg Empire, but not Jewish. He must have believed that if nukes were used, they would be used on Germany. I never asked him how he felt about that at the time.]

That was the initial plan. Scientists worried about use of such power but, since the Germans were working on it so strongly as well as their other secret weapons projects, common sense dictated that the Americans get it and use it before the Germans.

Another project the Germans had was the Me 264 das Amerikabomber. https://worldwarwings.com/me-264-amerika-bomber/
Hitler has been so obsessed with the idea of seeing New York or other major US cities into flames that his strategists began developing plans of a trans-Atlantic attack that would cripple one of the biggest players in the Allied force. He thought of terrorizing the American population in addition to showcasing the Nazi’s military capabilities. If carried out successfully, it could also force the United States to utilize their antiaircraft defenses to protect itself thereby leaving less for Great Britain and other Allies.

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=759

It was cancelled in 1944 because American bombers were pounding the shit out of Germany.

 

[Tranquillus in Exile]

The Germans were nowhere near developing an A-bomb. The Allies may not have known that until late in the war.

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/german-atomic-bomb-project

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Done.

No one from the Strategic Bombing Survey spoke up to oppose the A-bombs before they were used.

Ike's opposition was feeble to the point of insignificance.

Ike only expressed his opposition to a single person (Stimson).

When Stimson reacted by calling him an idiot, Ike decided to keep quiet and not tell anyone else.

Even if Ike had managed to somehow be convincing, he was too late anyway. Stimson had sent the final orders to drop the A-bombs out to the military and then departed the Potsdam conference on July 25. When Ike voiced his opposition in Frankfort on July 27 it was just hours before Stimson departed Europe for home. Truman was still at sea aboard the Augusta when Hiroshima was bombed, and had not been in the same room with Stimson since July 25.

Leahy somehow completely forgot to speak up and oppose the use of the A-bombs during the war when they were actually being used.

MacArthur somehow completely forgot to speak up and oppose the use of the A-bombs during the war when they were actually being used.

History shows that he was completely wrong. Japan had no interest in surrendering to us for as long as they had hope that their Soviet gambit would succeed.

He made public statements about the A-bombs before they were dropped when they were still the most closely-guarded secret in US history? And referred to them in the past tense?

No. LeMay made no such statements before the A-bombs were dropped.

Nitze somehow completely forgot to speak up and oppose the use of the A-bombs during the war when they were actually being used.

King somehow completely forgot to speak up and oppose the use of the A-bombs during the war when they were actually being used.

Nimitz somehow completely forgot to speak up and oppose the use of the A-bombs during the war when they were actually being used.

And someone should have helped the poor guy out with a calendar. Japan offered to surrender on August 10. The A-bombs were dropped on August 6 and August 9.

They weren't.

Hiroshima was a huge military center with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers awaiting deployment to resist our invasion. It was also the military headquarters in charge of repelling that invasion.

Kokura Arsenal was a massive (4100 feet by 2000 feet) arms production complex.

That's exactly what they did do. Hiroshima was a large military port. Kokura Arsenal was a major arms manufacturing complex. And we dropped leaflets warning people to leave.

Alternatives to the A-bomb???

We could have fought the war without using them. Just as we could have fought the war without using tanks or guns or bullets.

Who would be dumb enough to fight a war without using bullets?

Hoover somehow completely forgot to speak up and oppose the use of the A-bombs during the war when they were actually being used.

And history shows that Japan refused to surrender until August 10, by which time both A-bombs had already been dropped.

Because Japan was still refusing to surrender, and the A-bombs reduced Japan's ability to resist our invasion.

False premise. Japan was still refusing to surrender when the A-bombs were dropped.

False premise. Aside from Ike's incredibly feeble objections, no military or political figures were opposing the use of the A-bombs.

That goofy nonsense about annihilating the species should be enough to dismiss the ravings of this lunatic.

But anyway, no. Oddly enough, we actually wanted to make Japan surrender.

And no military leader whatsoever advised Truman that there was no military need for using the A-bombs.

That problem was easily solved. They simply reserved the A-bomb targets from being attacked conventionally.

Stimson was being diplomatic. He was asked a stupid question.

An effort to achieve surrender in order to avoid using the A-bombs???

Surrender was the entire goal. The A-bombs were dropped in furtherance of that goal.

Let's not forget the documentation, where old men, women and children were being trained to attack the invading forces using farm tools and sharpened bamboo, in suicide attacks.

 

[BartenderElite]

We already did it. Remember how the Yankees on this forum were applauding Sherman burning his way across crops and homes to the sea? That type of Liberal morality led directly to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If you can morally justify one, you can do so to the other. It only stopped with the advent of nuclear weapons and mutual assured destruction. My Lai was an anomaly.

BTW, thanks to Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ for bringing us WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

You're barking up the wrong tree w/ me if you think I'm going to defend an unjust war or military action because a Democrat led it.

I've been against every military action in my lifetime. Most of them from Dems.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You're barking up the wrong tree w/ me if you think I'm going to defend an unjust war or military action because a Democrat led it.

I've been against every military action in my lifetime. Most of them from Dems.

Great. As long as we're clear about it.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

How many did the bombs kill, immediately and afterwards ?

Somewhere in the range of 150,000 to 200,000 people.

That being the case you wouldn't be here trying to cover your ass.

I'm not. I'm merely denying your untrue accusations.

You're out of your militaristic skull.

My facts are all in order.

Those that know that the bombings were acts of terrorism and mass murder are moral people.

Perhaps. But such people are deeply confused about facts and reality.

The A-bombs were dropped on military targets. That is neither terrorism nor mass murder.

These victims were civilians and no threat to the evil cowards that killed them remotely.

There were plenty of soldiers killed at Hiroshima. And one of the most important military headquarters in Japan was destroyed.

The intended target of the second A-bomb was Kokura Arsenal. Obviously quite a few bad decisions were made in that mission that resulted in a less than ideal outcome. But Kokura Arsenal was definitely a military target.