So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]"My claim: The us dropped the bomb to intimidate the Russians" Not the claim that people have taken fault with. They've taken fault with your factually incorrect statement that Japan wanted to surrender before the bombs were dropped.htekemerald

I was pondering and wasn't Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism?

Terrorism is the use of terror to intimidate a leadership or people.

Hiroshima was to scare Japan into surrendering. So by dictionary terms it was terrorism.

Other definitions is attacking innocent people to push forth an agenda which it literally was (200K civilians in an instant to end a war and topple a regime).

So what do you think?

EDIT: to clarify-

Definition of Terrorism in thread: The Organized use of force against non military targets to pressure a government to further your own agenda.

Topics to think about:

Fighting Terror with terror?

Is terrorism ever Justifyable?

Why are some forms of terrorism more blown up than otheres?

mayceV

Japan attacked America. No. It was self defense, you moron.

Honestly, who cares? It's something that happened 66 years ago and there's no universally accpeted definition for terrorism, so I don't see why it's being argued.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]"My claim: The us dropped the bomb to intimidate the Russians" Not the claim that people have taken fault with. They've taken fault with your factually incorrect statement that Japan wanted to surrender before the bombs were dropped.Ace6301

Japan was nuked in July? Really? Last I checked they got hit in August... :lol:

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="htekemerald"] Good to see you read the first eleven words of my post, feel free to read the rest.

htekemerald

Japan was nuked in July? Really? Last I checked they got hit in August... :lol:

Honestly, who cares? It's something that happened 66 years ago and there's no universally accpeted definition for terrorism, so I don't see why it's being argued.

Lord_Omikron666

You guys have to realize that the Japanese, were not big on surrender and the US very much did not have a lot of options. In fact, the Japanese actually had some very elaborate attacks planned on the US, including one where they sent experimental diseases to the US via balloons.

They wanted to attack the US and keep on going and the nuke was just a way to end the war and save lives. You also don't mention that the Japanese at the time were very much brutal in combat and had some incredibly shady and horrible torture science going on that would have made Mengele say "ok, this is too much guys" (maybe not, but I'm just exaggerating to make a point).

Bombing Japan was the only way they could have ended that war in a victory without sacrificing millions of US lives or allowing Japan to gain more ground and power and do more attacks against allies. Its sad, and it caused an entire generation to have to live through the fear of a nuclear war between superpowers, but at the time it was better then their back up plan.

You guys have to realize that the Japanese, were not big on surrender and the US very much did not have a lot of options. In fact, the Japanese actually had some very elaborate attacks planned on the US, including one where they sent experimental diseases to the US via balloons.

They wanted to attack the US and keep on going and the nuke was just a way to end the war and save lives. You also don't mention that the Japanese at the time were very much brutal in combat and had some incredibly shady and horrible torture science going on that would have made Mengele say "ok, this is too much guys" (maybe not, but I'm just exaggerating to make a point).

Bombing Japan was the only way they could have ended that war in a victory without sacrificing millions of US lives or allowing Japan to gain more ground and power and do more attacks against allies. Its sad, and it caused an entire generation to have to live through the fear of a nuclear war between superpowers, but at the time it was better then their back up plan.

SPYDER0416

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

Must.... resist... posting....... long.... response..... (I'll keep it short :P)

The rage that certain people (whose names start with a k, h, and u) regarding history, warfare, and common-effing-sense astounds me. With this "righteous" mentality, I now understand why western countries would never win a war with another nation of equal power that did not have this line of thought (Not trying to justify torture, genocide, etc). A modern day Hitler or Stalin would have a field day and steamroll the Neville Chamberlains in here (If they were leading countries).

War is horrible, but going back to try and change things might make them even worse. Of all the options back then, dropping the nukes were the quickest, most logical and effective way of ending the war. And yes, that includes waiting years to starve millions of people to death or getting millions of civilians and soldiers killed in an invasion.

kuraimen

You, of course, are ignoring the many people who thought differently at the time, both government and army officials, not to mention historians who thought that there were good possibilities to end the war by less atrocious means.

Okay. We already talked about this. You're ignoring the government and army officials, not to mention the historians...and the head of state, who thought that the best possibility to end the war was by nuclear means. So...what, kuraimen? You already admitted that we pick the figures with which we already agree. Why are you giving this guy grief over doing exactly the same thing?

You know the world is **** up when you are accused of having too high ethical principles when you question the obliteration of innocent people by the thousands.

kuraimen

Why's that, kuraimen?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"] Unfortunately, he isn't the only one on this board :( He has NEVER participated in a topic while not criticizing the U.S. from all of the ones I've seen him in. Somehow a 200 year old country is the worst in history.......kuraimen

Wow... As he talks to the guy with 100k posts. That's rich. I'm going to try and restrain myself as I go through this thread.

