Warning: Undefined array key "HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/includes/common.inc.php on line 360 Do you think that the atomic bombings were a form of terrorism? - Minitokyo

Do you think that the atomic bombings were a form of terrorism?

The atomic bombings were acts of terrorism?

yes
14 votes
no
34 votes
maybe
7 votes

Only members can vote.

page 1 of 3 1 2 3 Next » 63 total items

Hi people... yesterday i was helping my younger sister with an essay about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. She had to wrote this essay based on article that claimed that the bombing of these cities were in fact an act of terrorism since the main victims of the attack were civilians.

My sister and I also watched a documentary about the Manhattan proyect on the History Channel some days ago... the american version of the atomic attacks... and according to this documentary the bombs prevented a large american invassion of Japan and saved millions of lifes, plus avoid a possible russian ocupation of Japan (some experts claimed that Japan could had suffered a division similar to the one that of Korea and Germany).

Our conclussion was that the atomic bombing were actually an act of terrorism, because the purpose of the attack was achieve a quick victory over the japanese through fear... the same goal of modern terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. The war can be considerated an act of terrorism, because you pretend to spread the fear and use it to achieve your political and military goals.

.

Signature Image

Modi

Modi

God of battle rage

err i dunno the japs had mad underground bases and had resolved to fight to the very last man woman and child standing. kids were being armed and trained to fight, plus the number of u.s. lives it would have cost to beat them would have been enormous. while i suppose from one point of veiw it can be seen as terroism from another it was simply the best option in terms of lives (in their case the whole race) money time and effort.

Komm Susser Tod
the sad wish of a warrior
with noone and nothing
to fight for.

eXDream2K5

eXDream2K5

the crazy band geek

No, not when there was an actual war going on between the United States and Japan. The Japanese had resolved to right, right down to the last child -- yes, children were being taught how to fight. The United States used fear, yes, but they only dropped two bombs, and those two bombs ended up saving more lives than they took. An invasion -- which is what the Japanese were preparing for -- would've resulted in horrendous losses for both sides. The United States didn't want that.

I'm not a supporter of nuclear warfare, but the dropping of the A-bombs was necessary.

Labels are for cans. I'm not a f*cking can.

We had three options. In the first, we could have had a large-scale invasion, which would have probably resulted in more deaths for the reason Modi has offered. It would also result in American casualties, which is more important to the US. The second scenario would be a blockade and a huge number of airstrikes, with the occasional land raid. This would result in far less casualties for the Americans, but would be extremely costly, and the war would be long and drawn out. Japan's navy had been crushed, and their airforce didn't fair any better. Many of the Japanese civilians would have simply starved to death. The third, of course, are the nukes. There were no casualties for the Americans, and theoretically less for the Japanese as well. The war also ended a lot quicker.

That, of course, has nothing to do with it being terrorism or not.

www.jafi.org.il/education/hasbara/glossary.html
Terrorism is defined as: Acts of murder and destruction deliberately directed against civilians or military in non-military situations.

This was a military situation. Its war. In war you kill everyone on the other side - historically, civilians had been fair game. Only in the modern world has this not been so.

The FBI defines terrorism as:
"the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

There were no laws at the time against weapons of mass destruction - a technicality, but true no less. However, this was a military objective - force Japan to give up. Political or Social objectives would be like someone threatening to nuke the United States if they didn't give more money to the poor, or establish an official religion.

Let's face it, there are no rules when there is a war going between warring factions. Sadly enough, when it comes to civilians, they have been always been considered "fair game" during war. To say that atomic/ nuclear bombings is an "Act of terrorism" against the population (whether they know or not !) I would say yes, one must understand, "There are no rules when there is a war going on !

At the time of August, 1945, when the United Sataes of America dropped the two atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Japan), the military mulled over the consenquences of the effects of the bombings in Japan for economic/ political/ religious/ social/ and need I say, enviromental issues.

President Harry S. Truman mulled over the thought after listening to the military advisors and the scientists on the ethics and morals. Of course, the use of the atomic bomb was new.

Come to the present: If a "terrorist" group would come into posessing a small yield atomic/ nuclear device and would use to exert harm on a population, yes, this would be an act of terrorism. For the terror gang, they would be more thahappy to destroy either the opponent of off the / civilian population.

The terrorist group (s), could care less, to me, they are cowards !

