Was Hiroshima an act of Terrorism?

"Terrorism is, simply put, politically motivated violence intended to influence an audience." - ES

"War is merely the continuation of politics by other means" - von Clausewitz



I do not think that all war is terrorism. The word loses its meaning and distinction, when all it becomes is a synonym for war or the execution of warfare.

 

Sorry, chief, that's not what I meant.

I meant that terrorism is something we've (the West) practised too. And it can be an instrument of warfare.

E_S

 

In my mind the question of whether something is "justified" and whether it is "terrorism" are two separate questions.

From the experience of 9/11, most Americans would probably say that terrorism is never justified.

But, you know, some people in Ireland and Palestine might have a different take. One person's terrorism is another person's freedom-fighting. I'm not using this to justify 9/11, which I truly believe was an unprovoked attack with no obvious political motive.

As far as the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, in the one sense, it was an act of terror, intended to terrorize, meant to destroy the enemy's will to fight without specifically targeting military assets.

It's not just a question of how many people died, it's also an issue of how they died. People who weren't incinerated on the spot or killed immediately by blast effets were often severely burned. tens of thousands died one of the most painful, lingering deaths it is possible to die - of severe burns. Thousands more died another of the most painful, lingering deaths it is possible to die - radiation sickness. Tens of thousands more died from cancer and disruption of immune system caused by radiation poisoning. Thousands of children were born with severe deformities and disabilities as the result of radiation-induced mutation.

So the final costs in terms of human life are hard to measure.

However, it is not completely clear that the U.S. could have won the war had it invaded Japan. The Japanese were ferocious warriors and would have contested every inch of Japanese soil. I have no reason to doubt the estimates for the cost in human life had the U.S. invaded Japan.

Another reason for dropping the bomb on Japan was to send a message to the Soviet Union about U.S. power - about the horrible effects of nuclear weapons. The Soviets got the message loud and clear and raced to produce their own bomb. It's possible that dropping the bomb on Japan was such a successful demonstration of nuclear weapons that it has prevented their use in war ever since. I would argue that the successful cold war detente between the U.S. and Soviet Union may not have been possible absent that demonstration. So, maybe dropping the bomb on Japan saved the world.

Hard to know.

 

Well speaking from what I know of the Palestinian movement, it's actually seen as resistance. Not terrorism. Legitimate resistance, nonetheless.

But then again, if you consider terrorism that's aimed a state, then there is a massive difference between blowing up a few empty but important bridges and killing a government minister, is there not?

E_S

 

First, you have to understand that terrorism and warfare are based on the same, time-tested theory that armed violence can bring about change.

The Israeli government can state "we will not negotiate at gunpoint," but the truth is, armed violence can bring about change.

So the difference between terrorism and war has always been one of semantics only.

The U.S. administration's "Shock and Awe" campaign was an explicit, open effort to terrorize the Iraqi government and the people of Iraq into meek submission to U.S. occupation.

Suicide bombers are an explicit, open effort to terrorize American soldiers into firing on Iraqi civilians.

 

Japan had its army big Imperial bases in the citys!

 

And..?
You're not one of those people who thinks terrorism is the killing of civillians, and thus the presense of Japanese military bases makes Hiroshima legit target?


E_S

 

The bombing of Hiroshima was to scare the living crap out of the Japanese and break their will. The Allies definitely didn't pick the most strategically-valuable cities(they were just chosen out of about a dozen depending on weather conditions, I think). Hiroshima was not a millitary city, and that was one of a few times that civilians were intentionally killed by the Allies, which I find pretty despicable.

I think Hiroshima is infinitely greater a tragedy than Sept. 11...

I agree. Nuclear weapons are much worse than fossil fuel.

yet many people feel it was justified.

Unfortunately, I am more complied to feel it was justified.

 

Hiroshima was an industrial center (still is, in fact) which could have made it a "military target" - the same way the World Trade Center was a "military target".

At any rate, one man's terrorist is another's freedom-fighter. In fact, I personally sympathize with Osama bin Laden's motives (though I don't like that he killed 5 000 civilians; he should've aimed for the White House instead). Killing civilians aside, he's not the freedom-hating monster that President Bush falsely labeled him as. In fact, he's fighting for freedom - freedom from the US.

 

Killing civilians aside, he's not the freedom-hating monster that President Bush falsely labeled him as. In fact, he's fighting for freedom - freedom from the US.

Is this the same Bin Laden who, when asked, "What is your idea of the perfect Islamic state?", responded: "Afghanistan is getting there"?

Freedom loving, huh?

I'm forced to wonder, "Freedom for whom, Osama?"

-ZM

 

I've read teh first few posts here, and Ive noticed something that, were it not the case of it being so serious, would actually be funny.

The japanese attacked a military base, killing a very reduced number of civilians in the process. The US killed 200,000 civilians (killing a very reduced number of military in the process) with the excuse that it was going to end the war. The purpose of the Hiroshima and Nagasake a-bombings was to check out what exactly was the effect that atom bombs had in humans.

Blind US nationalism keeps people saying "It saved lives! people should thank the us, because if it weren't for them they'd probably be dead!". Well, if that's a valid point, then I should really be thanksful for Hitler having existed. Had he not invaded Poland one of my ancestors woudln't have had to run away to another country and I wouldn't have been born at all. Yet I'm really not thankful that Hitler existed, the same way I'm not thankful that the 2 a-bombs were dropped over 200,000 civilians.

Very ironic what blind nationalism makes people say and support. Oh, and to those making Saddam/Bush comparisons: you are *absolutely* right to say the situations are similar: both do their propaganda and both have a dictatorial regime, the only difference is that while Saddam is openly a dictator, Bush manipulates the media to gain the people's appraisal. An example? The prohibition there was a while back to show *any* iraqi civilian victims on US tv. No idea if that's still being done right now, but I found it interesting that the TVs were allowed to show the wounded 'brave' american 'heroes' but then censor the brutal consequences of their invasion of another country. Like the 7 women and children that were basically squashed by and american tank or whatever just because they didn't clear off the path they were on when the american soldiers told them to. I mean, of course they should have obeyed blindly to the army people that's invading their land. Very logical.

 

Very ironic what blind nationalism makes people say and support.

Question: If I, as a student of Politics and History (especially the history of WWII) support what we did, I'm a blind nationalist? Is there a way to support this and not be a blind nationalist? Or is your opinion too dogmatic to cancede that?

 

From the events of the past few years I've come to one clear conclusion. Any kind of terrorism praticed by the US (and its allies-One particular ally gets very special concessions when it comes to terrorism)is considered defensive action, the same action by others is terrorism, human right violation, brutality etc, plain as that.

Some folks on this boards and Yahoo forums even called the death of four Israeli soldiers killed by Palestanians as terrorism. I wonder how these people will define the fight for freedom?

 

To American terrorists and war mongers, freedom = the 'American' will to dominate globally. To them, might makes right.

 

Oh, nevermind the number of people who died at Pearl harbor, or the number of soldiers who fell fighting the Japanese across the Pacific ocean....

I mean, it would have only cost us somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million soldiers (what Gen. MacArthur said to the president, when asked what the estimated casualties was "order 2 million coffins," )
(paraphrased, I'll add a cite later, )

Certainly, the atomic bombs were things of horror, but it could have been far worse.

We hit cities with strategic value. We could have very well vaporized Tokyo, but that would have almost certainly polarized the Japanese population, and would have gotten far bloodier.

Fortunately, the lessons learned from those 2 bombings stick with us today. But not all have learned them as well as the civilized world... I'd worry more about that than something that happened 58 years ago......

 

There was no point vaporising Tokyo - it had already been firestormed out of existance by incendiary bombing by the Americans.

 

Fortunately, the lessons learned from those 2 bombings stick with us today. But not all have learned them as well as the civilized world... I'd worry more about that than something that happened 58 years ago......


The day the world community scraps nukes altogether is the day lessons are learnt. At the moment the a-bomb is a blackmail knife hanging on whom ever the US doesn't like. They threathened to use it in Afghanistan and also in Iraq(If the war did not go thier way) Can the world community allow that.

Nukes should be banned-all over the world-I'm sure the US has enough conventional(weapons)superiority to safe guard its No # spot.

What civilised world are you talking about?

 

You're forgetting the fact that we killed more people in the firebomb raids than with the nukes. The nukes ended the war and saved lives.

 

"Nukes should be banned-all over the world-I'm sure the US has enough conventional(weapons)superiority to safe guard its No # spot."


Glad that you trust everyone else to live with this ban. Because we never see instances where states try to circumvent their non-proliferation treaty requirements!

 

Uh, I did some research into disarmament, to see if I wanted to work in disarmement for a while. And what I found was that in the cases of those who had renenged upon their obligations are nations with insecurity issues. They almost always circumvent these treaties because they feel threatened. It's a cycle. "The USA won't disarm because it doesn't trust "rogue" states who won't disarm because they don't trust the USA". I used the US as an example, the obvious one, but it really works for all five of the declared nuclear powers.

E_S

 

Pandora's Box. I'm not denying that rogue states go after WOMD because they feel threatened by the US (or another nuclear power), or they feel it is a way to get 'respect'. However, I simply don't look kindly on simplistic 'solutions' to the problem which refuses to take cogent security risks into account.

 

Well, the problem then would be how do you follow the path of disarmament, if at all? I don't think the "rogue" states of the world will merely defer to the benevolence of the Big 5; nor will the Big 5 surrender their arsenals without great hesitation.

E_S

 

At any rate, one man's terrorist is another's freedom-fighter. In fact, I personally sympathize with Osama bin Laden's motives (though I don't like that he killed 5 000 civilians; he should've aimed for the White House instead). Killing civilians aside, he's not the freedom-hating monster that President Bush falsely labeled him as. In fact, he's fighting for freedom - freedom from the US.

So what does that makes someoen like Tim MacVehigh(I don't know how to spell his last name.) You see the fact is people liks Bin Laden and Tim and monsters who kill people for no reason. Which by the way Bin Laden was killing people before Bush was in offcie. He was useing terrorism in Bill was the President. What Bin Laden and even Saddma is was doing is nothing new.

 

"I don't think the "rogue" states of the world will merely defer to the benevolence of the Big 5"

Perhaps. There are appropriate carrots and sticks to use to keep non-nuclear powers in line (and North Korea is going to be the case-study for seeing if they work, and how well...hope you are up to it, Colin and Condi...). Once proliferation can be taken off of the table (with good verification, nuclear materials control, verifiable and solid treaties, etc), then disarmament becomes viable.

 

The japanese attacked a military base, killing a very reduced number of civilians in the process.

Yes, the Japanese were so compassionate to do so. Uhm, look up the Rape of Nanking and other such atrocities. There were two holocausts--and one has been forgotten.