In case I don't: Key kuraimen, did you get anyone to agree with your ideas in this thread, or is this another one where multiple people--from widely varying philosophical positions--disagree with you en masse?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Those people were there at the time and they basically were calling the bombing unecessary before it happened :roll: kuraimen

So we should just bomb the hell out of everything and ask questions later expecting the best? No thx, I don't want to live in such a world.

When we went all out, it did work out the best...for us. And if you don't want to live in it this world, you seem to post a lot from beyond the grave. You be careful on these forums; I'm a paladin and I'll Turn Undead on you in a second if I think it'll work.

Euphemism ftw...

What you're saying is just because Al Qaeda is considered a terrorist organization by most countries (something completely arbitrary) that it has to be a terrorist attack. The US on other hand, inflicted HEAVY civilian casualties to achieve a political goal, something Al Qaeda and other "terrorists" have done in the past, but in USA's case, it's not considered terrorism. History is indeed written by the victors.Stavrogin_

100% spot on

it was war so is not terrorism more like a war crime but is ok since the winners were the ones who used them so that makes it ok!

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]Euphemism ftw...

What you're saying is just because Al Qaeda is considered a terrorist organization by most countries (something completely arbitrary) that it has to be a terrorist attack. The US on other hand, inflicted HEAVY civilian casualties to achieve a political goal, something Al Qaeda and other "terrorists" have done in the past, but in USA's case, it's not considered terrorism. History is indeed written by the victors.kuraimen

100% spot on

1. The Imperial Japanese 5th Division headquarters was located in Hiroshima. At its height, it consisted of 25,000 men. To keep a division operational, there had to be at least 17,000 men within it (It was also a mechanized division, not infantry). The 5th Division in 1945 was located in Mainland Japan because it had been reformed from its previous destruction on the Island of Ceram, near Indonesia. The entire division was not in Hiroshima at the time, but they made up a good portion of the casualties because they had at least a few thousand men there. In addition, it was noted that 48,000 Japanese soldiers in total were stationed there at the time of the bombing. At least 9,000 died through 1946. The author in the artice references his sources, which are reputable books.

2. WTH? U.S. interfering more than the Soviets who:

1. Had puppet regimes in Afghanistan and Azerbaijan

2. Supplied arms and weapons to Syria, Egypt and Iraq

3. INVADED Afghanistan when their regime was overthrown (A war that gave rise to the modern Jihadist, destroyed Afghanistan's infrastructure and killed over 1,000,000 Afghans)

4. There was no mother effin' global conflict between the U.S. and Islamic militants before 9/11. The U.S. was aware of them, but was not taking their threats seriously enough.On3ShotOneKill

Just out of curiosity, to see if you're being hypocritical here, if Al Qaeda or any other organization deemed terrorist acquired a nuclear weapon, and decided to level a city where soldiers (or/and military installations) are present, you wouldn't consider that to be a terrorist attack, would you?

2. I never said the Soviets didn't interfere too, my point was, you said the conflict started with 9/11... That's just not true, those jihadists had declared war on the US way way before 9/11...

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]1. The Imperial Japanese 5th Division headquarters was located in Hiroshima. At its height, it consisted of 25,000 men. To keep a division operational, there had to be at least 17,000 men within it (It was also a mechanized division, not infantry). The 5th Division in 1945 was located in Mainland Japan because it had been reformed from its previous destruction on the Island of Ceram, near Indonesia. The entire division was not in Hiroshima at the time, but they made up a good portion of the casualties because they had at least a few thousand men there. In addition, it was noted that 48,000 Japanese soldiers in total were stationed there at the time of the bombing. At least 9,000 died through 1946. The author in the artice references his sources, which are reputable books.

2. WTH? U.S. interfering more than the Soviets who:

1. Had puppet regimes in Afghanistan and Azerbaijan

2. Supplied arms and weapons to Syria, Egypt and Iraq

3. INVADED Afghanistan when their regime was overthrown (A war that gave rise to the modern Jihadist, destroyed Afghanistan's infrastructure and killed over 1,000,000 Afghans)

4. There was no mother effin' global conflict between the U.S. and Islamic militants before 9/11. The U.S. was aware of them, but was not taking their threats seriously enough.Stavrogin_

Just out of curiosity, to see if you're being hypocritical here, if Al Qaeda or any other organization deemed terrorist acquired a nuclear weapon, and decided to level a city where soldiers (or/and military installations) are present, you wouldn't consider that to be a terrorist attack, would you?

2. I never said the Soviets didn't interfere too, my point was, you said the conflict started with 9/11... That's just not true, those jihadists had declared war on the US way way before 9/11...