Mnemeth

Mnemeth

Rider of the Currents

No. War is war and terrorism is terrorism.
If the US could have limited the effects like we can do today with precision weapons we would have. The difference is who you are intending to kill. A terrorist will kill anyone and everyone regardless of whether or not they are friend, foe, or neutrail and guilty and innocent to get their point across. The military strikes targets that cause the most damage to the warfighting ability of the opposition while actively trying to limit collateral damage.
The militaries of most countries do not work that way and did not back then either. The military was designed to engage other militaries. Only recent events have changed that focus due the fact that the military is now relagated to dealing with fanatics because the countries that house them either don't care or actually support them due to some ancient arguement that neither side can actually prove who started the entire thing.

Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

It is arguable. Because civilians were targeted, it could have been ruled as an act of state sponsored terrorism. However, both Nagasaki and Hiroshima had military importance. Attacks on military targets are not considered acts of terrorism, even if fear is utilized. Though, a strict military target was ruled out completely during the planning stage, as there was a possibility of missing such a small target. So, thus, it was decided that the target should be surrounded by an urban population center.

Though, the purpose was to create a psychological effect, and achieve a political result with the device, something terrorists do through similar actions. But, arguably, the true intention was to strike a disabling blow, as Hiroshima was never targeted for conventional bombing, and had significance to the industry and military of Japan. Nagasaki was one of Japan's largest sea ports, and was also of industrial importance to the military might of Japan. Thus, whether this was an act of state sponsored terrorism or a legitimate military target, I cannot decide.

It should be noted that Nagasaki was not the primary target, the B-29 (its name escapes me) that dropped the bomb on that day was diverted to Nagasaki as its orignal objective was obscured by cloud cover.

Signature Image[/img]

melikecookies

melikecookies

cookie monster

Terrorism means that you use terror to make someone do something. Which is pretty much what you do in war. So yes, the bombings were a form of terrorism. But so are all of the other things that were done.

Hi

The rules of war have changed... now the line between civillians and military is really blury... for example... if i attack a factory of Lockheed Martin or Boing that produces nukes... i can claim that it was a military target even if the people that work there are civillians... and lets face it, fear is always a weapon in any war... if i go and blow any building in the name of Islam, the christian right or the animals rights, i would be considered a terrorist, but if the US or Israel military blow up an entire town just to send a warning, its not terrorism... at least not in the dictionary that the leadears of the world are reading...

Signature Image

The atomic bombings happened when 2 countries were at war with one another, and the bomber country had officially sanctioned the attack.

I tend to think of terrorism as the work of a non-governmenttal organisation who uses fear to cooerce actual governing bodies into doing what they want. Terrorists seek to attain their goals in the world without shouldering the responsibility for their actions.

When America bombed Japan with the nukes, it was a fight between one government and another. Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be classified under 'Shock and Awe' and 'Indiscriminate bombing', but it is not an act of terrorism.

I'll leave the moral debate to you guys. Hitler murdering 2 500 000 Jews wasn't a terrorist act, but it was a downright horrific and unforgivable thing to do.

I personally agree with the bombings, though I feel the choice of targets should have been more purely military in nature, even if the effect of the bombings wasn't felt as much. America had virtually won the war against Japan, it could afford the time to build a few more atom bombs if it needed to.

drastikhate

drastikhate

Plead Insanity

I know that with weapons such as atom bombs, peace is threatened at every corner of the globe but it's first purpose was to create peace. Many people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima perished from this. Yes, this is terrible but it needed to be done, it was forced upon the Americans to be done. If not, most of the world would be colonised. It is sad, we do not wish for it but my country would still be colonised and we would never be what we are today.

It was terrorism. By the very definition of terrorism. Lamers who say "IT WAS NECESSARY LOL" are making a prejudiced observation about terrorism. They're saying that terrorism can only exist if it's committed by a low-tech fringe group of ideological extremists. The act was terrorist in nature. Necessity has nothing to do with it, you tools. To the terrorists of 9/11, it was also "necessary". Terrorism is inflicting terror. Don't sugarcoat it by saying "WELL IT WAS A WAR LOL". That's an asinine argument that doesn't contribute anything of value. The United States committed terrorism, yes. Were they justified? Certainly many Americans think so. But it's irrelevant either way. It targetted women, children, and old people in order to scare an enemy into surrender. Did it save Americans? Probably. But it was terrorism, plain and simple. Is killing always wrong? Yes. Can it be justified? Everything can be justified. Try applying some actual thought to your arguments.

LigerZSchnider

LigerZSchnider

Litterbox Trained........

