lol @ wasdie trying to tell people who have been brainwashed for years to hate everything about america, that america had to make a radical decision because the population was brainwashed, to do whatever the emperor wanted and in this case, to hate america.
So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
War trumps terrorism so by definition it wasn't. Plus a nuke had to be used by someone to prove its legitmacy
if you're refering to me I'm a Palestinian American:)lol @ wasdie trying to tell people who have been brainwashed for years to hate everything about america, that america had to make a radical decision because the population was brainwashed, to do whatever the emperor wanted and in this case, to hate america.
surrealnumber5
[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="DrPickle"]
I don't understand why everyone is fighting on whats terrorism and whats not.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were good terrorism, to say the least.
What is good terrorism then?Terrorism that serve to deter further conflict.
eh, so you'd commit a genocide of 500,000 people to stop a war destined to kill 8 million? So, would you tell that to the 500,000 people or would someone else? I think all terrorism is wrong, no matter what. All terrorism can be avoided. terrorism is a way to cut corners at the expense of civilian lives.
lol @ wasdie trying to tell people who have been brainwashed for years to hate everything about america, that america had to make a radical decision because the population was brainwashed, to do whatever the emperor wanted and in this case, to hate america.
surrealnumber5
The Japanese people weren't brainwashed to hate America, just be ultra loyal to the emperor. They were already fighting and dying for the Emperor long before they attacked the USA.
[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="DrPickle"]
I don't understand why everyone is fighting on whats terrorism and whats not.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were good terrorism, to say the least.
What is good terrorism then?Terrorism that serve to deter further conflict.
That's how a lot of people justify current terrorism. That it's for some "noble" goal. I dont think you ever can justify it.[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]
lol @ wasdie trying to tell people who have been brainwashed for years to hate everything about america, that america had to make a radical decision because the population was brainwashed, to do whatever the emperor wanted and in this case, to hate america.
The Japanese people weren't brainwashed to hate America, just be ultra loyal to the emperor. They were already fighting and dying for the Emperor long before they attacked the USA.
I dont know if they were ultra-loyal to the emperor as much as being ultra-nationalist or loyal to their homeland. Regardless, the only way the war in the pacific was going to end was with the unconditional surrender of Japan. The only way that was going to happen was with a massive invasion of mainland Japan as planned. Japan was beaten but they certainly were not going to give an unconditional surrender. You can make the argument - pro or con - about a conditional surrender, but given the events of Germay after ww1, you can understand why the allies were hesistant about that.[QUOTE="DrPickle"][QUOTE="mayceV"] What is good terrorism then? mayceV
Terrorism that serve to deter further conflict.
eh, so you'd commit a genocide of 500,000 people to stop a war destined to kill 8 million? So, would you tell that to the 500,000 people or would someone else? I think all terrorism is wrong, no matter what. All terrorism can be avoided. terrorism is a way to cut corners at the expense of civilian lives.Yeah, i'd sure as hell kill 500,000 people WHO ARE TRYING TO KILL ME and stop destined future conflict between their entire 10 Million population with my entire 10 Million population!
Therefore I have terrorized the 500,000 people toSTOP TRYING TO KILL ME and to stop fighting. By doing that I have saved generations of my people and of greater casualties of their people. Any country capable of such an option would most definitely use it. Why the **** would I lose my people's lives for my enemies lives?
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]
lol @ wasdie trying to tell people who have been brainwashed for years to hate everything about america, that america had to make a radical decision because the population was brainwashed, to do whatever the emperor wanted and in this case, to hate america.
Wasdie
The Japanese people weren't brainwashed to hate America, just be ultra loyal to the emperor. They were already fighting and dying for the Emperor long before they attacked the USA.
did you miss the "...to do whatever the emperor wanted and in this case..." part of my post?[QUOTE="DrPickle"][QUOTE="mayceV"] What is good terrorism then? sonicare
Terrorism that serve to deter further conflict.