Of course, H&N were indeed nuked for other reasons as well, but the main reason as I and others have been saying was to end the war. They were not purely civilian cities, nor were they ever bombed conventionally before. This made them ideal places for the nukes to be dropped (Which ended WWII). You and others have been claiming that they were dropped purely to terrorize the world, which why there is so much disagreement. As to the Pentagon, it was more "legitamate" but still not a justified target because the United States was not actively at war with Al Qaeda. That is why 9/11 was a terrorist attack. It was an act of aggression upon mainly civilians, on an unprepared nation with the sole intentions of terror and intimidation. Attacking the world's remaining superpower was not going to reduce U.S. involvement in the Middle East, only increase it.

A conflict does not start until two or more sides become engaged. Al Qaeda may have declared "war" on the U.S. in 1996, but they were not seen by the U.S. as a major threat until 9/11 said otherwise. How can there be a conflict if one side is not even paying attention?

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]1. The Imperial Japanese 5th Division headquarters was located in Hiroshima. At its height, it consisted of 25,000 men. To keep a division operational, there had to be at least 17,000 men within it (It was also a mechanized division, not infantry). The 5th Division in 1945 was located in Mainland Japan because it had been reformed from its previous destruction on the Island of Ceram, near Indonesia. The entire division was not in Hiroshima at the time, but they made up a good portion of the casualties because they had at least a few thousand men there. In addition, it was noted that 48,000 Japanese soldiers in total were stationed there at the time of the bombing. At least 9,000 died through 1946. The author in the artice references his sources, which are reputable books.

2. WTH? U.S. interfering more than the Soviets who:

1. Had puppet regimes in Afghanistan and Azerbaijan

2. Supplied arms and weapons to Syria, Egypt and Iraq

3. INVADED Afghanistan when their regime was overthrown (A war that gave rise to the modern Jihadist, destroyed Afghanistan's infrastructure and killed over 1,000,000 Afghans)

4. There was no mother effin' global conflict between the U.S. and Islamic militants before 9/11. The U.S. was aware of them, but was not taking their threats seriously enough.On3ShotOneKill

Just out of curiosity, to see if you're being hypocritical here, if Al Qaeda or any other organization deemed terrorist acquired a nuclear weapon, and decided to level a city where soldiers (or/and military installations) are present, you wouldn't consider that to be a terrorist attack, would you?

2. I never said the Soviets didn't interfere too, my point was, you said the conflict started with 9/11... That's just not true, those jihadists had declared war on the US way way before 9/11...

Of course, H&N were indeed nuked for other reasons as well, but the main reason as I and others have been saying was to end the war. They were not purely civilian cities, nor were they ever bombed conventionally before. This made them ideal places for the nukes to be dropped (Which ended WWII). You and others have been claiming that they were dropped purely to terrorize the world, which why there is so much disagreement. As to the Pentagon, it was more "legitamate" but still not a justified target because the United States was not actively at war with Al Qaeda. That is why 9/11 was a terrorist attack. It was an act of aggression upon mainly civilians, on an unprepared nation with the sole intentions of terror and intimidation. Attacking the world's remaining superpower was not going to reduce U.S. involvement in the Middle East, only increase it.

A conflict does not start until two or more sides become engaged. Al Qaeda may have declared "war" on the U.S. in 1996, but they were not seen by the U.S. as a major threat until 9/11 said otherwise. How can there be a conflict if one side is not even paying attention?

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]1. The Imperial Japanese 5th Division headquarters was located in Hiroshima. At its height, it consisted of 25,000 men. To keep a division operational, there had to be at least 17,000 men within it (It was also a mechanized division, not infantry). The 5th Division in 1945 was located in Mainland Japan because it had been reformed from its previous destruction on the Island of Ceram, near Indonesia. The entire division was not in Hiroshima at the time, but they made up a good portion of the casualties because they had at least a few thousand men there. In addition, it was noted that 48,000 Japanese soldiers in total were stationed there at the time of the bombing. At least 9,000 died through 1946. The author in the artice references his sources, which are reputable books.

2. WTH? U.S. interfering more than the Soviets who:

1. Had puppet regimes in Afghanistan and Azerbaijan

2. Supplied arms and weapons to Syria, Egypt and Iraq

3. INVADED Afghanistan when their regime was overthrown (A war that gave rise to the modern Jihadist, destroyed Afghanistan's infrastructure and killed over 1,000,000 Afghans)

4. There was no mother effin' global conflict between the U.S. and Islamic militants before 9/11. The U.S. was aware of them, but was not taking their threats seriously enough.On3ShotOneKill

Just out of curiosity, to see if you're being hypocritical here, if Al Qaeda or any other organization deemed terrorist acquired a nuclear weapon, and decided to level a city where soldiers (or/and military installations) are present, you wouldn't consider that to be a terrorist attack, would you?

