Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

[Dutch Uncle]

I venture that the time will come when America apologizes to the Japanese for the terrorist attacks upon two major civilian population centers and pays reparations for the damage and the hundreds of thousands of innocent people murdered by the devil's bombs. Those responsible should be stricken from any honorable references to American bravery, gallantry or indeed humanity. Cowards all. Hell-bound from the point of decision- and good riddance.

You should sit in a treehouse until the happens...or go on a hunger strike until it happens.

Aren't you an atheist? Why would an atheist call them "devil's bombs"?

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

Yes- I suggested paying them. You're the profiteer who would refuse.

Not letting a bunch of greedy Japs steal my money doesn't make me a profiteer.

You're a liar.

The historians and the historical records all say that you are the one who is lying.

 

[BartenderElite]

I'm amazed at how readily accepting some are of using nuclear weapons.

It will always bring about a quicker end to a conflict. If that's your only justification, you would support it every time.

Is that really what you think America should be? Remember - a nuke is a WMD. I thought only rogue nations used those? That they were immoral and villainous?

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

I'm amazed at how readily accepting some are of using nuclear weapons.
It will always bring about a quicker end to a conflict. If that's your only justification, you would support it every time.

I don't support using nukes every time.

If China or Russia nuke a bunch of American cities (or the cities of our allies), I support nuking their cities.

If we gain reliable information that China or Russia are about to nuke us (or our allies), I support preemptively nuking their military forces.

If China or Russia are using nuclear weapons against our military (or against the militaries of our allies), I support nuking their military forces.

If using nuclear weapons is the only way to prevent China or Russia from defeating us (or our allies) in a conventional war, I support escalating and nuking their military forces.


If conventional weapons are sufficient to protect us (or our allies) from China or Russia in a conventional war, I do not support using nuclear weapons.

If we are at war with a non-nuclear power, I do not support using nuclear weapons.

If we can achieve our aims diplomatically without going to war at all, I support taking the diplomatic route. Even if it looks like diplomacy may not succeed, I am in favor of always giving diplomacy a chance if there is time to do so.

I do however support having a very strong and well trained military, both conventional and nuclear. Giving diplomacy a chance doesn't mean we should be unprepared for war if diplomacy fails.

Is that really what you think America should be? Remember - a nuke is a WMD. I thought only rogue nations used those? That they were immoral and villainous?

There is nothing wrong with using them if you only use them when it is appropriate, if you use them responsibly, and if your cause is just.

 

[Cypress]

I'm amazed at how readily accepting some are of using nuclear weapons.

It will always bring about a quicker end to a conflict. If that's your only justification, you would support it every time.

Is that really what you think America should be? Remember - a nuke is a WMD. I thought only rogue nations used those? That they were immoral and villainous?

Targeting civilian populations is utterly immoral.

But unfortunately, targeting civilian populations had been going on since 1939, by both sides.

The question is not whether Japan would surrender. Surrender can take many forms.

The allies strategic goal was to coerce Japan to submit to the Pottsdam Accord. The goal was not just to get Japan to stop fighting.

The Pottsdam Accord required Japan to:
Surrender unconditionally
Have their sovereignty limited to the four home islands
Have their government be forced to respect human rights
Have leadership in their government held accountable for the war.

If Japan did to submit to these demands, the Accord explicitly said Japan faced utter destruction.

Which was obviously code word for the atomic bomb.

Yes, Japan made appeals to the USSR to mediate a peace more favorable to Japan. This was one time the Soviet Union stood shoulder to shoulder with USA. They had signed into the Pottsdam Accord, and they were not going to entertain Japan's attempts for better surrender conditions. Their answer to Japan's entreaties was to attack Japanese forces in Manchuria.


So realistically we have to ask what it would have taken to coerce Japan to submit to the Pottsdam Accord. Could a simple naval blockade have coerced them to submit? That is open to debate, but many people find it highly doubtful.

Any hypotheticals about how the war could have been ended has to result in coercing Japan into submitting to the Pottsdam Accord, to submit to a military occupation, to submit to having their government dismantled, to submit to having their warrior ethos dismantled, to submit to a war crimes tribunal, to submit to having a pacifist constitution forced on them.