That's how a lot of people justify current terrorism. That it's for some "noble" goal. I dont think you ever can justify it.Current terrorism is not to deter conflicts, since its mainly minority terrorism against majority which makes no difference regarldess of why the minority refer to terrorism ( could be to inflict damage, simply for the heck to terrorize, political goal, resistance movements w/e )
It was terrorism in the fact that we weren't attacking legitimate military targets (you could say the same thing about the carpet bombing of German cities). The purpose was psychological more than strategic.Engrish_Major/thread, No need for +5 pages of replies.
I don't understand why everyone is fighting on whats terrorism and whats not.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were good terrorism, to say the least.
What is good terrorism then? the two nukes dropped on Japan to end a war early that otherwise would have killed millions in a land invasionOne of the best reads on this is the Wiki article on President Harry S. Truman. He said he did the right thing, and he would decide the same if it had to be.I was pondering and wasn't Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism?
mayceV
they did attack us first. Also we gave them three days notice which was a chance for them to surrender.
Last time I checked we were at war. We didn't bomb Japan without provocation.
Not to mention Japan's entire population was contributing to the war effort, so it's impossible to distinguish military targets.
[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="DrPickle"]
Terrorism that serve to deter further conflict.
eh, so you'd commit a genocide of 500,000 people to stop a war destined to kill 8 million? So, would you tell that to the 500,000 people or would someone else? I think all terrorism is wrong, no matter what. All terrorism can be avoided. terrorism is a way to cut corners at the expense of civilian lives.Yeah, i'd sure as hell kill 500,000 people WHO ARE TRYING TO KILL ME and stop destined future conflict between their entire 10 Million population with my entire 10 Million population!
Therefore I have terrorized the 500,000 people toSTOP TRYING TO KILL ME and to stop fighting. By doing that I have saved generations of my people and of greater casualties of their people. Any country capable of such an option would most definitely use it. Why the **** would I lose my people's lives for my enemies lives?
What if that group of 500,000 people were innocent women and children? Terror is never Justified. Never. I'd rather watch my own country die before I lower myself to a genocidal monster. You say that you would allow 500,000 innocent people die at your hands than allow your own people to try saving themselves in a war? Any human willing to kill anyone because he's a diffrent people and thus worth less than his own people's lives is a supremesist. What makes your own people better than other people? Say anything other they aren't, and that is racism. Every human has the same value as another. You cannot put another person above another. Meaning a Homless man's life is equal to the president's life. When people stop the idea that thier people is better than another we'd be able to live without racism. What you have in your mind is the core issue of racism. You think that your people are better than another. Can I ask, why?
Hiroshima and N agasaki were military targets, contrary to popular belief. The entire cities were moblized and devoted to the war effort.
The atomic bombs dropped during WWII were a lot of things, but they were most definitely not terrorism.
I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.mrmusicman247Sort of...but they attacked a base of armed forces. We did something unnecessary and over the top. I believe even some of the higher ups at the time advised the president against the bombing. Japan would have surrendered without it.
Are you comparing something like the seemingly unprovoked attack, on innocent civilians, during a time of "peace" by a well know terrorist cell to the bombing of two cities, with connection to the war effort of a country we had been at full scale war with for years, started after they attacked us first, as an attempt to stop a full scale invasion that would have resulted in the death of many more Japanese civilians and military personal on both sides? So if China bombed California, and we nuked them in an attempt to stop the war it would be a terrorist attack? I can understand making the connection that to instill a sense of fear/terror can be said for both, but the situations surrounding the bombings in WWII and what we perceive as terrorist attacks today are COMPLETELY different. Just because on the surface the objective might seem the same, does not mean that the causes or intended outcomes are anything alike.
The bombings were a long time ago, my grandmother was barely out of diapers when it happened. I don't think the term terrorism even existed back then but a bunch of kids are coming out saying we're terrorists because we bombed Japan. It wasn't terrorism, it was war. It's easy to say what *should* have happened when it won't affect you personally but it's a different story when your decision could result in the deaths of millions of men under your command, something nobody on this board can claim.
20-year old men of today are whining and complaining now about how evil the US was for bombing Japan but I doubt the 20-year old men of 1945 in the military who were preparing to invade Japan and possibly fight to their deaths were complaining back then. Nor were their wives who were relieved their husbands (who may be the grandfathers of some of the posters here) were coming back home instead of dying in a land invasion that was estimated to kill millions.