2. I never said the Soviets didn't interfere too, my point was, you said the conflict started with 9/11... That's just not true, those jihadists had declared war on the US way way before 9/11...

Of course, H&N were indeed nuked for other reasons as well, but the main reason as I and others have been saying was to end the war. They were not purely civilian cities, nor were they ever bombed conventionally before. This made them ideal places for the nukes to be dropped (Which ended WWII). You and others have been claiming that they were dropped purely to terrorize the world, which why there is so much disagreement. As to the Pentagon, it was more "legitamate" but still not a justified target because the United States was not actively at war with Al Qaeda. That is why 9/11 was a terrorist attack. It was an act of aggression upon mainly civilians, on an unprepared nation with the sole intentions of terror and intimidation. Attacking the world's remaining superpower was not going to reduce U.S. involvement in the Middle East, only increase it.

A conflict does not start until two or more sides become engaged. Al Qaeda may have declared "war" on the U.S. in 1996, but they were not seen by the U.S. as a major threat until 9/11 said otherwise. How can there be a conflict if one side is not even paying attention?

As far as the conflict goes, i think you're dead wrong there. It's nobody's but their fault they didn't take those jihadists seriously. The same can be said if lets say USA did nothing about Pearl Harbor and then whine why they're were occupied and defeated. Also, i'm not talking just about Al Qaeda, i'm talking about the jihad that started before Al Qaeda was formed.

I said from the very beginning, i'm not arguing whether the US had the right to employ terrorist tactics to win a war (i personally think they had, since they were the ones attacked in the first place), the discussion here is whether it was a terrorist act at all. My argument was they were both indiscretionate killing of civillians to make a statement, H&N was a statement to Japan (surrender), just as 9/11 was a statement to the US (withdraw). The first one worked, the other one didn't...

As far as the conflict goes, i think you're dead wrong there. It's nobody's but their fault they didn't take those jihadists seriously. The same can be said if lets say USA did nothing about Pearl Harbor and then whine why they're were occupied and defeated. Also, i'm not talking just about Al Qaeda, i'm talking about the jihad that started before Al Qaeda was formed.

Stavrogin_

There is also a difference between two actively engaged combatants and one combatant with random targets. You might have a case if the two cities were NOT of military importance, if the two countries were NOT engaged in war, if the US had NOT warned the population before hand.

As well, as bad as the bombs were....more lives would have been lost in conventional fighting. Why is that not important? Isn't it better to minimize civilian losses or do you propose that going all out is better?

Usually terrorists keep times, places, and dates of attack secret. They don't say hey guys we're hitting x spot at x date and time. They DON'T want a country to be prepared. So knowing that terrorists might want to attack doesn't mean one is ready when they do.:|

There is a difference between a terrorist act and an act during war. In both cases civilians will be lost. It's a fact. But the difference is in war military objectives are key. Some civilian deaths do and will occur. But they are not the target. However, terrorists target civilians. They cannot match up with a military so they strike at those no able to defend. There is also a difference between two actively engaged combatants and one combatant with random targets. You might have a case if the two cities were NOT of military importance, if the two countries were NOT engaged in war, if the US had NOT warned the population before hand. As well, as bad as the bombs were....more lives would have been lost in conventional fighting. Why is that not important? Isn't it better to minimize civilian losses or do you propose that going all out is better?Usually terrorists keep times, places, and dates of attack secret. They don't say hey guys we're hitting x spot at x date and time. They DON'T want a country to be prepared. So knowing that terrorists might want to attack doesn't mean one is ready when they do.:|LJS9502_basic

As well, as bad as the bombs were....more lives would have been lost in conventional fighting. Why is that not important? Isn't it better to minimize civilian losses or do you propose that going all out is better?

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]1. Nice statistics. That still doesn't my point and doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians. But, in your eyes, if there are soldiers stationed in the city, that makes it okay to level an entire city. It's a military target. If that's your argument, i agree then, the WTC attacks were a terrorist attack and are not comparable with H&N because those buildings were not a military target. However, the Pentagon is a fair target isn't it?

Just out of curiosity, to see if you're being hypocritical here, if Al Qaeda or any other organization deemed terrorist acquired a nuclear weapon, and decided to level a city where soldiers (or/and military installations) are present, you wouldn't consider that to be a terrorist attack, would you?

2. I never said the Soviets didn't interfere too, my point was, you said the conflict started with 9/11... That's just not true, those jihadists had declared war on the US way way before 9/11...