That is a tall order to have any sovereign nation to submit to, especially one with a warrior ethos like Japan. Even after Russia's utter defeat to Germany in 1917, Russia still came to terms to keep its government and sovereignty over most of traditional Russian territory.

Is it possible we could have coerced Japan to submitting to all the Pottsdam demands simply by a naval blockade or some other less destructive strategy? I do not know, but many think it unlikely.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

I'm amazed at how readily accepting some are of using nuclear weapons.

While I do in fact support the use of the A-bombs against Japan in WWII, most of my posts have merely been to defend various factual points (i.e. pointing out the fact that they were dropped on military targets, or pointing out the fact that Japan was still refusing to surrender, or pointing out the fact that our military leaders didn't tell Truman that they opposed using the A-bombs).

Defense of the truth would not necessarily have to mean support for their use.

Although like I said, I do support their use. We'd probably all be dead right now if they hadn't been used.

 

[moon]

The historians and the historical records all say that you are the one who is lying.

Fool. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were population centers. You're a dumbass liar.

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

I'm not sure what there was to negotiate, but that's neither here nor there.

The fact remains: When we dropped both A-bombs, we had not received any surrender offers from Japan. Japan was also not in any negotiations with us.

So you murdered vast numbers of civilians, after the Hitler fashion? Obviously you negotiate the terms of surrender, if you can, sooner than being helpless. The term 'terrorism' just means 'violence of which I disapprove'. Clearly this use of the atom bomb was designed to create terror. The question is, in how many different minds, and where?

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

Fool. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were population centers. You're a dumbass liar.

The historians say that it is you who is lying.

Hiroshima was a huge military base with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers awaiting deployment to resist our invasion of Kyushu.

Hiroshima was also the military headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Kyushu.

Kokura Arsenal (the intended target of the second A-bomb) was a massive (4100 feet by 2000 feet) machine gun factory. It was Japan's main source of light machine guns, heavy machine guns, and 20mm anti-aircraft machine guns, as well as ammo for all of those machine guns.

The Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works (destroyed by the second A-bomb) produced steel for Japan's war industry and used some of that steel to produce 100 naval torpedoes a month.

The Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Plant (destroyed by the second A-bomb) produced 400 aerial torpedoes a month.

Pearl Harbor had been thought immune to air-dropped torpedoes because the harbor was so shallow that an air-dropped torpedo would hit bottom and embed in the mud. Aside from Tokyo Bay, Pearl Harbor was the only place in the world with such natural defenses against air-dropped torpedoes. Japan had to develop special torpedo technology designed just for Pearl Harbor in order to attack us. The Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Plant was the place that designed and built those torpedoes.

Here's a picture of the Mitsubishi Urakami Ordnance Plant after the atomic bomb:

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

So you murdered vast numbers of civilians, after the Hitler fashion?

The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets. That's not murder, and it certainly has nothing to do with Hitler.

Obviously you negotiate the terms of surrender, if you can, sooner than being helpless.

Japan was not in any negotiations with the US when the A-bombs were dropped.

Japan did not attempt to open negotiations with the US at any point in the war.

The surrender terms were already laid out in the Potsdam Proclamation, so there would have been nothing to talk about had they been inclined to negotiate.

The term 'terrorism' just means 'violence of which I disapprove'.

That is incorrect. Terrorism involves the deliberate targeting of civilians.

The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.

Clearly this use of the atom bomb was designed to create terror. The question is, in how many different minds, and where?

It was hoped that the Japanese government would be intimidated into surrendering.

 

[moon]

That is incorrect. Terrorism involves the deliberate targeting of civilians.

The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.

You're a mendacious supporter of mass-murder. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were population centers. The US didn't fire-bomb Dresden because it had a railway-yard, the plan was to terrorize by means of the mass-murder of as many thousands of civilians as possible. You're an ass-covering ghoul.

 

[canceled.2021.3]

You're a mendacious supporter of mass-murder. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were population centers. The US didn't fire-bomb Dresden because it had a railway-yard, the plan was to terrorize by means of the mass-murder of as many thousands of civilians as possible. You're an ass-covering ghoul.

You are a camel fucking follower of an admitted pedophile who advocates murder to advance said vile ideology

 

[Matt Dillon]

^ Well that said quite a bit..lol!

