Was Hiroshima an act of Terrorism?

well, they have an Honor and shame culture...If you are honorable, and die a martyrs death for your country, your family will be reviered. Nothing like the US today...we don't care about anything...just our own personal comforts (that's society...not pointing at individuals.)

 

I think the A-Bomb is a horrible weapon, but it needed to be dropped. Many innocent people died in the bombings, but it stopped us from having to invade Japan. If we had to invade, not just hundreds of thousands of soldiers would have died. The civilians of Japan would have fought to the death also. And it's very obvious that many, many, more people would have died if we invaded then us just dropping the A-Bomb.

 

Innocent people always die...even in conventional warfare.

 

^^^^^^Exactly. Over 20 million russians died during world war II. More "innocent" japanese died during the firebombings. Death of non-military citizens of countries fighting in a war is inevitable. The fact is the United states was losing more troops than ever before the bomb was dropped. They needed to end the war, and the bomb could do that. It was simply an attack on a country that we were at war with.

 

Hiroshima & Nagasaki were horrible, but show me a better alternative that would get the Japanese to surrender? In war, sometimes there aren't 100% peaceful alternatives.

 

The use of the A-bombs was an act of terrorism, if you base your interpretation entirely on the definition. However, this is something that requires judgement, because one cannot only look at the actual act. They must also look at the surrounding circumstances.

Take murder for example.

If I'm just out minding my business, then I just go and kill someone, then that's murder, and I should be punished for it.

If I'm a soldier, and I kill someone in battle, then by definition, that is also murder, but there's a difference.

I love how people discuss whether or not the use of the bombs was justified. Why does it matter? Was Pearl Harbor justified? Was the invasion of France or Russia justified?

If I walked up to you, and punched you in the face, for no reason, is that justified? No, but it happened, so you're left with about two options.

1. Sit there, and keep getting punched in the face.

2. Stand up and punch me harder in the face to make me stop punching you.

 

If I walked up to you, and punched you in the face, for no reason, is that justified? No, but it happened, so you're left with about two options.

1. Sit there, and keep getting punched in the face.

2. Stand up and punch me harder in the face to make me stop punching you.

Bad example, but I see your point. There is another option in a personal example like this...

3. Prevent you from hitting me again. This could be grappling and subduing, handcuffing, etc. Not necessarily violence.

Sorry... just getting nitpicky. This #3 optin DOES NOT apply to the A-bomb debate, only the personal-level example. There was no way to "subdue" the Japanese war machine in 1945.

 

?

 

I don't think there were any rules that weren't broken in WWII. Of course now you would call it terrorism, but back then it was accepted practice, if your enemy didn't have a weapon that you had-you used it. So calling it terrorism now is pointless considering it was the first time anyone used such a weapon and the military knew it'd end the war by dropping it. So you have your choices you either a)Let 1,000,000 soldiers invade Japan and die or b)you drop an atomic bomb and end the war swiftly-decisively. I'd have chosen the second option, wouldn't you?

 

Cheveyo, your option three is really just further elaborates on my option two. What does you hitting me back do? It stops you from hitting me, just as the options you proposed will also stop you from hitting me.

And I'm sorry, but for you to stop me, it's going to require some degree of violence. Yes, you can decide to what degree the violence extends, but it still requires it.

I mean come on. Do you think I'm going to just stop hitting you, so you can put handcuffs on me, or put me in some grappling hold to make me submit?

 

I disagree. There are non-violent options (pepper spray is considered non-violent by law enforcement standards). But this belongs in a different thread. It doesn't fit into the Hiroshima/Nagasaki debate.

 

Well, in a way it does.

First of all, if there was any confusion, I'm in favor of dropping the bombs, and don't see anything wrong with it all. When engaged in a fight, conflict, war, etc. the same objective exists whether you're trying retreat, come to a draw, or win, and that's to accomplish it with the least amount of harm/damage to yourself.

That was the point of putting it on a personal level. I think it helps to relate that to people sometimes, because some people don't just have it occur to them. That was the reason for the example of me punching whoever.

You speak of 'non-violent' ways to subdue someone. I think some people might view things differently on a personal level. Some people believe it was wrong for the US to fight back with everything it had to protect itself, but would these same people see it as the same wrong to fight back with everything they have to protect themselves?

And pepper spray? Are you sure you mean non-violent, or do you mean non-lethal? Pepper spray, stun guns, or any non-lethal device is still a form of attacking someone.

 

You know, hindsight is 20/20. How did we know for sure at the time Japan wasn't working on or near perfecting their own A-bomb at the time.