I feel bad that innocent people died in the bombing but it was a legitimate target. It also showed us the aftereffects of the bombs, which is probably a big reason we haven't used them since. Considering that this is Gamespot, I 'd assume some of you are glad we ended the war the way we did. If we invaded Russia would have invaded the North and the US would have invaded the South. For all we know Japan could have ended up split up like Korea did. Which would have probably affected your precious videogames and anime.
. I don't think the term terrorism even existed back then ad1x2It did, and even if it didn't, it doesn't mean the inception of new words can't be applied to past events.
In response to the thread, it most certaintly was terrorism. The point was to terrify the enemy so they'd stop fighting. And it worked or so they say. Of course what most people refer to a s terrorism now is orchestrated by crippled countries or groups that have limited means to fight so instead of fighting with nukes, they suicide bomb, and hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings.
The bombings were a long time ago, my grandmother was barely out of diapers when it happened. I don't think the term terrorism even existed back then but a bunch of kids are coming out saying we're terrorists because we bombed Japan. It wasn't terrorism, it was war. It's easy to say what *should* have happened when it won't affect you personally but it's a different story when your decision could result in the deaths of millions of men under your command, something nobody on this board can claim.
20-year old men of today are whining and complaining now about how evil the US was for bombing Japan but I doubt the 20-year old men of 1945 in the military who were preparing to invade Japan and possibly fight to their deaths were complaining back then. Nor were their wives who were relieved their husbands (who may be the grandfathers of some of the posters here) were coming back home instead of dying in a land invasion that was estimated to kill millions.
I feel bad that innocent people died in the bombing but it was a legitimate target. It also showed us the aftereffects of the bombs, which is probably a big reason we haven't used them since. Considering that this is Gamespot, I 'd assume some of you are glad we ended the war the way we did. If we invaded Russia would have invaded the North and the US would have invaded the South. For all we know Japan could have ended up split up like Korea did. Which would have probably affected your precious videogames and anime.
ad1x2
Except there was no need to invade Japan.. Their airforce and navy were ruined when the US navy were at their shores.. All they had to do is blockade long enough and they would have crumbled.. This is going beyond the point at hand.. No the bombings may have been many things but a act of terrorism not all.
Just figured I would mention that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets.
Hiroshima at the time of he bombing had a few military camp including the head quarters of the 5th Division and 2nd General Army headquarters which commanded the defences of southern Japan. Was also a supply and logistics base, communication center, storage and assembly area for troops.
As for Nagasaki is was a large sea port nd had alot of industry that produced ammo, ships, and varies military equipment. While alot of the industry was damaged before droping the atomic bomb on Nagasakithe port was mostly untouched.
Seems like both cities had alot of militay significace and honostly think about it, you got 2 bombs that cost alot moey and time to produce, do you honostly think they would be used on cities that had little to no military significance. People really need to do research on military matters before going off on rants.
Exactly that.....and they were warned about the attack as well.Hiroshima and N agasaki were military targets, contrary to popular belief. The entire cities were moblized and devoted to the war effort.
The atomic bombs dropped during WWII were a lot of things, but they were most definitely not terrorism.
mrbojangles25
Pearl Harbor was an actual military target. and the intent was to hurt america so bad that we would lose stomach for war and role over, also as previously noted there was no war declaration at the time of the attacks. thenukes were used to end the war before it got worse, not to "scare" people, intent matters in action. wait what? this statement is wrong[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]
pearl harbor has a much much much better case for terrorism than dropping bombs on the person who bombed you without a declaration of war.
surrealnumber5
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]It was terrorism in the fact that we weren't attacking legitimate military targets (you could say the same thing about the carpet bombing of German cities). The purpose was psychological more than strategic.GazaAli/thread, No need for +5 pages of replies. That's wrong. Both cities were military targets...