Quote by PhoegonIt was terrorism. By the very definition of terrorism. Lamers who say "IT WAS NECESSARY LOL" are making a prejudiced observation about terrorism. They're saying that terrorism can only exist if it's committed by a low-tech fringe group of ideological extremists. The act was terrorist in nature. Necessity has nothing to do with it, you tools. To the terrorists of 9/11, it was also "necessary". Terrorism is inflicting terror. Don't sugarcoat it by saying "WELL IT WAS A WAR LOL". That's an asinine argument that doesn't contribute anything of value. The United States committed terrorism, yes. Were they justified? Certainly many Americans think so. But it's irrelevant either way. It targeted women, children, and old people in order to scare an enemy into surrender. Did it save Americans? Probably. But it was terrorism, plain and simple. Is killing always wrong? Yes. Can it be justified? Everything can be justified. Try applying some actual thought to your arguments.

You are a clown, simply put. :hmpf: You can't even begin to justify your statements with facts. In fact, all you have done is voice an opinion...... a very uneducated guess even by a morons' standard.

I guarantee you that you will say the V2 bombings weren't an act of terrorism.....

The Jewish Holocaust wasn't an act of terrorism........

And "certainly" the Bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japanese forces wasn't an act of terrorism.

Nearly everyone here at least knew the implications behind the use of atomic weapons (because that was what they actually were......nuclear weapons are 10 times more powerful than atomic weapons). Although everyone has had a different opinion of was it justified, or moral, or even was necessary......they all agreed that this was done to end a war!

And then here you come........ :hmpf: No explanation, no facts, nothing solid that can be proven otherwise.

Just another moron on a soapbox. :sweat:

Gather your facts and post them here instead of your useless banter, clown........

..................and there was no need for me to sugarcoat that either.

"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it" - Erwin Rommel

BORING. Right, hit me with "clown" or "moron" or some other weaksauce horseshit. Doesn't change the fact that you're a tool. You have no argument so you can't be taken seriously. And yeah, I already said it probably saved American lives so I don't know what point you think you're getting at in that cancerous tumor I wouldn't even dignify by calling a brain. Yes, it's terrorism. What's so hard about this? You think you can just say "nah-uh, clown" and that will change anyone's mind? I repeat, it targeted women, children and old people in order to scare an enemy into submission. That's the very definition of terrorism, retard. Therefore, I think you got owned. But go ahead. I dare you to prove to me that you can argue facts when terrorism is a matter of semantics. You can't. So stop wasting my time. Let me make this easier on you. What if JAPAN had dropped atomic bombs on two AMERICAN cities? Are you humbled yet, tool?

And oh yeah, and I typed all that without using pussified smilies. What do you do for an encore? Shit your pants and cry? HAHA.

LigerZSchnider

LigerZSchnider

Litterbox Trained........

Well, well......still no facts.

You're useless.

merged: 08-06-2006 ~ 02:37pm

Quote by PhoegonBORING. Right, hit me with "clown" or "moron" or some other weaksauce horseshit. Doesn't change the fact that you're a tool. You have no argument so you can't be taken seriously. And yeah, I already said it probably saved American lives so I don't know what point you think you're getting at in that cancerous tumor I wouldn't even dignify by calling a brain. Yes, it's terrorism. What's so hard about this? You think you can just say "nah-uh, clown" and that will change anyone's mind? I repeat, it targeted women, children and old people in order to scare an enemy into submission. That's the very definition of terrorism, retard. Therefore, I think you got owned. But go ahead. I dare you to prove to me that you can argue facts when terrorism is a matter of semantics. You can't. So stop wasting my time. Let me make this easier on you. What if JAPAN had dropped atomic bombs on two AMERICAN cities? Are you humbled yet, tool?

And oh yeah, and I typed all that without using pussified smilies. What do you do for an encore? Shit your pants and cry? HAHA.

IF Japan had two atomic weapons, they would have already used the at Pearl Harbor, just as they did when they bombed it. They were not capable of crossing the Pacific without getting detected by the US forces at Pearl harbor. Eventually they will still lost.


Moron.

"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it" - Erwin Rommel

"Eventually they will still lost". HAHA. What's your first language again? And you still haven't explained why it's not terrorism. But I guess being chickenshit ruins your focus. Tool.

The primary problem with either side of this debate is that there does not exist a single definitive definition as to what constitutes as an act of terrorism. In fact, there are over 100. Additionally, given that the nature of armed conflict ultimately involves the loss of civilians, then virtually all aspects of war throughout recorded history would have to be view as terrorism.

And make no mistake, the Japanese were not above targeting American cities. If any recall, the Japanese tried, rather unsuccessfully, to use high altitude balloons to carryout attacks upon America cities and farmland. 9000 of these things were launched. Despite causing very little in the way of damage and only six people confirmed to have died in a balloon attack, it did have a psychological impact upon those living in the continental US at the time. Thus, it is arguable that such attacks are also acts of terrorism. Yet in the accpeted view of history they are not, as the American Nuclear strikes on the Japanese cities in August of 1945 and the Japanese attempts to strike at Americans with balloon was part of a war between two legitimate powers and not terrorism.

