Compare: Hiroshima to Terrorism

[john5746]

The bombing of Hiroshima, killed at least 100,000, not to mention birth problems in later generations, etc. Compare this to Terrorist activities, such as Hamas.

 

Of course the first was a formal war, but I think everyone is aware that they are under attack in the latter case. Civilians are killed in both instances.

 

To justify Hiroshima, we said to save soldiers lives, not that we couldn't win. Terrorists are usually in a winless battle anyway, like a last resort in their minds.

 

What is your opinion?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The war itself,the massive fire bombings of Japan, the Germans bombing London, the Allies bombing of Germany, the attack at Pearl Harbor, and many more like that were just as bad. Japan didn't have to attack Pearl Harbor. We could have won without fire bombing. The Germans actually lost themselves the war bombing London, because they were just about to obliterate the RAF's bases and radar stations. Bombing London was like saying "Oh, heck, let's not bother killing all the terrorists, let's kill their families by nuking Bahgdad". Etcetera.

So it wasn't that bad.

[budullewraagh]

Compare this to Terrorist activities, such as Hamas.

if we're talking about hamas, why not talk about state terrorism (israel, the united states, britain)

[john5746]

Well, that is where I am getting at I guess. Japan made a preemptive attack on a naval base because we were helping China and they saw us as an imminent threat. They did warn us, although not in the best manner.

 

In 2003, we see Saddam WMD’s as a threat and attack. If Iraq had set off a nuclear device in the US in an attempt to end the war, would this be justified?

 

In my opinion, if the war had dragged on, Japan and America would probably be the worse for it. Do the ends justify the means?

[Ben_Phys618]

You said that Hiroshima was a formal war, implying that terrorist activities arn't a formal war. How is that? The US Government made it one. They called it the War on Terrorism. Hmmm...there's an interesting concept. The terrorists are simply defending themselves from an american attack. Of course I knwo thats not the case, they were commiting terrorist acts before the 'war' was declared, but its still an interesting concept.

 

The ends never really justify the means, because if the means are wrong, you never completely accomplish your end. Example, Bush attacked Iraq because he believed that it was "America's responsibilty to bring peace to bring peace to the world."

http://www.dedanaan.com/silent_lucidity/archives/000382.php

 

And in attempting this, he sows the seed of hatred towards the US in the minds of many Iraqis, which ultimately will find a means to be expressed, and I'll make the hypothesis that it won't be in the form of peaceful demonstrations.

[fourier jr]

Radhabinod Pal (sp maybe), an Indian & the only independent Asian justice at the Tokyo trial, wrote that the only crime in the Pacific theatre that could compare with the Holocaust was the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki. That wasn't a war crime because the winning side did it. Basically atrocities becomes war crimes only if the winning side can show that the losing side did more of it than the losing side. "Terrorism" doesn't even compare with any of that stuff, unless you count the terrorism (torture, bombing soft targets, economic strangulation, overthrowing governments, supressing movements to overthrow murderous dictators, etc) that the US has supported since WWII, which I assume nobody counts as terrorism.

[SurfSciGuy]

The history of war is written by the victors. At the end of the day who is going to bring the US to book for dropping the bomb on Japan? It's the same with state terrorism. War crimes are decided in a legal context which dictates that the winners cannot commit war crimes and the big guy is always the winner.

[pulkit]

Though I strongly think of the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be no less than an act of terorr. I can't help but imgaine how else the second world war could have been ended. The fact is that untill a blow as telling as an atomic bomb or the capturing of a capital city had acctualy taken place, the world would have continued to wage war. Plus, it was an all out war at that time and you can justify such acts in war. What you clearly can't justify is what USA did in Iraq and Afghanistan because it wasn't a war. It was a slaughter.

[Sayonara]

Errr... the Axis surrended before the bombs dropped.

 

Essentially, only Japan and America were still fighting.

[YT2095]

and the other difference is that it ended a WAR where thousands of folk were dying, a war brought about idealism and extremism from one side only isn`t justified, it would be like me randomly declairing a war on all that didn`t have the same hair color as me, or didn`t like the same muzik or foods.

 

we nuked Japan because it was a war where people were dying, it was a WAR!

it was NOT based on some half baked notion!

 

there`s a BIG difference behind going on the offensive to bring a war to end, and going on the offensive to START a war!

[pulkit]

Errr... the Axis surrended before the bombs dropped

Oops ! Forgot my history there, all apologies

[fourier jr]

Errr... the Axis surrended before the bombs dropped.

 

Essentially' date=' only Japan and America were still fighting.[/quote']

 

 

"Defenders of the U.S. action counter that the bomb actually saved lives: It ended the war sooner and obviated the need for a land invasion. Estimates of the hypothetical saved-body count, however, which range from 20,000 to 1.2 million, owe more to political agendas than to objective projections.

 

But in any event, defining the issue as a choice between the A-bomb and a land invasion is an irrelevant and wholly false dichotomy. By 1945, Japan's entire military and industrial machine was grinding to a halt as the resources needed to wage war were all but eradicated. The navy and air force had been destroyed ship by ship, plane by plane, with no possibility of replacement. When, in the spring of 1945, the island nation's lifeline to oil was severed, the war was over except for the fighting. By June, Gen. Curtis LeMay, in charge of the air attacks, was complaining that after months of terrible firebombing, there was nothing left of Japanese cities for his bombers but "garbage can targets". By July, U.S. planes could fly over Japan without resistance and bomb as much and as long as they pleased. Japan could no longer defend itself.

 

....

 

It has been asserted that dropping of the atomic bombs was not so much the last military act of the Second World War as the first act of the Cold War. Although Japan was targeted, the weapons were aimed straight to the red heart of the USSR. For three-quarters of a century, the determining element of U.S. foreign policy, virtually its sine qua non, has been "the communist factor" World War II and a battlefield alliance with the Soviet Union did not bring about an ideological change in the anti-communists who owned and ran America. It merely provided a partial breather in a struggle that had begun with the U.S. invasion of the Soviet Union in 1918. It is hardly surprising then, that 25 years later, as the Soviets were sustaining the highest casualties of any nation in WW2, the U.S. systematically kept them in the dark about the A-bomb project -- while sharing information with the British.

 

....

 

"The psychological effect on Stalin [of the bombs] was twofold," noted historian Charles L. Mee, Jr. "The Americans had not only used a doomsday machine; they had used it when, as Stalin knew, it was not militarily necessary. It was this last chilling fact that doubtless made the greatest impression on the Russians....."

....

etc

 

from Bill Blum, former employee of the State Dept:

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/abomb.htm

[john5746]

Very good posts!

 

Yes, Russia probably would have become more involved in the Japanese conflict and may have gotten Japan or the Northern part. That is why I said Japan may be better off because of the bomb dropping, but in light of your post, maybe it was completely needless.

 

When I was in Japan, I felt the bombing was justified. After 911, I came to the conclusion that it was wrong. I do think the Japanese govt is to blame also, at least for Nagasaki, because they didn't surrender after Hiroshima. Many Americans condemn atrocities in Vietnam, but WWII is all rosy on our side. I guess because we won and the war was justified.

 

When is the killing of civilians a terrorist act? When is it not a terrorist act?

Maybe, as mentioned previously it is up to the victor.

[budullewraagh]

the japanese government is to blame for a few things. ever heard of sherman carpets? translation: children strapped with explosives who hurled themselves in front of american sherman tanks. the civilian population of japan were all sworn to fight to their deaths for the motherland.

[Sayonara]

the civilian population of japan were all sworn to fight to their deaths for the motherland.

Not exactly.

 

The civilian population (and particularly those on the smaller islands) were told by the Japanese military that the approaching US troops would rape and murder women, kill or enslave children and execute the men, burning villages as they left.

 

When the US troops arrived to secure these islands, they often found entire villages had killed themselves (often with the father killing his own family) rather than face the horror of the evil invaders.

 

The stories about the evil of the opposing side were greatly exagerated - you have to remember this was essentially a grudge match. If you have seen any film of the horrifying ground weapons the USA deployed during their invasion you'd think twice before painting the Japanese as child exploders.

[atinymonkey]

the japanese government is to blame for a few things. ever heard of sherman carpets? translation: children strapped with explosives who hurled themselves in front of american sherman tanks. the civilian population of japan were all sworn to fight to their deaths for the motherland.

 

The Motherland was Germany, not Japan. The idea to fight rather than be captured was not to do with the place of birth, but the Bushido code. In Japan, honor was/is more important than life itself. The very idea that you could allow yourself to be captured was abhorrent, practicing seppuku was common to avoid capture. The Japanese soldiers would fight down to the last man, no matter the odds or the wounds sustained. This scared the crap out of the Americans, faced with an Army that to all appearances would not stop, falter or fall and was so determined in their resolve. Life in the Army is not how it is portrayed in the films, American soldiers were scared. The Japanese were scary. The propaganda machine worked to paint an image of Japanese devils, because they couldn't tell the troops the Japanese fought harder because they had a higher sense of honor. The American army consited of men who used to be shopkeepers and Schoolteachers, sent halfway across the world to tiny insignificant islands. Moral was not high, not as high as the armys that were defending their own country.

 

I honestly haven't heard reports of 'sherman carpets' outside of Trumans one comment, we can't be sure if they are true or not. It's possible that isolated events occurred with young men, the Japanese are not tall and could be mistaken for children quite easily. I don't know.

 

It was an awful war to be involved in, the conditions were horrible. I don't know how the army coped with it. It's easy to see why a swift end was wanted.

[budullewraagh]

The civilian population (and particularly those on the smaller islands) were told by the Japanese military that the approaching US troops would rape and murder women, kill or enslave children and execute the men, burning villages as they left.

of course they didn't all fight to the death; japan still exists. i was merely stating that there were sherman carpets and many did fight to the death. i am not demonizing anybody and i am sorry if you feel that i am.

[Sayonara]

It's not that I thought you were demonizing them as such, it's just that you left the frequency with which sherman carpetting occured open to the imagination of the reader.

 

The way the post seems to read in context is that the sherman carpets were a standard part of the Japanese war machine.

[atinymonkey]

I am not demonizing anybody and i am sorry if you feel that i am.

 

 

Nope, didn't think that, I just felt the need to post some stuff and some things.

[budullewraagh]

The way the post seems to read in context is that the sherman carpets were a standard part of the Japanese war machine.

nah they weren't

[Skye]

I don't think you need to rely on anything like the 'Sherman carpets' to paint the Japanese badly.

[atinymonkey]

Ain't nothing wrong with the Japanese, is there?

[AL]

Ain't nothing wrong with the Japanese, is there?

I don't think he was implying anything wrong with the Japanese in general, just that they had their hands in quite a bit of atrocities during WW2. The Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, etc. "Sherman Carpets" would be the least of these.

[budullewraagh]

oh, i agree that the rape of nanking and the bataan death march was much worse than the whole sherman carpet thing. hey, if youre looking for atrocities think of the tens of millions of innocent chinese the japanese killed during imperialistic days.

[atinymonkey]

think of the tens of millions of innocent chinese the japanese killed during imperialistic days.

 

Glass houses, throwing stones. How are the native Americans doing these days?