[QUOTE="GazaAli"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]It was terrorism in the fact that we weren't attacking legitimate military targets (you could say the same thing about the carpet bombing of German cities). The purpose was psychological more than strategic.LJS9502_basic/thread, No need for +5 pages of replies. That's wrong. Both cities were military targets... If you were to apply the Geneva Conventions retroactively (as they were not present during WW2), as we are using the term "terrorism" retroactively, then they would not be legitimage targets, as the civilian deaths far outweigh the military significance.
This type of thinking makes no sense to me. What is or is not a military target has nothing to do with what is terrorism or is not terrorism. Supported military actions by a majority of people in a population can still be acts of terrorism. Acts of terrorism are even necessary, but because people want to separate themselves from their enemies they say no, what we do is not terror. It is above terror because it's a military target. Let's own the truth here. Terror works. Pretending to be righteous is sickening.Just figured I would mention that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets.
Hiroshima at the time of he bombing had a few military camp including the head quarters of the 5th Division and 2nd General Army headquarters which commanded the defences of southern Japan. Was also a supply and logistics base, communication center, storage and assembly area for troops.
As for Nagasaki is was a large sea port nd had alot of industry that produced ammo, ships, and varies military equipment. While alot of the industry was damaged before droping the atomic bomb on Nagasakithe port was mostly untouched.
Seems like both cities had alot of militay significace and honostly think about it, you got 2 bombs that cost alot moey and time to produce, do you honostly think they would be used on cities that had little to no military significance. People really need to do research on military matters before going off on rants.
Shadow_Fighter
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] It's not today.....and both cities were hit because of military importance. Though in the case of Japan all citizens were expected to fight anyway.....so they would still under that ideology be a legitimate target.Engrish_MajorNo, they were still civilians at that time. We are trying to use a term retroactively (terrorism) to see if it was. So, I'm using the opposite term (as anything that does not follow the Geneva Conventions is generally considered terrorism). And the definition oflegitimate military targets does not include the destruction of entire cities.Now you've missed the point. First....it wasn't against any international law at the time and retroactively attempting to make it so isn't correct. Second both cities had a high value in regard to military importance. They were not mere civilian populations. Third.....as I stated civilians were told to fight back against invading forces. Meaning at that point that they've been told (and accepted) the job of fighting back....they were no longer civilians. Fourth.....it depends as well on what definition one is willing to give to terrorism. Fifth....when Pearl Harbor was attacked the US was not a combatant in the war. If anything Pearl Harbor could be seen as an act of terrorism. Lastly the definition you linked gives leeway as to what necessitates a legitimate military target. Considering the casualties that have been estimated to be the result of continued war would have been higher....than using your definition...it was a legitimate military target. Now /thread.
No, they were still civilians at that time. We are trying to use a term retroactively (terrorism) to see if it was. So, I'm using the opposite term (as anything that does not follow the Geneva Conventions is generally considered terrorism). And the definition oflegitimate military targets does not include the destruction of entire cities.Now you've missed the point. First....it wasn't against any international law at the time and retroactively attempting to make it so isn't correct. Second both cities had a high value in regard to military importance. They were not mere civilian populations. Third.....as I stated civilians were told to fight back against invading forces. Meaning at that point that they've been told (and accepted) the job of fighting back....they were no longer civilians. Fourth.....it depends as well on what definition one is willing to give to terrorism. Fifth....when Pearl Harbor was attacked the US was not a combatant in the war. If anything Pearl Harbor could be seen as an act of terrorism. Only actual military targets were attacked during Pearl Harbor. If you can't see the difference between that and attacking civilians en masse, then I don't know what to say to you. And if our military were to be destroyed, and someone invaded NYC, do you not think that the residents of NYC would fight back? That doesn't mean that they are not civilians at this point in time. The same applies to the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] It's not today.....and both cities were hit because of military importance. Though in the case of Japan all citizens were expected to fight anyway.....so they would still under that ideology be a legitimate target.LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Now you've missed the point. First....it wasn't against any international law at the time and retroactively attempting to make it so isn't correct. Second both cities had a high value in regard to military importance. They were not mere civilian populations. Third.....as I stated civilians were told to fight back against invading forces. Meaning at that point that they've been told (and accepted) the job of fighting back....they were no longer civilians. Fourth.....it depends as well on what definition one is willing to give to terrorism. Fifth....when Pearl Harbor was attacked the US was not a combatant in the war. If anything Pearl Harbor could be seen as an act of terrorism. Only actual military targets were attacked during Pearl Harbor. If you can't see the difference between that and attacking civilians en masse, then I don't know what to say to you. And if our military were to be destroyed, and someone invaded NYC, do you not think that the residents of NYC would fight back? That doesn't mean that they are not civilians at this point in time. The same applies to the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.We had no military targets for Japan. We were not at war with them.[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] No, they were still civilians at that time. We are trying to use a term retroactively (terrorism) to see if it was. So, I'm using the opposite term (as anything that does not follow the Geneva Conventions is generally considered terrorism). And the definition oflegitimate military targets does not include the destruction of entire cities.Engrish_Major
Nonetheless.....your definition allows for the bombing. In most every category....I've highlighted part that counters your assessment.
