Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

[Cancel 2020.1]

Pretty straightforward question. Thoughts?

[Seahawk]

No. It was war.

[cancel2 2022]

I think that many in the US military were pissed off that Germany capitulated before they were able to deploy nuclear weapons. A case could be made for deploying a uranium bomb on Hiroshima, but Nagasaki was basically a field test for a plutonium bomb. On a side-note, I have a souvenir from the 40's of Trinitite from the first atomic test.

http://www.unitednuclear.com/index.p...dex&cPath=2_11

[Mircea]

Pretty straightforward question. Thoughts?

Are you for real? I mean you must be way out there. Blame the Emperor. He so loved being Emperor that three days after Hiroshima, he still refused to surrender and spare the Nagasaki the devastation it deserved. Even after Nagasaki, the Emperor still balked at surrendering.

Did you ever meet a survivor of the Japanese 2nd Imperial Army?

No, and neither did anyone else, since they were all killed during the bombing of Hiroshima.

And how is it morally different than the fire-bombing of Tokyo?

The US killed more people in the fire-bombing of Tokyo than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. So if the US fire-bombs Hiroshima and kills 100,000 troops and civilian collaborators, that's okay?

Was the rape of Nanking terrorism? Did the Japanese ever apologize for the atrocities they committed during the war?

[canceled.2021.2]

Pretty straightforward question. Thoughts?

No

[Phantasmal]

Pretty straightforward question. Thoughts?

Yes, Japan was never informed that the US had a new weapon when the warned Japan of total destruction.

The Emporer was planning to surrender, he only asked for immunity for the royal family and that they have the right to rule to maintain the rule of law in Japan.

[cancel2 2022]

Yes, Japan was never informed that the US had a new weapon when the warned Japan of total destruction.

The Emporer was planning to surrender, he only asked for immunity for the royal family and that they have the right to rule to maintain the rule of law in Japan.

The truth is that the US had actually run out of viable military targets, those bombs were intended for Germany. General Grover et al were incredibly pissed off about that. Read American Prometheus: Triumph and Tragedy of Robert Oppenheimer, it's all there!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/American-Pr...can+prometheus

[Celticguy]

Yes, Japan was never informed that the US had a new weapon when the warned Japan of total destruction.

The Emporer was planning to surrender, he only asked for immunity for the royal family and that they have the right to rule to maintain the rule of law in Japan.

They were not informed ? Seriously ?
And surrender means you do not keep your job. There is punishment to pay for that crime.
They were lucky to be warned.

[cancel2 2022]

They were not informed ? Seriously ?
And surrender means you do not keep your job. There is punishment to pay for that crime.
They were lucky to be warned.

The US wanted to warn the Russians to not attack Japan and they needed to test the effects on humans.

[christiefan915]

Pretty straightforward question. Thoughts?

Most def it was. I'm just going to link an article here, rather than quote all the reasons why it was terrorism.

The Bureaucrats Who Singled Out Hiroshima for Destruction

How committee meetings, memos, and largely arbitrary decisions ushered in the nuclear age

[canceled.2021.2]

Yes, Japan was never informed that the US had a new weapon when the warned Japan of total destruction.

The Emporer was planning to surrender, he only asked for immunity for the royal family and that they have the right to rule to maintain the rule of law in Japan.

What a dolt

[cancel2 2022]

The third bomb

The question often arises: did the United States have a third bomb ready to drop on Japan, following the Little Boy uranium device that destroyed Hiroshima on August 6 and the Fat Man plutonimium bomb that destroyed Nagasaki three days later?

http://www.warbirdforum.com/third.htm

[anatta]

Target Committee , Russian delays ( which I have serious doubts) notwithstanding the war had to end. On US/allied terms.
Given that bottom line fact what was the best way to do it from an allied point of view?

Something that wouldn't cost American lives ( the Americans were going to do the invasions - not Brits, not Russians),
and would be effective in surrendering Japanese society ( bushido) as well as the Japanese military,
as quickly as possible were the criteria.

The bomb accomplished all these goals. War is hell.

[mogur]

No. It was war.

And we were terrorists when Britain tried to fight a 'proper' war with us. But we decided that wearing blue uniforms and standing in line didn't get us very far. So we wore normal clothing and ambushed the British whenever we could. It worked. But it certainly would be called 'terrorism' by anyone with more than three brain cells. Didn't matter to us. We won.

Now, consider the Japanese war effort. It was do or die. We wanted to demoralize them. Killing them softly didn't work. Slaughtering them wholesale did work. It WAS war. But it was also terrorism. Whether it was justified doesn't affect the fact that it was terrorism.

[USFREEDOM911]

Yes, Japan was never informed that the US had a new weapon when the warned Japan of total destruction.

The Emporer was planning to surrender, he only asked for immunity for the royal family and that they have the right to rule to maintain the rule of law in Japan.

Where in any rules anywhere does it say that one Government has to inform a Government that they're at war with, that they have a new weapon??

This is definitely a new spin on this.