So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?

A country's uniformed forces that conduct sanctioned operations against an enemy while a state of war exists cannot by definition commit terrorism.

However, they can commit various forms of war crimes.

The keys are: uniformed forces, national gov't (country), and state of war.

Terrorism: non-national actors, non-uniformed forces, no state of war.

State sponsored terrorism: non-uniformed forces, no state of war.

[QUOTE="DrPickle"]

[QUOTE="mayceV"] 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.mayceV

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?

I wouldn't say it was terrorism. For one thing, I'm not sure if Truman knew the full effect of the atomic bomb. Secondly, I think I've heard historians say something along the lines that, if we had done a regular invasion of Japan, many more lives would have been lost. Finally, after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese admiral Hirohito said something about Japan having awakened a sleeping giant. It seems history would prove him right.

I wouldn't say it was terrorism. For one thing, I'm not sure if Truman knew the full effect of the atomic bomb. Secondly, I think I've heard historians say something along the lines that, if we had done a regular invasion of Japan, many more lives would have been lost. Finally, after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese admiral Hirohito said something about Japan having awakened a sleeping giant. It seems history would prove him right.

MathMattS

Yup it was. The only reason we aren't held responsible is we won the war. Winners write history after all.

Everyone in this thread needs to read "Flyboys" by James Bradley.

I think they should put a warning at the top of this board;

WARNING; HISTORY MAJORS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO NOT MAKE POSTS IN THIS BOARD OR EVEN READ A GOOD PART OF ITS CONTENT. INCREASED BLOOD PRESSURE, INCREDULITY, AND HEART RATE CAN LEAD TO DISORIENTATION, DROWZINESS, AND/OR DEATH.

I think terrorism is justified in war depending on the situation.

We dropped the bombs to send a message to Russia and to test the weapon's effectiveness. They sent in teams immediately after the attacks to study its effects. Then they give us the line, "well, an invasion would've cost more lives on both sides, that's why it was dropped". I don't buy that BS for a second, at least it not being the main reason. We had a new toy we wanted to try out on real people and the perfect opportunity presented itself. That, along with wanting to show Russia we meant business. Killing three birds with one stone: experimentation, cessation of the war, and giving Russia the finger. Fairly brilliant if it wasn't so sickening.

I wish people would stop trying to use the invasion reason as an excuse and just come out and say what it was truly dropped for. Attempting to hasten the end of the war was one, but not the only one, and I doubt it was the main one either.

We dropped the bombs to send a message to Russia and to test the weapon's effectiveness. They sent in teams immediately after the attacks to study its effects. Then they give us the line, "well, an invasion would've cost more lives on both sides, that's why it was dropped". I don't buy that BS for a second, at least it not being the main reason. We had a new toy we wanted to try out on real people and the perfect opportunity presented itself. That, along with wanting to show Russia we meant business. Killing three birds with one stone: experimentation, cessation of the war, and giving Russia the finger. Fairly brilliant if it wasn't so sickening.

I wish people would stop trying to use the invasion reason as an excuse and just come out and say what it was truly dropped for. Attempting to hasten the end of the war was one, but not the only one, and I doubt it was the main one either.

MirkoS77

Were they incredibly loyal people? Yes. Would many have fought to the death? Many would have. More importantly though, what did the nukes teach us? That Japan isn't immune to fear and once they witness 200,000 civilians perish, many of them helpless infants and children, Japan knew they had to surrender.

If the Allied had invaded who knows how many lives would have been lost, some estimates include a million, some, less than the 200,000. Yet it is important to note that, these men were prepared and trained. Every single soldier is prepared to die or at least should be, it's their job, it's what they are paid for. You can't say that for every single baby or child that died in those bombings.

My goodness, I thought this was a joke topic. :? :? :?

This is why I don't spend much time in OT...

My goodness, I thought this was a joke topic. :? :? :?

This is why I don't spend much time in OT...

Were they incredibly loyal people? Yes. Would many have fought to the death? Many would have. More importantly though, what did the nukes teach us? That Japan isn't immune to fear and once they witness 200,000 civilians perish, many of them helpless infants and children, Japan knew they had to surrender.

If the Allied had invaded who knows how many lives would have been lost, some estimates include a million, some, less than the 200,000. Yet it is important to note that, these men were prepared and trained. Every single soldier is prepared to die or at least should be, it's their job, it's what they are paid for. You can't say that for every single baby or child that died in those bombings.

Terrorism was, and will always be a very effective military strategy that have been in use ever since history was written.

Terrorism was, and will always be a very effective military strategy that have been in use ever since history was written.