Stavrogin_

Of course, H&N were indeed nuked for other reasons as well, but the main reason as I and others have been saying was to end the war. They were not purely civilian cities, nor were they ever bombed conventionally before. This made them ideal places for the nukes to be dropped (Which ended WWII). You and others have been claiming that they were dropped purely to terrorize the world, which why there is so much disagreement. As to the Pentagon, it was more "legitamate" but still not a justified target because the United States was not actively at war with Al Qaeda. That is why 9/11 was a terrorist attack. It was an act of aggression upon mainly civilians, on an unprepared nation with the sole intentions of terror and intimidation. Attacking the world's remaining superpower was not going to reduce U.S. involvement in the Middle East, only increase it.

A conflict does not start until two or more sides become engaged. Al Qaeda may have declared "war" on the U.S. in 1996, but they were not seen by the U.S. as a major threat until 9/11 said otherwise. How can there be a conflict if one side is not even paying attention?

As far as the conflict goes, i think you're dead wrong there. It's nobody's but their fault they didn't take those jihadists seriously. The same can be said if lets say USA did nothing about Pearl Harbor and then whine why they're were occupied and defeated. Also, i'm not talking just about Al Qaeda, i'm talking about the jihad that started before Al Qaeda was formed.

I understand your argument. I just don't agree with it.

I believea nation state at war with another nation state cannot commit an act of terrorism.

It can commit terrible acts. It can commit war crimes. It can commit acts designed to induce terror. None of which meet the most common definitions of terrorism. The end result might be the same for the victims, but the distinction is still important.

The problem that I have with broadening the definition so wide as to include all sorts of acts (including actions of nation states at war) is the dilution of the term. Soon, if my teammate beats up an opposing player in a hockey game it will be deemed terrorism.

Despite the obvious exaggeration, my point is that nation states and the systems we have around them are designed to deal with other nation states. And it is when we are trying to deal with non-national entities that the system's weaknesses are exposed. This is why your example of Pearl Harbour & 9/11 are not at all alike, IMO. In other words, dealing with the problems of 'terrorism' between nations at war is nothing like dealing with the problem of terrorism perpetrated by non-national entities.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]There is a difference between a terrorist act and an act during war. In both cases civilians will be lost. It's a fact. But the difference is in war military objectives are key. Some civilian deaths do and will occur. But they are not the target. However, terrorists target civilians. They cannot match up with a military so they strike at those no able to defend. There is also a difference between two actively engaged combatants and one combatant with random targets. You might have a case if the two cities were NOT of military importance, if the two countries were NOT engaged in war, if the US had NOT warned the population before hand. As well, as bad as the bombs were....more lives would have been lost in conventional fighting. Why is that not important? Isn't it better to minimize civilian losses or do you propose that going all out is better?Usually terrorists keep times, places, and dates of attack secret. They don't say hey guys we're hitting x spot at x date and time. They DON'T want a country to be prepared. So knowing that terrorists might want to attack doesn't mean one is ready when they do.:|Stavrogin_

I understand your argument. I just don't agree with it.

I believe a nation state at war with another nation state cannot commit an act of terrorism.

It can commit terrible acts. It can commit war crimes. It can commit acts designed to induce terror. None of which meet the most common definitions of terrorism. The end result might be the same for the victims, but the distinction is still important.

The problem that I have with broadening the definition so wide as to include all sorts of acts (including actions of nation states at war) is the dilution of the term. Soon, if my teammate beats up an opposing player in a hockey game it will be deemed terrorism.

Despite the obvious exaggeration, my point is that nation states and the systems we have around them are designed to deal with other nation states. And it is when we are trying to deal with non-national entities that the system's weaknesses are exposed. This is why your example of Pearl Harbour & 9/11 are not at all alike, IMO. In other words, dealing with the problems of 'terrorism' between nations at war is nothing like dealing with the problem of terrorism perpetrated by non-national entities.

SUD123456

That's why i hatesemantic disputes...It's all so ambiguous. It's terrorism when the "perpetrator" is not a nation, otherwise it's war crime, when in reality it's the same, inflicting heavy civilian casualties to achieve a political goal.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]There is a difference between a terrorist act and an act during war. In both cases civilians will be lost. It's a fact. But the difference is in war military objectives are key. Some civilian deaths do and will occur. But they are not the target. However, terrorists target civilians. They cannot match up with a military so they strike at those no able to defend. There is also a difference between two actively engaged combatants and one combatant with random targets. You might have a case if the two cities were NOT of military importance, if the two countries were NOT engaged in war, if the US had NOT warned the population before hand. As well, as bad as the bombs were....more lives would have been lost in conventional fighting. Why is that not important? Isn't it better to minimize civilian losses or do you propose that going all out is better?Usually terrorists keep times, places, and dates of attack secret. They don't say hey guys we're hitting x spot at x date and time. They DON'T want a country to be prepared. So knowing that terrorists might want to attack doesn't mean one is ready when they do.:|WhiteKnight77