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

You're a mendacious supporter of mass-murder.

The historians say that you are the liar. Wartime strikes against military targets are not murder.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were population centers.

There were tens of thousands of soldiers in Hiroshima awaiting deployment to the beaches of Kyushu to fight our invasion.

Hiroshima was the military headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Kyushu.

Kokura Arsenal (the intended target of the second A-bomb) was Japan's main source of machine guns.

The Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works (destroyed by the second A-bomb) produced steel for Japan's war industry, and used some of that steel to build naval torpedoes.

The Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Plant (destroyed by the second A-bomb) produced aerial torpedoes, and had designed and built special torpedoes just for attacking Pearl Harbor.

The US didn't fire-bomb Dresden because it had a railway-yard, the plan was to terrorize by means of the mass-murder of as many thousands of civilians as possible.

Terrorism involves targeting civilians. US bombers targeted the railyards. Wartime strikes against military targets are not murder.

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets. That's not murder, and it certainly has nothing to do with Hitler.



Japan was not in any negotiations with the US when the A-bombs were dropped.

Japan did not attempt to open negotiations with the US at any point in the war.

The surrender terms were already laid out in the Potsdam Proclamation, so there would have been nothing to talk about had they been inclined to negotiate.



That is incorrect. Terrorism involves the deliberate targeting of civilians.

The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.



It was hoped that the Japanese government would be intimidated into surrendering.

That's all a heap of bullshit - the usual silly assertion without any evidence whatever. What is the point of it? You know perfectly well, for instance, that this particular war crime had nothing whatever to do with military objectives - it was simple mass murder, as you also know. Having a run-down version of Hitler as your Fuhrer is reducing you to near-idiocy, I'm afraid.

 

[moon]

You are a camel fucking follower of an admitted pedophile who advocates murder to advance said vile ideology

You must be confusing me with that Muslim who gave you an ass-kicking.

 

[moon]

Terrorism involves targeting civilians. .

Yes- such as those in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden. All population centers.

A ' cautionary ' A-bomb strike needn't have killed anybody at all. They chose to mass-murder and terrorize instead.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

That's all a heap of bullshit

No. Facts are not BS.

the usual silly assertion without any evidence whatever.

If you'd like evidence that the surrender terms were already laid out in the Potsdam Proclamation, you can read the text of it here:
https://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html

What is the point of it?

The truth matters. Your false accusations are outrageous.

You know perfectly well, for instance, that this particular war crime had nothing whatever to do with military objectives - it was simple mass murder, as you also know.

That is incorrect. Attacks on military objectives are about destroying those military objectives.

Further, attacking military objectives is not a war crime.

Neither are attacks on military objectives in any way murder.

Having a run-down version of Hitler as your Fuhrer is reducing you to near-idiocy, I'm afraid.

Godwin's Law!

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

No. Facts are not BS.



If you'd like evidence that the surrender terms were already laid out in the Potsdam Proclamation, you can read the text of it here:
https://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html



The truth matters. Your false accusations are outrageous.



That is incorrect. Attacks on military objectives are about destroying those military objectives.

Further, attacking military objectives is not a war crime.

Neither are attacks on military objectives in any way murder.



Godwin's Law!

I'm afraid your not just Nazi but sozzled, Godwin. Get back in touch when you find an argument.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

Yes- such as those in Hiroshima,

Hiroshima was a military port with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers awaiting deployment to resist our invasion on the beaches of Kyushu.

Hiroshima was the military headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Kyushu.

Nagasaki

The second atomic bomb was intended for Kokura Arsenal, which was a massive (4100 feet by 2000 feet) machine gun factory.

The second atomic bomb destroyed the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works, which made steel for Japan's war industry and used some of that steel to make naval torpedoes.

The second atomic bomb destroyed the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Plant, which made aerial torpedoes, and made special torpedoes just for attacking Pearl Harbor.

and Dresden.

I've not studied what the British were after at Dresden, but I'm sure they destroyed military targets.

A ' cautionary ' A-bomb strike needn't have killed anybody at all.

Attacking enemy soldiers sometimes kills them.

They chose to mass-murder and terrorize instead.

Attacking military targets is neither murder nor terrorism.