Any attack must be justified by military necessity. However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage. If there are doubts whether a normally civilian facility is contributing to military action, the object is presumed to be civilian. They may also have protective signs, which may designate it as forbidden to fire on (hospital, monastery/convent, site of cultural or historical importance).
- Legitimate military targets include: armed forces and persons who take part in the fighting; positions or installations occupied by armed forces as well as objectives that are directly contested in battle; military installations such as barracks, war ministries, munitions or fuel dumps, storage yards for vehicles, airfields, rocket launch ramps, and naval bases.
Estimates are that the advantage to bombing the cities is that it saved more lives than were lost. Notice where it says PERSONS who take part in the fighting....which the civilians of Japan had been told to do by their emperor who they followed faithfully.
Only actual military targets were attacked during Pearl Harbor. If you can't see the difference between that and attacking civilians en masse, then I don't know what to say to you. And if our military were to be destroyed, and someone invaded NYC, do you not think that the residents of NYC would fight back? That doesn't mean that they are not civilians at this point in time. The same applies to the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.We had no military targets for Japan. We were not at war with them.[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Now you've missed the point. First....it wasn't against any international law at the time and retroactively attempting to make it so isn't correct. Second both cities had a high value in regard to military importance. They were not mere civilian populations. Third.....as I stated civilians were told to fight back against invading forces. Meaning at that point that they've been told (and accepted) the job of fighting back....they were no longer civilians. Fourth.....it depends as well on what definition one is willing to give to terrorism. Fifth....when Pearl Harbor was attacked the US was not a combatant in the war. If anything Pearl Harbor could be seen as an act of terrorism.
LJS9502_basic
Nonetheless.....your definition allows for the bombing. In most every category....I've highlighted part that counters your assessment.
Any attack must be justified by military necessity. However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage. If there are doubts whether a normally civilian facility is contributing to military action, the object is presumed to be civilian. They may also have protective signs, which may designate it as forbidden to fire on (hospital, monastery/convent, site of cultural or historical importance).
- Legitimate military targets include: armed forces and persons who take part in the fighting; positions or installations occupied by armed forces as well as objectives that are directly contested in battle; military installations such as barracks, war ministries, munitions or fuel dumps, storage yards for vehicles, airfields, rocket launch ramps, and naval bases.
Estimates are that the advantage to bombing the cities is that it saved more lives than were lost. Notice where it says PERSONS who take part in the fighting....which the civilians of Japan had been told to do by their emperor who they followed faithfully.
Okay, now you're just expanding the definition so much as to make it worthless. The citizens of any country would fight back were it invaded. That doesn't mean that entire cities or countries should just be wiped off of the earth. Would you justify a country that we were at war with nuking NYC, because they fear the residents would fight back when the invading forces came marching down the street?[QUOTE="Shadow_Fighter"]This type of thinking makes no sense to me. What is or is not a military target has nothing to do with what is terrorism or is not terrorism. Supported military actions by a majority of people in a population can still be acts of terrorism. Acts of terrorism are even necessary, but because people want to separate themselves from their enemies they say no, what we do is not terror. It is above terror because it's a military target. Let's own the truth here. Terror works. Pretending to be righteous is sickening.Just figured I would mention that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets.
