Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

[Anvil Kasseri]

It was a surprise attack, so why are you surprised?

The use of the A-bomb against Hiroshima was a surprise attack too.

[Anvil Kasseri]

Personally, I think the atomic bombing of Japan was a war crime, but not an act of terrorism. Maybe it's just semantics, but that's how I see it.

Which law do you believe was violated by the A-bombings?

[Anvil Kasseri]

The rape of Nanking and the brutal Japanese occupation of China happened in the 1930s, well before the outbreak of WW 2. And even though Americans had reports of what was going on in occupied China and Korea, we were totally isolationist and committed to staying out of direct participation in the war. In the 1930s there was not the slighest hint Americans wanted to wage war on Japan because of the atrocities of the Imperial Japanese Army and the Kwangtung Army.

Therefore, it is disingenuous to point to Japanese atrocities in East Asia as a justification for incinerating two of their cities.

Keep in mind that we embargoed our oil sales in response to the genocide that Japan was committing, and that embargo lead to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I am on record that the nuclear attacks may have been the least bad option, given the strategic goals of the war.

I also have direct knowledge of life under the Japanese occupation of Manchuria. My grandparents, father, aunt had their house confiscated by the Japanese Army and bore witness to the occupation of Harbin. So I have some skin in the game.

Even so, that does not prevent me from reflecting on what happened to civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By any conventional use of the word, those attacks were terrorist in nature...they were immoral and were intended to terrorize Japanese. Even if they may have been strategically warranted

Terrorists target civilians.

The A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

[BartenderElite]

Your denial of Japanese atrocities is interesting. When did you start to develop such pro-Japanese, anti-American ideologies?

That's trolling to the extreme.

Used to respect you as a poster, Dutch. What lameness.

[BartenderElite]

Agreed to an extent; the extent is that when American lives are dying needlessly for years to come or end the war this week, I'll choose "this week".

So, we're no different from anyone else. A principle is a principle.

I think the most troubling thing is that you had "no problem" with dropping the bomb. I can understand thinking it was the correct action - but to not be troubled by it?

[ExpressLane]

The use of the A-bomb against Hiroshima was a surprise attack too.

Nope they dropped leaflets first. LeMay leaflets.

In August 1945, leaflets were dropped on several Japanese cities (including, supposedly, Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The first round, known as the "LeMay leaflets," were distributed before the bombing of Hiroshima.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lema...hrome&ie=UTF-8

[Doc Dutch]

That's trolling to the extreme.

Used to respect you as a poster, Dutch. What lameness.

Dude, you're just proving your youth by whining about this. The fact remains you condemn the US without saying a single cross word about Japan and their atrocities; the very people our nation was fighting to stop.

Another fact is that you are proving too young and/or immature to understand the Trolley Problem previously posted. It was brutal war that had cost each nation dearly. It would be negligent to let it continue one day longer if a solution was known to stop it.

What, in your opinion, is the difference between killing 100,000 people with firebombing and killing 100,000 with an atomic bomb. This is total deaths; radiation, concussion, everything. Is it worth killing 100,000 to save a million?

[Doc Dutch]

So, we're no different from anyone else. A principle is a principle.

I think the most troubling thing is that you had "no problem" with dropping the bomb. I can understand thinking it was the correct action - but to not be troubled by it?

You mean no different than any mature, intelligent adult who understands the difference between 100,000 dead and 1,000,000 dead? Yes, I'm not different.

[BartenderElite]

Dude, you're just proving your youth by whining about this. The fact remains you condemn the US without saying a single cross word about Japan and their atrocities; the very people our nation was fighting to stop.

Another fact is that you are proving too young and/or immature to understand the Trolley Problem previously posted. It was brutal war that had cost each nation dearly. It would be negligent to let it continue one day longer if a solution was known to stop it.

What, in your opinion, is the difference between killing 100,000 people with firebombing and killing 100,000 with an atomic bomb. This is total deaths; radiation, concussion, everything. Is it worth killing 100,000 to save a million?