TehFuneral

Terrorism was, and will always be a very effective military strategy that have been in use ever since history was written.

TehFuneral

[QUOTE="TehFuneral"]

Terrorism was, and will always be a very effective military strategy that have been in use ever since history was written.

PWSteal_Ldpinch

That was insurgency.

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"][QUOTE="TehFuneral"]

Terrorism was, and will always be a very effective military strategy that have been in use ever since history was written.

TehFuneral

That was insurgency.

Everyone in this thread needs to read "Flyboys" by James Bradley.

MonkeySpot

im reading it right now and so far its great, but very horrifying of what the japanese did in china. that's why i personally can justify the atom bombs on japan

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

We dropped the bombs to send a message to Russia and to test the weapon's effectiveness. They sent in teams immediately after the attacks to study its effects. Then they give us the line, "well, an invasion would've cost more lives on both sides, that's why it was dropped". I don't buy that BS for a second, at least it not being the main reason. We had a new toy we wanted to try out on real people and the perfect opportunity presented itself. That, along with wanting to show Russia we meant business. Killing three birds with one stone: experimentation, cessation of the war, and giving Russia the finger. Fairly brilliant if it wasn't so sickening.

I wish people would stop trying to use the invasion reason as an excuse and just come out and say what it was truly dropped for. Attempting to hasten the end of the war was one, but not the only one, and I doubt it was the main one either.

LJS9502_basic

Sure it was, but it was also dropped for the reasons I stated above. It was not all done for the noblest of intentions. You're saying that Russia was not a motive? That we weren't curious how nuclear weapons affected people then, and now (they are still keeping tabs on survivors). No offense meant, but to say that they were dropped simply "to end the war" and nothing else is disingenuous and incredibly naive.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

We dropped the bombs to send a message to Russia and to test the weapon's effectiveness. They sent in teams immediately after the attacks to study its effects. Then they give us the line, "well, an invasion would've cost more lives on both sides, that's why it was dropped". I don't buy that BS for a second, at least it not being the main reason. We had a new toy we wanted to try out on real people and the perfect opportunity presented itself. That, along with wanting to show Russia we meant business. Killing three birds with one stone: experimentation, cessation of the war, and giving Russia the finger. Fairly brilliant if it wasn't so sickening.

I wish people would stop trying to use the invasion reason as an excuse and just come out and say what it was truly dropped for. Attempting to hasten the end of the war was one, but not the only one, and I doubt it was the main one either.

MirkoS77

Sure it was, but it was also dropped for the reasons I stated above. It was not all done for the noblest of intentions. You're saying that Russia was not a motive? That we weren't curious how nuclear weapons affected people then, and now (they are still keeping tabs on survivors). No offense meant, but to say that they were dropped simply "to end the war" and nothing else is disingenuous and incredibly naive.

We dropped the bombs to send a message to Russia and to test the weapon's effectiveness. MirkoS77

And on that note, I leave this conversation. Paranoia and conjecture, mixed with a healthy ignorance of life on planet Earth circa 1944... Wow. Read a book or two, PLEASE.

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.mayceV

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The bombs were dropped to end the war. No need to editorialize your opinion as fact.LJS9502_basic

Sure it was, but it was also dropped for the reasons I stated above. It was not all done for the noblest of intentions. You're saying that Russia was not a motive? That we weren't curious how nuclear weapons affected people then, and now (they are still keeping tabs on survivors). No offense meant, but to say that they were dropped simply "to end the war" and nothing else is disingenuous and incredibly naive.

It is fact, two other reasons we dropped the bombs was to intimidate Russia and to test the effect of radiation on humans. That was why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were largely spared by the firebombombing campaign, even though Hiroshima was home to a pretty sizeable military base. As for keeping tabs on survivors... yea, that is nothing more than consipracy.

Were the bombs terrorism? I would say no, you can't use definitions verbatum. They were atrocious acts, as was all strategic bombing of the second world war, but were within the bounds of war, not domestic terrosism. I would say that all bombing of civilian centers are war crimes, but then again history is writtten by the victor.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

Sure it was, but it was also dropped for the reasons I stated above. It was not all done for the noblest of intentions. You're saying that Russia was not a motive? That we weren't curious how nuclear weapons affected people then, and now (they are still keeping tabs on survivors). No offense meant, but to say that they were dropped simply "to end the war" and nothing else is disingenuous and incredibly naive.