Hiroshima at the time of he bombing had a few military camp including the head quarters of the 5th Division and 2nd General Army headquarters which commanded the defences of southern Japan. Was also a supply and logistics base, communication center, storage and assembly area for troops.
As for Nagasaki is was a large sea port nd had alot of industry that produced ammo, ships, and varies military equipment. While alot of the industry was damaged before droping the atomic bomb on Nagasakithe port was mostly untouched.
Seems like both cities had alot of militay significace and honostly think about it, you got 2 bombs that cost alot moey and time to produce, do you honostly think they would be used on cities that had little to no military significance. People really need to do research on military matters before going off on rants.
UniverseIX
Actualliy if it is a military target has alot to do with what is terrorism. For it to be a terrorist attack you would have to prove that we purposefuly attacked the civilians. You could probably argue that we did but the fact that we warned the Japanese civilians in those cities of the impending bombings in advance it would seem to point to the fact that we where only targeting the military target in the area. The fact that the Japanese civilians didn't leave when they had the chance or that the Japanese government put high value military targets in those cities does not make it a terrorist attack.
I admit that terror works, it if an effective tactic and is used in all wars and no where was I pretending to be righteous, I merely stated that the two cities had military targets in them. Personaly I think the American military has grown to soft since ww2 and that we need to add a bit more terror into our strategies.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]We had no military targets for Japan. We were not at war with them.[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Only actual military targets were attacked during Pearl Harbor. If you can't see the difference between that and attacking civilians en masse, then I don't know what to say to you. And if our military were to be destroyed, and someone invaded NYC, do you not think that the residents of NYC would fight back? That doesn't mean that they are not civilians at this point in time. The same applies to the residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.Engrish_Major
Nonetheless.....your definition allows for the bombing. In most every category....I've highlighted part that counters your assessment.
Any attack must be justified by military necessity. However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage. If there are doubts whether a normally civilian facility is contributing to military action, the object is presumed to be civilian. They may also have protective signs, which may designate it as forbidden to fire on (hospital, monastery/convent, site of cultural or historical importance).
- Legitimate military targets include: armed forces and persons who take part in the fighting; positions or installations occupied by armed forces as well as objectives that are directly contested in battle; military installations such as barracks, war ministries, munitions or fuel dumps, storage yards for vehicles, airfields, rocket launch ramps, and naval bases.
Estimates are that the advantage to bombing the cities is that it saved more lives than were lost. Notice where it says PERSONS who take part in the fighting....which the civilians of Japan had been told to do by their emperor who they followed faithfully.
Okay, now you're just expanding the definition so much as to make it worthless. The citizens of any country would fight back were it invaded. That doesn't mean that entire cities or countries should just be wiped off of the earth. Would you justify a country that we were at war with nuking NYC, because they fear the residents would fight back when the invading forces came marching down the street?I expanded nothing. That is the actual wording from your link. And deciding if a target is legitimate is not as black and white as you stated in regard to civilian deaths.Of course you expanded it. Do you honestly think that the Geneva Conventions would allow for us to nuke entire cities off of the map?I expanded nothing. That is the actual wording from your link. And deciding if a target is legitimate is not as black and white as you stated in regard to civilian deaths.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Of course you expanded it. Do you honestly think that the Geneva Conventions would allow for us to nuke entire cities off of the map? You gave the definition of legitimate military target and stated those cities didn't fit. Reading that definition they did fit the definition. Now you are expanding the goal posts. Though one need only decline to sign the Geneva Convention to not be bound by it. It's not the be all and end all of military actions either. Many countries today violate the Geneva Convention in theory but as they are not signatories....it's allowed. So maybe using the GC isn't the way to go.....what with it not being black and white either.I expanded nothing. That is the actual wording from your link. And deciding if a target is legitimate is not as black and white as you stated in regard to civilian deaths.