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]If we were at total war with someone and they decided to drop bombs of any type on our cities were a military installation or industry was, then no, it would not be classified as a terrorists attack. In the case of 9/11, while we had no previous intent on fighting anyone, the targeting of WTC, a non-military building, was terroristic. It also failed to get the desired effect, just as Pearl Harbor didn't. The Pentagon would be a military target, it is a headquarters building after all.Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

Can't say I expect much with a mostly american audience, but whatever.

My claim: The us dropped the bomb to intimidate the Russians

Puplished source:

"Of greatest interest, perhaps, is another factor. The traditional argument has been that solely military considerations were involved in the decision to use the bomb; increasingly, however, the once con- troversial idea that diplomatic issues-especially the hope of strengthening the West against the Soviet Union-played a signif- icant role in the decision has gained widespread scholarly accep- tance. Although analysts still debate exactly how much weight to accord such factors, that they were involved is now well established for most experts. Modern research findings, for instance, clearly demonstrate that from April 1945 on, top American officials calculated that using the atomic bomb would enormously bolster U.S. diplomacy vis-a- vis the Soviet Union in negotiations over postwar Europe and the Far East. The atomic bomb was not, in fact, initially brought to Tru- man's attention because of its relationship to the war against Japan, but because of its likely impact on diplomacy."

Foriegn Policy, Issue 99, Summer 1995

My Claim: The Japanese were interested in surrendering before the war

Published source:

"The Japanese government turned to the Soviet government in July 1945, asking Marshall Stalin to intercede with the Allies and help bring the war to an amicable end."

World Affairs, Volume 156, Issue 1, summer 1993

My Claim: The Russian invasion was the move that forced the Japanese to surrender

Published Source:

"Early on the morning of August 9, the top four officials in the foreign ministry (Togo, Matsumoto, Ando, and Sibusawa) gathered at Togo's residence. They immediately came to the conclusion that there was no alternative but to accept the Potsdam Proclamation"

Later that day,

"The Soviet Union has declared war against us, and entered into a state of war as of today. Because of this it is necessary to study and decide of the termination of the war" -Hirohito, Emperor of Japan

- Racing the Enemy

LJS9502_basic

Definition of terrorism: is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. The H&N bombs fall precisely on that definition. It says nothing about being involved in a war or not.kuraimen

Ah, well since you defined terrorism that way, I guess that's the conclusion you reach. I have decided to define terrorism as when my girlfriend complains about my drinking. Therefore, the nuclear attacks in 1945 were not terrorism...since they involve neither drinking or my girlfriend.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Definition of terrorism: is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. The H&N bombs fall precisely on that definition. It says nothing about being involved in a war or not.Palantas

Ah, well since you defined terrorism that way, I guess that's the conclusion you reach. I have decided to define terrorism as when my girlfriend complains about my drinking. Therefore, the nuclear attacks in 1945 were not terrorism...since they involve neither drinking or my girlfriend.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]I understand your argument. I just don't agree with it.

I believe a nation state at war with another nation state cannot commit an act of terrorism.

It can commit terrible acts. It can commit war crimes. It can commit acts designed to induce terror. None of which meet the most common definitions of terrorism. The end result might be the same for the victims, but the distinction is still important.

The problem that I have with broadening the definition so wide as to include all sorts of acts (including actions of nation states at war) is the dilution of the term. Soon, if my teammate beats up an opposing player in a hockey game it will be deemed terrorism.

Despite the obvious exaggeration, my point is that nation states and the systems we have around them are designed to deal with other nation states. And it is when we are trying to deal with non-national entities that the system's weaknesses are exposed. This is why your example of Pearl Harbour & 9/11 are not at all alike, IMO. In other words, dealing with the problems of 'terrorism' between nations at war is nothing like dealing with the problem of terrorism perpetrated by non-national entities.

Stavrogin_

That's why i hatesemantic disputes...It's all so ambiguous. It's terrorism when the "perpetrator" is not a nation, otherwise it's war crime, when in reality it's the same, inflicting heavy civilian casualties to achieve a political goal.

The issue is not just semantics or the non-difference of effect on the dead.

The issue is the means of dealing with the situation. When there are national actors at play, the ways and means of dealing with the situation are different, based upon the system of governance that humans have in place, then when there are non-national actors at play. This is the difference between war, terrorism and state sponsored terrorism. The mechanisms and limits on action/re-action in place vary based upon which of those is happening. This is why the distinction of semantics is important.

