Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?

[BRUTALITOPS]

Pretty straightforward question. Thoughts?

The word terrorism carries with it certain colluqial connotations. I would only define it as terrorism if you want to call most war terrorism. Which, you could, but then you lose your nuance.

WWII was total war. Most of society in that time was involved in the war effort one way or the other, on all sides. National will and the willingness to fight are perfectly legitimate targets in those circumstances.

Japan started it, we finished it. We gave them the opportunity to unconditionally surrender, they said no. They had a military coop and were so fanatical they even overthrew their god emporer in the final days. They were fanatics, we offered them surrender terms, they turned it down, they made their own bed.

[BRUTALITOPS]

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.

he was in no position to dictate terms. And towards the end of the war there was a military coop against him.

[BRUTALITOPS]

liberals are such pussy losers, always needed to wring their hands with guilt. It disgusts me that the gene pool has produced such obvious malformed individuals. They would be the first ones dead in any almost any natural setting where the streets weren't paved with concrete.

[Cancel 2020.1]

liberals are such pussy losers, always needed to wring their hands with guilt. It disgusts me that the gene pool has produced such obvious malformed individuals. They would be the first ones dead in any almost any natural setting where the streets weren't paved with concrete.

But that's the rub, isn't it? They are paved w/ concrete. We live in a civilized age, where there are rules of engagement.

If you prefer a rule-less world of savagery, that's fine. But call a spade a spade. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was terrorism. Why is that so challenging to just come out & say, without all of this nuance & insult? If you want a savage existence, revel in it. Don't make excuses & try to spin.

[cancel2 2022]

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.

Yet just about everybody who was in a position to know considered the dropping of those bombs to be totally unnecessary.

We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz:

Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.

***

Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.

***

The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...-against-japan

[Minister of Truth]

I'm disappointed we accomplished Victory over Japan. Imagine how much better-off today Asia would be with Imperial Japan in charge, running things like a good society that clearly didn't deserve to get nuked.

[Cancel 2020.1]

I'm disappointed we accomplished Victory over Japan. Imagine how much better-off today Asia would be with Imperial Japan in charge, running things like a good society that clearly didn't deserve to get nuked.

Not sure what this sarcasm is intended for.

The ends justify the means is basically what you're saying, then. You're not making a judgment about whether dropping the bomb was terrorism or not. You're just saying that terrorism was okay in this instance, because it ended a war.

[Minister of Truth]

Not sure what this sarcasm is intended for.

The ends justify the means is basically what you're saying, then. You're not making a judgment about whether dropping the bomb was terrorism or not. You're just saying that terrorism was okay in this instance, because it ended a war.

Well, in the interest of not being terrorists, we should make it a policy to just let the world burn from now on. No more stepping-in to thwart ethnic cleanings, conquests, and so forth. If China wants Taiwan, and a little payback against Japan, no problem. If North Korea wants to try overrunning South Korea, at least America won't be accused of terrorism by the left.

[BRUTALITOPS]

But that's the rub, isn't it? They are paved w/ concrete. We live in a civilized age, where there are rules of engagement.

If you prefer a rule-less world of savagery, that's fine. But call a spade a spade. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was terrorism. Why is that so challenging to just come out & say, without all of this nuance & insult? If you want a savage existence, revel in it. Don't make excuses & try to spin.

on the time scale of humanity's existence our current state is a drop in the bucket. Liberals have a deficiency that would normally be weeded out by natural selection.

[BRUTALITOPS]

But that's the rub, isn't it? They are paved w/ concrete. We live in a civilized age, where there are rules of engagement.

If you prefer a rule-less world of savagery, that's fine. But call a spade a spade. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was terrorism. Why is that so challenging to just come out & say, without all of this nuance & insult? If you want a savage existence, revel in it. Don't make excuses & try to spin.

If the atom bomb was terrorism than nearly all war is terrorism. Terrorism doesn't necessarily have to involve innocent victims. So if you want to call terrorism any act of violence to bring about political ends, all war is terrorism, which fine, good for you, you aren't really describing anything meaningful. You are trying to make a point specifically about Hiroshima but if you are so broadly defining terrorism then focusing on just Hiroshima doesn't make a lot of sense, other than merely wanting to circlejerk.

[cancel2 2022]

I'm disappointed we accomplished Victory over Japan. Imagine how much better-off today Asia would be with Imperial Japan in charge, running things like a good society that clearly didn't deserve to get nuked.

Bullshit on steroids, read this and then come back to me!!

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...-against-japan

[cancel2 2022]

If the atom bomb was terrorism than nearly all war is terrorism. Terrorism doesn't necessarily have to involve innocent victims. So if you want to call terrorism any act of violence to bring about political ends, all war is terrorism, which fine, good for you, you aren't really describing anything meaningful. You are trying to make a point specifically about Hiroshima but if you are so broadly defining terrorism then focusing on just Hiroshima doesn't make a lot of sense, other than merely wanting to circlejerk.

Yet most politicians and military leaders at the time considered it both unnecessary and totally immoral to use those weapons against Japan. You, like so many others subsequently, have bought into the mythology.

[Minister of Truth]

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/hiro...ral-necessity/

Here's some more mythology, Tom.

[cancel2 2022]

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/hiro...ral-necessity/

Here's some more mythology, Tom.

Did you even read that article? I don't think so!! Read that first and I will read yours.

[tsuke]

I'm disappointed we accomplished Victory over Japan. Imagine how much better-off today Asia would be with Imperial Japan in charge, running things like a good society that clearly didn't deserve to get nuked.

i dont think we would have anime though if japan didnt get nuked