Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

[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/histo...c-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.

[Doc Dutch]

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.

[Anvil Kasseri]

“We burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo — men, women and children,” Mr. McNamara recalled; some 900,000 Japanese civilians died in all. “LeMay said, ‘If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.’ And I think he’s right. He — and I’d say I — were behaving as war criminals.”

“What makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?” he asked. He found the question impossible to answer.

It's hard to see what law they would have violated.

I'm also pretty skeptical of the claim that our bombing raids killed 900,000 civilians.

The seemingly insoluble solution is achieved by understanding that morality, correctness and practicality are not the same.
Deciding to save 100,000 of your own from the consequence of the immoral decision of your enemy to kill them by killing 100,001 of your enemy is a practical decision and the right decision if it works.
But it is also an immoral decision. Killing people on purpose, even one, is immoral. Everyone who kills on purpose is immoral in that instant. Now let's get past that
and decide which is correct.

Morality is subjective. Justified killing is not immoral by my standards.

[Anvil Kasseri]

Truman kept some cities from being fire bombed. Why? He and the military wanted to see what the bombs would do to a pristine city.

He and the military wanted Japan to see what the A-bombs could do to a pristine city.

It was a test and an experiment.

The test and experiment took place back in New Mexico.

It was going to happen no matter what.

Japan could have prevented it from happening by surrendering. They did in fact prevent the third A-bomb from being dropped when they offered to surrender.

As Ike said, the war was over. As Leahy said, the war was over . As many military leaders said, the war was over.

In reality, the war was not over. Japan had not yet offered to surrender.

The fact that we left some towns alone and saved then for experimentation, was revealing.

We saved them for the A-bombs so that Japan could be shocked into surrendering.

The bombs were going to be dropped no matter what.

Japan could have prevented it from happening by surrendering. They did in fact prevent the third A-bomb from being dropped when they offered to surrender.

If those cities were really military and needed to be razed, we could have done that.

We did do that. The A-bombs were quite effective.

We levelled many of them, often causing more deaths than an Abomb.

Not all that often. Tokyo probably had more fatalities than Nagasaki. But the second A-bomb was kind of a botched mission.

It was going to happen.

Japan could have prevented it from happening by surrendering. They did in fact prevent the third A-bomb from being dropped when they offered to surrender.

[ExpressLane]

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



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



My facts are all in order.



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.



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.

Nagasaki was a big manufacturer of Warships and munitions. And all men between 15-60 and women 17-45 were in the militia and were trained on weapons and on how to kill. These militia members would have killed American if we had invaded Japan.

[Anvil Kasseri]

That's how you morally justify incinerating thousands of civilians?
Interesting.

The justification for dropping A-bombs on military targets was that it would possibly scare Japan's government into surrendering, and it would pave the way for invasion if they kept refusing to surrender.

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?

Civilians were not targeted. The A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

[Anvil Kasseri]

Nagasaki was a big manufacturer of Warships and munitions. And all men between 15-60 and women 17-45 were in the militia and were trained on weapons and on how to kill.

Yes, but the city was too long and thin to effectively demonstrate the power of the A-bombs. Some of the bomb's power was wasted on empty countryside. Plus the city is divided by a ridge that helps shield one part of the city from an explosion over the other part. The Targeting Committee protested the late orders to include Nagasaki on the target list, but they were overruled. Flattening Kokura Arsenal would have been a much more dramatic example of the power of the A-bombs.

Unfortunately we conducted a large conventional raid at Yawata just a few miles upwind of Kokura Arsenal the day before the second A-bomb mission, and the smoke from this raid prevented our bomber from getting a visual fix on Kokura Arsenal.

Additionally, Bockscar had a bad fuel pump that prevented the plane from using a lot of its fuel (but it still had to carry the weight of this fuel). Instead of taking the time to fix the pump or change to a different plane, we decided to launch the mission with a crippled plane. This gave the crew very little time to linger over Japan before running out of fuel.