This entire thread has been essentially about the direct outcomes: dead people. If we are going to focus only on the direct outcome then innumerable things are terrorism and the word becomes so broad as to be meaningless.

This entire thread has been essentially about the direct outcomes: dead people. If we are going to focus only on the direct outcome then innumerable things are terrorism and the word becomes so broad as to be meaningless.SUD123456

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

Can't say I expect much with a mostly american audience, but whatever.

My claim: The us dropped the bomb to intimidate the Russians

Puplished source:

"Of greatest interest, perhaps, is another factor. The traditional argument has been that solely military considerations were involved in the decision to use the bomb; increasingly, however, the once con- troversial idea that diplomatic issues-especially the hope of strengthening the West against the Soviet Union-played a signif- icant role in the decision has gained widespread scholarly accep- tance. Although analysts still debate exactly how much weight to accord such factors, that they were involved is now well established for most experts. Modern research findings, for instance, clearly demonstrate that from April 1945 on, top American officials calculated that using the atomic bomb would enormously bolster U.S. diplomacy vis-a- vis the Soviet Union in negotiations over postwar Europe and the Far East. The atomic bomb was not, in fact, initially brought to Tru- man's attention because of its relationship to the war against Japan, but because of its likely impact on diplomacy."

Foriegn Policy, Issue 99, Summer 1995

My Claim: The Japanese were interested in surrendering before the war

Published source:

"The Japanese government turned to the Soviet government in July 1945, asking Marshall Stalin to intercede with the Allies and help bring the war to an amicable end."

World Affairs, Volume 156, Issue 1, summer 1993

My Claim: The Russian invasion was the move that forced the Japanese to surrender

Published Source:

"Early on the morning of August 9, the top four officials in the foreign ministry (Togo, Matsumoto, Ando, and Sibusawa) gathered at Togo's residence. They immediately came to the conclusion that there was no alternative but to accept the Potsdam Proclamation"

Later that day,

"The Soviet Union has declared war against us, and entered into a state of war as of today. Because of this it is necessary to study and decide of the termination of the war" -Hirohito, Emperor of Japan

- Racing the Enemy

htekemerald

Hirohito's address to the nation announcing surrender:

"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

The point being that the two shocks contributed to surrender. USSR invasion (not because of the military operations) but because it meant that the last line of diplomacy for negotiating conditional surrender was over. And dropping the bomb, because it meant that a miracle defense leading to some sort of negotiated peace was not possible. The two things happened essentially in concert.

In the end they surrendered because the emperor decided that there was no hope for a better settlement based on those two changes to the strategic situation/

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]This entire thread has been essentially about the direct outcomes: dead people. If we are going to focus only on the direct outcome then innumerable things are terrorism and the word becomes so broad as to be meaningless.kuraimen

There is no single accepted definition of terrorism. The one you have chosen is very broad. A serial killer seeking public fame would qualify. British Gurkha's slitting the throats of their sleeping enemies would also qualify. So would the mafia, yakuza and innumerable criminal enterprises.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Definition of terrorism: is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. The H&N bombs fall precisely on that definition. It says nothing about being involved in a war or not.Palantas

Ah, well since you defined terrorism that way, I guess that's the conclusion you reach. I have decided to define terrorism as when my girlfriend complains about my drinking. Therefore, the nuclear attacks in 1945 were not terrorism...since they involve neither drinking or my girlfriend.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="SUD123456"]This entire thread has been essentially about the direct outcomes: dead people. If we are going to focus only on the direct outcome then innumerable things are terrorism and the word becomes so broad as to be meaningless.SUD123456

There is no single accepted definition of terrorism. The one you have chosen is very broad. A serial killer seeking public fame would qualify. British Gurkha's slitting the throats of their sleeping enemies would also qualify. So would the mafia, yakuza and innumerable criminal enterprises.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Doesn't seem to have much facts behind it actually. And the dates are after the fact....not during the current time. Something historical perhaps?

SUD123456

Hirohito's address to the nation announcing surrender:

"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

The point being that the two shocks contributed to surrender. USSR invasion (not because of the military operations) but because it meant that the last line of diplomacy for negotiating conditional surrender was over. And dropping the bomb, because it meant that a miracle defense leading to some sort of negotiated peace was not possible. The two things happened essentially in concert.

In the end they surrendered because the emperor decided that there was no hope for a better settlement based on those two changes to the strategic situation/

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] I disagree I think it has a very precise meaning not just base on the direct outcome "dead people" but also on the intention and the objectives behind that outcome. "the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion." So the outcome "dead people" as a result of using tactics that provoke terror to coerce is terrorism. The definition is not really broad, in fact it is precise.kuraimen

There is no single accepted definition of terrorism. The one you have chosen is very broad. A serial killer seeking public fame would qualify. British Gurkha's slitting the throats of their sleeping enemies would also qualify. So would the mafia, yakuza and innumerable criminal enterprises.