Signature Image[/img]

War and terrorism are similar things, not the same thing. What moves terrorists is different of what moves army, navy and air force.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't terrorist acts. They were war crimes. War crime is when military personnel do a terrorist act during war.
The massacre of Chinese and Jewish civilians during Second World War was war crimes too.
Both sides did questionable acts (I'm being polite).

Mene, mene, tekel, parsin

ShadowWraith

ShadowWraith

Samurai of Deep Shadow

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

^That is terrorism as defined by our good friends at dictionary.com. ^

Terrorism is an act of violence that is intentionally committed with full intent of killing innocence and striking fear in the living. It is nothing less.

We (the U.S.) dropped those bombs with every intention of killing thousands upon thousands of people. We did it with full knowledge of the consequences of our action and with full intention of intimidating and terrorising the opposing country.

It was a shameful act that should NEVER be spoken of with pride.

However, some would argue that it was necessary. And they may be right. But we will never know and regardless of right or wrong it was a despicable thing to do.

But then again....so is war........................

Our time is dark, and our world chaotic but I will not be made a victim of this world.....

maverickmechanic

maverickmechanic

Absurd Insanity

i belive Robert E. Lee said this:
"It is a good thing war is so terrible; else we should grow too fond of it."

The atomic bomb was a neccessary evil. By dropping the bombs, the war was ended and countless lives on either side were saved. Whether it is defined as a terrorist act does not matter. It is over and done with. It does no good to dwell on the past like this, becuase all it does is breed more anger and the world has enough of that. Belive what you want, but dropping the atomic bomb was the best way to quickly end the war.

Signature ImageThere was glitter everywhere! It looked like somebody stabbed a pixie.
Roadie of .::DarK LeaF::.

Shinsengumi89

Shinsengumi89

The Watcher of Movies

I did a thread like this a while back i just asked the question was it moral, and was it the right thing to do.

I belived it was immoral, and i still belive it was the wrong thing to do, but i'm sure either way numerous people would have died.

To answer this question. Was it an act of Terorisim? No it was an act of war which is just as bad, But by definition, the dropping of atomic bombs was not an act of Terrorisim.

http://mt-environmentalists.minitokyo.net/ -Protect the Environment
http://mt-atheists.minitokyo.net/ - Philosophy is disscused here.
http://true-colors.minitokyo.net/ - Human Rights Group
http://mt-gay-straight-club.minitokyo.net/ - We help bridge the gaps between the different sexual orientations.

Quote by Modierr i dunno the japs had mad underground bases and had resolved to fight to the very last man woman and child standing. kids were being armed and trained to fight, plus the number of u.s. lives it would have cost to beat them would have been enormous. while i suppose from one point of veiw it can be seen as terroism from another it was simply the best option in terms of lives (in their case the whole race) money time and effort.

Don't you think you're exaggerating a little bit? I mean c'mon, you can't imagine 10-year-olds coming out with AK-47's and jumping American soldiers now, can you? Of course, nearly every Japanese supported the war, but from there to saying that every Japanese citizen was willing to die for their country is a long way.

In my view, these attacks WERE a form of terrorism in its own right. Firstly, civilians didn't have anything to do with the actual war. From what I know, a war consists of a series of engagements between the armies of two factions. Since when are civillians a part of the army? The Americans had absolutely no right to use their new discovery abbusively like that. They could've bombarded a military facility, there were plenty of those. But instead, they killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. So yes, these were two acts of terrorism.

Just a though though.....In the Second World War it took a fleet of bomber to carpet bomb a single military target just to be sure it was throughly destoryed. If a bomb came to with in 300 yards of its target....well that was considered precise for the time. With that said any civilian population within vicinity would surely be caught in the destruction. Infact, the combined conventional bombing campaigns in both the European and Pacific theaters of the war claimed more lives then the devices used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

merged: 08-07-2006 ~ 10:14pm

Quote by Keiichi...Lockheed Martin or Boing that produces nukes...

BTW, Lockmart and Boeing never made a single nuclear device. These defense contractors produce a wide variety of convential weapons systems (fighter planes, missiles systems, sensor suite and etc.) for the US military and Foreign powers.

Signature Image[/img]

page 1 of 3 1 2 3 Next » 63 total items

Back to General Discussions | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

Warning: Undefined array key "cookienotice" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/html2/footer.html on line 73
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.