So lets say we decide not to use the bomb and invade Japan and it takes 6 months to a year minimum, and during this time Japan develops they're own A-bomb and uses it on us. We don't know what would have happend if we had'nt used the bomb. We take it for granted that we beat Japan.

As for calling us using the A-bomb on Japan terrorism, I could really care less what you call it. The fact of the matter is both of them were acts of war, 9-11 was more of a guerilla warfare tactic in my mind. The Taliban has said repeatedly that it was Jihad, or holy war.

 

"The Taliban has said repeatedly that it was Jihad, or holy war."

Well maybe it's time to drop another Atomic bomb on there Jihad holy war.

You mess with the big dog you will get bit. You know they asked for it and we should give it to them. Hit three of our buildings then we destroy three of the countries you hide in.

If only we would just do it, but we can't now but if I could push the button I sure as hell would. It's wishful thinking and it's terrible to the enviornment and the loss of life would be horrible, but it would do the job. It would eliminate future generations of terrorists and put the fear of God into them that they wouldn't and couldn't ever try another terrorist act ever again.

Anyway

 

Timothy McVeigh blew up a building in the U.S. I'm sure you were just begging for the United States to nuke themselves, DARTHPIGFEET. Please try to see how ridiculous your opinion is.

 

Non violent methods of resolving a conflict...pepper spray?

I'll tell you, that' a terrible example...

Vietnam an Korea were wars fought by politicians who thought that way. They tried to "play war"...make it so that there were no winners or loosers...just the policing of Communism. Notice...there are STILL communist regimes in North Korea, and Vietnam is completely under the thumb of communists... When the US tries to fight a war, and they try to be "nice" about it...we end up sending our sons and daughters and brothers to die with no clear objective. In the Revolutionary War we had an objective...gain freedom from taxation without representation. the Civil War...to uphold a nation, and to not divide it. WWI and WWII were setup to fight off madmen who wanted to control the world...and to stop genocide. Korea and Vietnam were disasters. The Bosnia conflict...which I have experience firsthand, was NECISSARY force. If the US had not Strategically bombed Serbia's forces...then many more innocent Men, Women, and Children would have died.

15,000 CHILDREN died to sniper's bullets... over 300,000 total people nation wide...and more could have died. What would you choose? would you choose to destroy a regeme bent on the massacre of people, just because of their ethnicity? Or would you Kill another human being to prevent an Innocent from dying...and would you use any means at your desposal? If it meant killing mass amounts of people at one time? would you do it...

I would in a heartbeat.

 

It maybe rediculous and I know it is, but you know deep down inside it would be the only way we could get rid of the problem and start 100 more problems, but at least we would settle that one problem.

It will never happen, but it doesn't mean I couldn't wish it. So I will keep my rediculous opinion.

I have no respect for that region anymore and could care less if they all lived or died. They are the enemy. They hate us. Sure not all of them hate us, but after reading many of the public polls taken in several middle eastern countries after Sept 11 more than 40% if not more thought that the Sept 11 terrorist act was a good thing. That in my book says it all.

 

Well, retaliating with maxium force, such as nuclear weapons, is not ridiculous. It might be extreme, but it's not ridiculous. With regards to WWII Japan and present day terrorists, the situations differ greatly. However, they do have one similarity, if either Japan or any terrorists group had nuclear weapons, I don't think they would hesitate in using them. That's the thing about war. Sometimes it simply comes down to getting the other guy before he gets you.

DARTHPIGFEET, your opinion is extreme, but for the most part, I share the same opinion. If a few areas in the Middle East were turned into a couple of square miles of glass, I bet you would see a lot of terrorists start to disappear.

 

I think we are sufficiently off topic here.

 

Lord, forgive me! For I have sinned against thee!

 

...you have no respect for the people there? You should go and meet them, and then you can talk about "the people"

What you are doing right there is what this whole war is about...no one tries to understand eachother...they just hate...because they don't take the time to understand. Now I agree that it must stop, muslim radicallists are really hurting the planet, but do not lump every one into the same basket. I have many friends who live in "that part of the world," some of them dislike America...but they LIKE americans... You should have heard what they said about Americans...by the way...have you ever traveled outside of the Country?

 

"some of them dislike America...but they LIKE americans..."

How can you LIKE Americans and hate America at the same time? That doesn't make any sense.

 

If we nuked all of those countries you talked about, we wouldn't be any better than the terrorists.

 

How can you LIKE Americans and hate America at the same time? That doesn't make any sense.

They hate the government, not the people.

 

America's government is it's people.