That is exactly my point. If you use a very broad definition then innumerable things could be terrorism. My question is whether that aids or confuses the issue? IMO, when you reducea labelto such a wide array of things you reduce the value of the label in the first place. Great..serial killers can be terrorists, Mexican drug lords can be terrorists and so on. Fantastic, so what? Terrorism as a word then becomes meaningless and we have to invent a new word.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="htekemerald"] The events in question took place in April, July, and August 1945...

kuraimen

Hirohito's address to the nation announcing surrender:

"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

The point being that the two shocks contributed to surrender. USSR invasion (not because of the military operations) but because it meant that the last line of diplomacy for negotiating conditional surrender was over. And dropping the bomb, because it meant that a miracle defense leading to some sort of negotiated peace was not possible. The two things happened essentially in concert.

In the end they surrendered because the emperor decided that there was no hope for a better settlement based on those two changes to the strategic situation/

And you can't say for sure that they would have surrendered without the use of the bombs.

Moreover, up to and including the day before actual surrender the minimum Japanese demands were:

1. Retention of the Emperor as legitimate leader of the empire,

2. Demilitarization/Dearmamentof Japan by the Japanese without outside influence

3. Solely Japanese oversight of war criminals and the actions of top Japanese leadership

4. No foreign occupation of Japan itself

Instead of blaming the Allies, you should perhaps be questioning why the Japanese didn'tdrop at least items 2-4 months beforehand. It seems to me that the Japanese themselves were solely and entirely responsible for the set of circumstances that developed over the summer of 1945 and there was no reason for anyone dying numerous months prior to their actual surrender.

The whole notion that the US should have complied with Japanese demands is ridiculous. How about the Japanese should have complied with US demands?

The whole notion that the US should have complied with Japanese demands is ridiculous. How about the Japanese should have complied with US demands?SUD123456

Well I didn't define it that way a dictionary did. I don't know your gf, so I can't say if I find your definition precise.kuraimen

Oh, the dictionary defined it that way? So anytime "terror" is used, it's terrorism? So when I get in someone's face at the bar because he spilled a drink on my coat--in an attempt to "terrorize" him--is that terrorism?

There's no internationally accepted definition of terrorism, but I guess because kuraimen decided to start typing on GameSpot, the term is now precisely defined. :roll: No, that's not the way it works. "The use of terror as a means of coercion" is so broad that it could be applied to virtually any situation where fear or intimidation are involved. That's so broad as to be meaningless. Why do I have to explain this stuff?

Why do I have to explain this stuff?

Palantas

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Hirohito's address to the nation announcing surrender:

"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

The point being that the two shocks contributed to surrender. USSR invasion (not because of the military operations) but because it meant that the last line of diplomacy for negotiating conditional surrender was over. And dropping the bomb, because it meant that a miracle defense leading to some sort of negotiated peace was not possible. The two things happened essentially in concert.

In the end they surrendered because the emperor decided that there was no hope for a better settlement based on those two changes to the strategic situation/

SUD123456

And you can't say for sure that they would have surrendered without the use of the bombs.

Moreover, up to and including the day before actual surrender the minimum Japanese demands were:

1. Retention of the Emperor as legitimate leader of the empire,

2. Demilitarization/Dearmamentof Japan by the Japanese without outside influence

3. Solely Japanese oversight of war criminals and the actions of top Japanese leadership

4. No foreign occupation of Japan itself

Instead of blaming the Allies, you should perhaps be questioning why the Japanese didn'tdrop at least items 2-4 months beforehand. It seems to me that the Japanese themselves were solely and entirely responsible for the set of circumstances that developed over the summer of 1945 and there was no reason for anyone dying numerous months prior to their actual surrender.

The whole notion that the US should have complied with Japanese demands is ridiculous. How about the Japanese should have complied with US demands?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="SUD123456"]

There is no single accepted definition of terrorism. The one you have chosen is very broad. A serial killer seeking public fame would qualify. British Gurkha's slitting the throats of their sleeping enemies would also qualify. So would the mafia, yakuza and innumerable criminal enterprises.

SUD123456

That is exactly my point. If you use a very broad definition then innumerable things could be terrorism. My question is whether that aids or confuses the issue? IMO, when you reducea labelto such a wide array of things you reduce the value of the label in the first place. Great..serial killers can be terrorists, Mexican drug lords can be terrorists and so on. Fantastic, so what? Terrorism as a word then becomes meaningless and we have to invent a new word.