Tokugawa77

It is fact, two other reasons we dropped the bombs was to intimidate Russia and to test the effect of radiation on humans. That was why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were largely spared by the firebombombing campaign, even though Hiroshima was home to a pretty sizeable military base. As for keeping tabs on survivors... yea, that is nothing more than consipracy.

Were the bombs terrorism? I would say no, you can't use definitions verbatum. They were atrocious acts, as was all strategic bombing of the second world war, but were within the bounds of war, not domestic terrosism. I would say that all bombing of civilian centers are war crimes, but then again history is writtten by the victor.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And since you have no evidence to the contrary....I'm not buying the conspiracy theory.LJS9502_basic

It is fact, two other reasons we dropped the bombs was to intimidate Russia and to test the effect of radiation on humans. That was why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were largely spared by the firebombombing campaign, even though Hiroshima was home to a pretty sizeable military base. As for keeping tabs on survivors... yea, that is nothing more than consipracy.

Were the bombs terrorism? I would say no, you can't use definitions verbatum. They were atrocious acts, as was all strategic bombing of the second world war, but were within the bounds of war, not domestic terrosism. I would say that all bombing of civilian centers are war crimes, but then again history is writtten by the victor.

Did you read the guy's quote who you were responding to? :| Once again, it is fact. Middle schoole textbooks teach that another motive for the bombs was to intimidate Russia (Yeah, of course it was teh Soviet Union but for convinience sake I just said Russia). Not to mention that it is pretty obvious, you don't need to even be party educated in cold war politics to know this. The two cities were largely preserved from the firbombing campaign so that the effect of the atomic bombs could be testes in full. Once again, fact.I really don't see what you are trying to accomplish by denying this. Are you so intent on preserving the US's imgage as the ultimate good that you will ignore some of our more selfish agendas?

Did you read the guy's quote who you were responding to? :| Once again, it is fact. Middle schoole textbooks teach that another motive for the bombs was to intimidate Russia (Yeah, of course it was teh Soviet Union but for convinience sake I just said Russia). Not to mention that it is pretty obvious, you don't need to even be party educated in cold war politics to know this. The two cities were largely preserved from the firbombing campaign so that the effect of the atomic bombs could be testes in full. Once again, fact.I really don't see what you are trying to accomplish by denying this. Are you so intent on preserving the US's imgage as the ultimate good that you will ignore some of our more selfish agendas?

Tokugawa77

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"] We dropped the bombs to send a message to Russia and to test the weapon's effectiveness. MonkeySpot

And on that note, I leave this conversation. Paranoia and conjecture, mixed with a healthy ignorance of life on planet Earth circa 1944... Wow. Read a book or two, PLEASE.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The bombs were dropped to end the war. No need to editorialize your opinion as fact.LJS9502_basic

Sure it was, but it was also dropped for the reasons I stated above. It was not all done for the noblest of intentions. You're saying that Russia was not a motive? That we weren't curious how nuclear weapons affected people then, and now (they are still keeping tabs on survivors). No offense meant, but to say that they were dropped simply "to end the war" and nothing else is disingenuous and incredibly naive.

Believe what you will if it helps you sleep better at night.

It is fact, two other reasons we dropped the bombs was to intimidate Russia and to test the effect of radiation on humans. That was why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were largely spared by the firebombombing campaign, even though Hiroshima was home to a pretty sizeable military base. As for keeping tabs on survivors... yea, that is nothing more than consipracy.

Were the bombs terrorism? I would say no, you can't use definitions verbatum. They were atrocious acts, as was all strategic bombing of the second world war, but were within the bounds of war, not domestic terrosism. I would say that all bombing of civilian centers are war crimes, but then again history is writtten by the victor.

Tokugawa77

Thank you. I don't think still keeping tabs on survivors today is a far stretch. They want to measure the weapon's effects many years after. That is not conspiracy, it's common sense.

No, but it did breach the Geneva convention.Treflis

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

There is nothing more messed up than slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Sure it averted a land invasion, sure the Japanese committed horrible acts themselves, but there had to have been another way...LiftedHeadshot

What other choice would their have been? LOL at the insane amount of s*** people would say just to blame America. I also like how no one replied to the two good posts and just overlooked them in this thread. Guess when you know you lost the argument, ignore that post and argue with someone else.MikadoNY

But, visit some other forums, French, Russian, Serbian, Italian etc etc, you'll see people defending their countries and blaming others even when it's so goddamn obvious their country is not guilt free.

Stupid patriotism and nationalism brainwashed (almost) everyone... :(

ITT: no one said it was not aliens, therefore: ALIENS!

Yes I think it is probably the biggest terroristic act in the history of mankind.kuraimen