Engrish_Major
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Of course you expanded it. Do you honestly think that the Geneva Conventions would allow for us to nuke entire cities off of the map? You gave the definition of legitimate military target and stated those cities didn't fit. Reading that definition they did fit the definition. Now you are expanding the goal posts. Though one need only decline to sign the Geneva Convention to not be bound by it. It's not the be all and end all of military actions either. Many countries today violate the Geneva Convention in theory but as they are not signatories....it's allowed. So maybe using the GC isn't the way to go.....what with it not being black and white either. No, the population of those cities does not fit the definition. The weapons used did not discriminate between military and civilian targets. Schools full of children and hospitals were obliterated along with any other target. You're the one that is expanding the definition so much as to make it meaningless, so that by your reading it allows for virtually anyone and anything to be targeted.I expanded nothing. That is the actual wording from your link. And deciding if a target is legitimate is not as black and white as you stated in regard to civilian deaths.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Of course you expanded it. Do you honestly think that the Geneva Conventions would allow for us to nuke entire cities off of the map?Engrish_MajorYou gave the definition of legitimate military target and stated those cities didn't fit. Reading that definition they did fit the definition. Now you are expanding the goal posts. Though one need only decline to sign the Geneva Convention to not be bound by it. It's not the be all and end all of military actions either. Many countries today violate the Geneva Convention in theory but as they are not signatories....it's allowed. So maybe using the GC isn't the way to go.....what with it not being black and white either. No, the population of those cities does not fit the definition. The weapons used did not discriminate between military and civilian targets. Schools full of children and hospitals were obliterated along with any other target. You're the one that is expanding the definition so much as to make it meaningless, so that by your reading it allows for virtually anyone and anything to be targeted.You will never ever find a weapon that discriminates between civilan and military so that point is pretty much worthless. Again I expanded nothing. The rule clearly states "However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage." Excessive when compared to the advantage. And we have estimates that higher deaths would have occurred if a conventional war were to be fought in Japan. Therefore, the advantage is higher than the civilian loss. You gave the definition.....I'm reading it right there. There is no black and white definition of civilian losses being disallowed. If an advantage is greater than civilian losses...it's a legitamate military target. Says so right in the Geneva Convention Article 52.
No, the population of those cities does not fit the definition. The weapons used did not discriminate between military and civilian targets. Schools full of children and hospitals were obliterated along with any other target. You're the one that is expanding the definition so much as to make it meaningless, so that by your reading it allows for virtually anyone and anything to be targeted.You will never ever find a weapon that discriminates between civilan and military so that point is pretty much worthless. Again I expanded nothing. The rule clearly states "However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage." Excessive when compared to the advantage. And we have estimates that higher deaths would have occurred if a conventional war were to be fought in Japan. Therefore, the advantage is higher than the civilian loss. You gave the definition.....I'm reading it right there. There is no black and white definition of civilian losses being disallowed. If an advantage is greater than civilian losses...it's a legitamate military target. Says so right in the Geneva Convention Article 52. I still disagree with that interpretation. You're basically stating that any and all targets are legitimate. Which nullifies the entire point of the conventions in the first place. So, why not just blow up all schools in the first place? After all, the children may grow up someday and join the opposing military :roll: Anyway, I've got to leave. That's all for me here, as we're just going around in circles.[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You gave the definition of legitimate military target and stated those cities didn't fit. Reading that definition they did fit the definition. Now you are expanding the goal posts. Though one need only decline to sign the Geneva Convention to not be bound by it. It's not the be all and end all of military actions either. Many countries today violate the Geneva Convention in theory but as they are not signatories....it's allowed. So maybe using the GC isn't the way to go.....what with it not being black and white either.LJS9502_basic
I still disagree with that interpretation. You're basically stating that any and all targets are legitimate. Which nullifies the entire point of the conventions in the first place. So, why not just blow up all schools in the first place? After all, the children may grow up someday and join the opposing military :roll: Anyway, I've got to leave. That's all for me here, as we're just going around in circles.Engrish_MajorIt's clearly stated that way for a reason. If civilian deaths were never to be encouraged there would be no clause allowing for "advantage'. Dude....your link doesn't back up your stance.
I think terrorism being bad by definition is the wrong way to look at it. Although it may not look like it, I think if there's a way to win a war without fighting, it's the better choice. That said, I do believe that it was not necessarily an intimidation tactic so much as a...bombing.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment