Was Hiroshima an act of Terrorism?

Zombie_Monkey:
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?"

I'm not talking about freedom as the United States knows it. I'm talkin about freedom from American intervention in Middle Eastern politics.

I'm not saying I support him or oppose him, I'm just trying to put this in an objective light by supplying bin Laden's side of the story, to go along with Bush's. Seeing as how bin Laden probably knows bin Laden better than Bush knows bin Laden, I would rather trust bin Laden's word on the motives of his own operation.

anidanami124:
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 sincerely doubt that bin Laden spent years planning the Sept. 11 attacks so he could kill people for "no reason".

Killers (George W. Bush included) always have their reasons. Unless they're insane.

I don't presume to speak for bin Laden, but he probably aimed for the WTC to weaken the U.S.'s economy. In this sense, the civilians working in the WTC were indeed "military targets".

Let's put it another way. During the American Civil War (1861-1865), General W.T. Sherman burned thousands of acres of homes and farmland, not to mention miles of railroad. Were these "military targets"? Maybe, maybe not. But their destruction helped end the war faster - and helped his side win the war. So, you can say that Southern farmlands and the WTC are every bit as military as Edwards Air Force Base.

chilbiangi:
I don't think that was the point. The point was that U.S. technically committed an act of terrorism at Hiroshima, and Japan didn't at Pearl Harbor.

 

I don't presume to speak for bin Laden, but he probably aimed for the WTC to weaken the U.S.'s economy. In this sense, the civilians working in the WTC were indeed "military targets".

Ok back up right there. The WTC was not just were the place for the U.S.'s economy. Other countrys had there economy there. It is a world economy. Also Again Bin Laden has been in Terrorism looooooooooong before W. Bush was in office. What Bin Laden killed many people that and not just the people who live in the USA but also people who came form other countrys. Never forget that. The WTC was in no way a military target.

 

bin Laden chose the targets he did for symbolism.

WTC = Capitalism
Pentagon = Military Might
Unknown target in DC = Democracy.

E_S

 

I can't work out why people feel that terrorism is somehow justified if it's against military and political targets, but not if it's against civilians.

It's a bit heartless. And is a flawed attitude too.

 

Ok back up right there. The WTC was not just were the place for the U.S.'s economy. Other countrys had there economy there. It is a world economy. Also Again Bin Laden has been in Terrorism looooooooooong before W. Bush was in office. What Bin Laden killed many people that and not just the people who live in the USA but also people who came form other countrys. Never forget that. The WTC was in no way a military target.

But destroying the WTC would hurt the U.S. economy, or at least shake it up a little, would it not?

redxavier: How so?

 

there is a very big difference xavier. Civilians have no influence on daily interfearence in the middle east. It is the military and government who orders people there and effects the changes that are going on.

Military/government = direct involvement and threat
Civilians = innocent

 

redxavier, it's the same mentality that refuses to see terrorists as soldiers, prefering to think of them as shadowy, cult-like figures. Caleb Carr has a brilliant analysis of this in his book The Lessons of Terror.

E_S

 

"there is a very big difference xavier. Civilians have no influence on daily interfearence in the middle east. It is the military and government who orders people there and effects the changes that are going on."

And who elects the Governments to power? One cannot ignore the responsibility of the general populace. You elect them, what they do is in Your name.

There are NO innocents. Only victims and killers.

Here's a spin - Are retired military and political personnel valid targets?

 

When you look at both options:
a)Use the Bomb.
b)Invade Japan with US soldiers.

But lets go deeper. It was estimated that 70,000 lives were lost in Hiroshima and 40,000 at Nagasaki. [Correct me if I'm wrong] There was an estimated 1,000,000 United States troops lives that were going to be lost if we had chosen 'a'.

Look one more time.

a) 110,000 Jap. lives or
b)1,000,000 American lives


Sure, it's easy to say today that Hiroshima was an act of terrorism. But really, it was going to be 'a' or 'b' so it wasn't a hard choice.

 

On top of that 1,000,000 American soldiers could have died, not to mention several million Japanese who would have committed suicide to avoid capture by the dreaded American beast.

We also have the possibility of World War III immediatly following World War II, the US and Russia fighting over Japan and Germany, how many more lives would have been lost?

 

i think 1,000,000 is a little too high of an estimate.

And if the United States had just agreed to just let the Japanese Emporor stay on as a figure head with no actual power, chances are the Japanesse would have surrendered.

 

If you call 1,000,000 a high estimate, then blame the public-school system (or at least the fairfax county board of edu.)

 

The estimates i've read are no where near that many. The most i've ever seen is 500,000 but usually it is down in the 50-100,000 range.

 

1000000 american soldier casualties for invading Japan too high? I think not! And you cant blame the public school systems for this one either. The US would not only have been invading Japan who were great warriors and fought hard in the Pacific but the people would of also took up arms, there would have been millions of death's in the Battle of Japan, mostly Japanese, but a whole hell of a lot of allied troops too. The battle of Japan probably would have been very similiar to the Eastern front in Europe.

So no 1000000 US casualties isnt too high of an estimate, it could even be an understatement.

 

Every last Japanese man, woman and child would fight tooth and nail to the end.

 

Well concidering the US only lost 292,131 (figure from encarta encyclopedia) people in all of WW2. I very much doubt that number would be more than tripled fighting off an already beaten and broken enemy.

Not to mention that the USSR would have been coming in from the north if the bombs were not dropped. 1mil? i think not.

 

Well concidering the US only lost 292,131 (figure from encarta encyclopedia) people in all of WW2

Island hopping on mostly deserted islands in the Pacific and liberating France and Italy would have looked like a cake walk to invading Japan and their fanatical devotion to death before surrendor and loyalty to the Emperor. We are talking about two different things.

I very much doubt that number would be more than tripled fighting off an already beaten and broken enemy.

Oh really just magnify Okinawa several times and you have a glimpse of what a battle of Japan would have been.

Not to mention that the USSR would have been coming in from the north if the bombs were not dropped.

A Soviet invasion of Japan would have been a declaration of war on the United States and her allies, Churchill and I believe it was Truman (maybe FDR) told Stalin this, it remains one of the great unknown what if's in history is what if there was an invasion of Japan by the Americans and Soviets. The United States and United Kingdom could have easily made a deal with Japan for a peace between their nations in return for Japans declaration of war on the Soviet Union (whom the Japanese hated and feared more than the Americans) A World War III starting before the bullets stop firing from World War II would be very scary indeed. Poor Germany

 

A Soviet invasion of Japan would have been a declaration of war on the United States and her allies, Churchill and I believe it was Truman (maybe FDR) told Stalin this, it remains one of the great unknown what if's in history is what if there was an invasion of Japan by the Americans and Soviets. The United States and United Kingdom could have easily made a deal with Japan for a peace between their nations in return for Japans declaration of war on the Soviet Union (whom the Japanese hated and feared more than the Americans) A World War III starting before the bullets stop firing from World War II would be very scary indeed. Poor Germany

That my friend is wrong. At the conference at Yalta that occured on Febuary 4th-11th, 1945 in which FDR, Churchill and Stalin attended the following was decided.

The Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan within six months (I believe it was 6 months) after Germany's defeat. The British and American High Command needed the Soviets help in defeating Japan and they knew it. It was also determined at Yalta that an invasion of Japan proper would result in over a million Allied casulties alone. This was determined months in advance of the atomic bomb and the Soviets entrance into the war against Japan. Some events might've changed and Japan might've been on the verge of collapse on August 6th, but the estimate had been made.

The only person that I know of that wanted to rearm a Axis enemy was Patton and he wanted to turn the Germans on the Soviets. Discussion of that is for a different thread of course, but I don't think there was anyone who wanted to rearm Japan to go up against the Russians.

Also, it is not like Japan was innocent of war crimes leading into August, it was almost just as bad as the Nazis for what they did to POWs and civilians.

In my honost opinion, dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified and the end result is that it saved many more lives than were taken. Besides one has to look at events as they were then and not as they are now. Is there evidence now that might say that Japan was on the verge of collapse? Yes, there is, but that evidence was not known on August 6th, so it can't be held against the Allies.