Had we not made these two errors, it is likely that Kokura Arsenal would have been flattened, and the results of the second A-bomb would have been much more dramatic and shocking to the Japanese government.

Another error was not reserving Yokohama for the A-bombs. In addition to its industrial area being much more geometrically suited for a circular blast area, as it is a suburb of Tokyo the mushroom cloud would have been visible from the Imperial Palace. Yokohama should have been the alternate and not Nagasaki.

[moon]

Yes, but the city was too long and thin to effectively demonstrate the power of the A-bombs. Some of the bomb's power was wasted on empty countryside.

' Wasted ' was it ? You're clearly an insane degenerate attempting to defend the indefensible.


It was an act of terrorism and mass murder.
The perpetrators will never be forgiven.

[cancel2 2022]

Nope. The behind the scenes deal was already nearly finished. Japan was done, as Ike and Leahy said. But what do they know compared to you? We could have leveled those cities like we did the others and not used nukes. We owned the skies. We firebombed many. many cities and in some cities, killed more than the Abomb could have. It was a show of strength and a scientific experiment. They spent over a trillion dollars making those 2 bombs and were not going to skip seeing what they could do.
I know you want to believe that stuff, but it just isn't true. It is what the victor says when it is over. They write the history. That is why we say we did not torture, but we did. We say we did not gun down unarmed citizens and children, but we did.

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.

.

[cancel2 2022]

Nope. The behind the scenes deal was already nearly finished. Japan was done, as Ike and Leahy said. But what do they know compared to you? We could have leveled those cities like we did the others and not used nukes. We owned the skies. We firebombed many. many cities and in some cities, killed more than the Abomb could have. It was a show of strength and a scientific experiment. They spent over a trillion dollars making those 2 bombs and were not going to skip seeing what they could do.
I know you want to believe that stuff, but it just isn't true. It is what the victor says when it is over. They write the history. That is why we say we did not torture, but we did. We say we did not gun down unarmed citizens and children, but we did.

The justification for dropping A-bombs on military targets was that it would possibly scare Japan's government into surrendering, and it would pave the way for invasion if they kept refusing to surrender. Oh and you can stop bullshitting about Alperovitz as well!!

Civilians were not targeted. The A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

You keep repeating the same old bullshit, Ike was present at Potsdam and made his feelings known to both Stimson and Truman!! Same goes with attempting to rubbish Alperovitz!

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/08/...oshima-myth-3/

[Anvil Kasseri]

' Wasted ' was it ?

Yes. One of the goals was to overwhelm Japan's government with the threat of the A-bombs. That required showing them the effects of the A-bombs' massive power.

You're clearly an insane degenerate attempting to defend the indefensible.

Wartime strikes on military targets are perfectly defensible.

It was an act of terrorism and mass murder.

That is incorrect. They were strikes against military targets, and therefore were neither terrorism nor murder.

The perpetrators will never be forgiven.

They did nothing that requires forgiveness.

[Anvil Kasseri]

You keep repeating the same old bullshit,

Sorry, but no. Facts and reality are not BS.

Ike was present at Potsdam and made his feelings known to both Stimson and Truman!!

That is incorrect. Ike told only Stimson.

Even if Ike had managed to be convincing (and he was far from convincing) he would have been too late to stop the A-bombs anyway.

Ike expressed his views only after Stimson had already sent the final orders to drop the bombs out to the military and departed the Potsdam Conference.

Stimson did not meet with Truman again until after Hiroshima was bombed. And it's safe to assume that he didn't bother to pass along Ike's views even then.

Truman never heard any sort of opposition from any person whatsoever before the A-bombs were used.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/08/...oshima-myth-3/

Gar Alperovitz is a known fraud who is infamous for his many falsehoods.

If he says something, it can reasonably be assumed that the exact opposite is true.

Same goes with attempting to rubbish Alperovitz!

It is reasonable to discount the lies of frauds like Gar Alperowitz. Facts and reality are far more preferable.