You're equating Japanese civilians w/ what their military & leadership did and condoned. I read the "Rape of Nanking." Absolutely horrific. But I don't lump innocent Japanese civilians in w/ what they did.

You seem incapable of discerning the difference.

I have principles. Never target civilians. I'll never waiver on that.

[Darth Omar]

You're equating Japanese civilians w/ what their military & leadership did and condoned. I read the "Rape of Nanking." Absolutely horrific. But I don't lump innocent Japanese civilians in w/ what they did.

You seem incapable of discerning the difference.

I have principles. Never target civilians. I'll never waiver on that.

Japan would have gotten to that, eventually.

Think that prospect might have factored in?

[Doc Dutch]

You're equating Japanese civilians w/ what their military & leadership did and condoned. I read the "Rape of Nanking." Absolutely horrific. But I don't lump innocent Japanese civilians in w/ what they did.

You seem incapable of discerning the difference.

I have principles. Never target civilians. I'll never waiver on that.

So, you are willing to kill a million on a principle. The principle of never risk harming a civilian. Awesome. Thankfully, wiser minds prevailed.

[BartenderElite]

So, you are willing to kill a million on a principle. The principle of never risk harming a civilian. Awesome. Thankfully, wiser minds prevailed.

RE: the bolded. Don't mischaracterize my words, as you have done a few times on this thread.

Never TARGET civilians.

[Doc Dutch]

RE: the bolded. Don't mischaracterize my words, as you have done a few times on this thread.

Never TARGET civilians.

So if we dropped a nuke on a military barracks placed in the middle of a city, we're good?

[Cypress]

Keep in mind that we embargoed our oil sales in response to the genocide that Japan was committing, and that embargo lead to the attack on Pearl Harbor.



Terrorists target civilians.

The A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

We were not willing to risk open war to prevent the atrocities being committed by the Japanese Army in Korea, Manchuria, China, which had been going on since the early 1930s.

So you do not actually get to point to atrocities in East Asia as justification for vaporizing two Japanese cities.


Legal word games amount to a distinction without a difference. The entire point of vaporizing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to terrorize and traumatize the people of Japan. Period. End of story.

That makes it both terrorism and immoral.

Many immoral things happen in war.

It may be that the nuclear attacks were the least bad option to achieve our strategic war objectives. Maybe it was a strategic decision which prevented a larger conflagration. That does not prevent us from recognizing the immorality and inhumanity of vaporizing two cities.

[Doc Dutch]

We were not willing to risk open war to prevent the atrocities being committed by the Japanese Army in Korea, Manchuria, China, which had been going on since the early 1930s.

So you do not actually get to point to atrocities in East Asia as justification for vaporizing two Japanese cities.

Legal word games amount to a distinction without a difference. The entire point of vaporizing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to terrorize and traumatize the people of Japan. Period. End of story.

That makes it both terrorism and immoral.

Many immoral things happen in war.

It may be that the nuclear attacks were the least bad option to achieve our strategic war objectives. Maybe it was a strategic decision which prevented a larger conflagration. That does not prevent us from recognizing the immorality and inhumanity of vaporizing two cities.

FDR, you know, the Democrat, was willing to stop the genocide but most Americans were isolationist and content to hide behind the wall of two great oceans...until Pearl Harbor proved the Pacific ocean wasn't big enough.

Isolationism is where the Libertarian party and I part ways. We agree the US isn't and shouldn't be the world's policeman, but there is a lot of space between isolationism and being a Global Cop.

It's not just the humanity of stopping a genocide, it's also a matter of surviving "the end game". Where were the Empire of Japan and the Third Reich going with all this? Where would things eventually end up? If the outlook was bad, then it's smart to get involved in stopping it while there were enough people to do it.

Pastor Martin Niemöller, a concentration camp survivor, said it best IMO:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.