Edit: So my unlocking powers finally came in handy for once.

 

After scrolling down a couple of pages, I have to say I'm finding it both sad and amusing that at the same time that a lot of people think using mass-destruction weapons is perfectly acceptable if you're at war, but would be outraged at the thought that other countries might throw those same weapons at their own country in the middle of a war and therefore think it's your country's right to confiscate them from other countries.

If it's so legitimate to use them, why wanting to control who has them or not? Why can only americans own them? What? The rest of the World's the irresponsible Big Bad and americans the paladins for truth and justice? I'm sorry if I don't believe that.

And by the way, the atom bombs were thrown over Japan when they were weak and showing definite signs of nearing surrender. It was completly unnecessary (which personally I don't think it wouldn't ever be) and an act of cowards. Same thing happened on 9/11, the US were weak and unprepared (well, actually there's information that the US government knew about it but simply didn't give a damn, but that's not on topic). The only difference is that 9/11 marked the beggining of a war (and were therefore an act of war) and the a-bombs didn't.
It just seems different when it's your own country being hit.

When it's some other nation people think "Who cares if the a-bombs hit cities with hundreds of thousands of civilians? It's not my country! I don't have to see what the radiation did to the people! No consequences."

Here... have a look (keep pressing 'Next'). It's not Hiroshima, but Nagasake. I'm sure the results were pretty much similar in both cities.

 

"If it's so legitimate to use them, why wanting to control who has them or not? Why can only americans own them? What? The rest of the World's the irresponsible Big Bad and americans the paladins for truth and justice? I'm sorry if I don't believe that."


This reductionist argument, while attractive for those looking to score politically expedient points, is completely out of touch with the reality of the international non-proliferation regime, and the complex issues involved.

 

While that may apply to the current situation, it's one of the valid issues to bring up when discussing the decision to drop the Bomb, isn't it?

 

One question I've always had about the idea that we saved millions of lives by dropping the Bombs on Japan is that, if the Japanese showed a willingness to surrender as a means of preventing the destruction of their country, why wouldn't they have surrendered in the face of a full-scale invasion that would have destroyed their country?

This is mere conjecture though. If I had been commmander in chief in 45, knowing what everyone knew then, I would have ordered the atomic weapons to be dropped on Japan. Truman did what any sensible leader would have done, given the risks, given the unknowns.

And dropping the Bomb on Japan created a huge debt to the Japanese which I sincerely believe the American people have repaid by helping Japan become an economic superpower.

 

So you're saying that money makes up for people's lives and suffering? ? I don't think it does.
By the way, I'm not sure if you're aware of japanese history, but considering that in a few decades they made up for centuries of techonogical development (in the end of the XIX/begining of the XX century), I'm fairly confident that after regaining (rightfully, the - US owed them that much and much more) whatever were the material losses caused by the bombs, they'd reach if not the same development as today, something very similar.

The drop of the a-bombs was unnecessary. It didn't end the war as it was almost over, it was meerely done in such a timing that it was possible for the US to test what that weapon was able to do to people and not suffer the consequences they should have for such an act.

 

The thing is the Japanese never showed any compassion towards their POWs. What did they do to General Wainwright's men in the Philliphines? They forced marched them 90 miles in 6 days, they were not allowed to have food or drink, except when told to. The food and drink they recieved was not nearly good enough to sustain someone on a easy day, let alone marching miles and miles under the hot grueling sun. If a soldier dropped out of the line, they were executed. If one had a drink of water without permission, they were executed. 76,000 men started that march and 20,000 died during those 6 days.

That is just one of many examples of how the Japanese behaved during WW2.

They had no respect for the enemy and they had even less respect in surrendering and the American High Command knew that. What guarantee would they have that the Japanese would surrender if they invaded? Based on all combat engagements prior to August 6th, there was no hint that they would surrender. They had a record of fighting to the death and the US was led to believe that would be the case in an invasion.

The only act of terrorism I can think of that the US did in WW2 was firebombing Dresden. Perhaps even firebombing Tokyo, which by the way killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, while the Atomic bombs inflicted less damage in both lives and destruction.