A few interesting arguments have been made, i'm a bit surprised people didn't jump on a few things said.
Anyway, The bombings were indeed not terrorism. As some have said, does this make it right though? Not really. Was in
neccessary? Guess that depends on what you really mean. But probably still not.
However, It falls very much in line with war, especially the war at that time. Civilians had been killed in such attacks
throughout WWII, both in europe and in the Pacific, by all sides. And yes, thats been done througout history, although
the idea of not killing civilians isn't as new as some have lead on. That idea goes back to many older societies,
cultures, and civilizations. Although, yes, some have had the notion of kill all, some have also had the notion of not
attacking innocent bystandards. Just War Theory, developed by Thomas Aquinus I believe, along with a few other
theologians, brought sparing civilians to the forefront of Christian Western society, but had been around before then.
In any case, the idea of war being restricted to military confrontations seems rather like a matter of being lost in
translations through time. It is more of a preference because of moral, and sometimes more political and economical,
standards that wars be fought between militaries and not include the civilians. Does this mean its alright to kill
civilians in war? No, but as said before, war isn't really good or alright either.
As for a bit closer to the nature of the bombings and that context, yes, it was done to end the war quickly, and with
fewer casulties, and possibly this by means of scaring the japanese, or more likely breaking their spirit. This is a
tactic of war. Sun Tsu in The Art Of War mentions such tactics as being of great use. Since it is best to win a war
quickly and best if you can find a way to make the enemy subdue without having to confront them directly or with least
loss of your men, and theirs as well. He also points out that the successful General who will win a war has little
concern for Honor, in many contexts.
More directly to the reasonings behind the bombing itself though. Some have said it was a neccessary strike to end it
quickly. Well, it did do that. Some have said it was horrific because of the massive number of people killed, and the
americans knew this would happen, and so on. Well, they did know it would take out alot, however, if that was their goal
they wouldn't have dropped the bombs. In reality, the Firebombings were far more effective as destructive and
killing devices then the atomic bombs. They required more bombs, yes, but the opporations killed more. And don't
get me wrong I'm not saying either firebombings or atomic bombings were justified or good in light of this.
However, what the atomic bombings did do was show a fierce new weopon that required less to destroy and destroyed in an
unfamilier manner, which accelerated the end of the war. Would the US have one anyway? Probably. Was this to save
American lives? Well, yea, sorta, it would end prevent the deployment of more men to die, it was also prevent the
killing of more Japanese that would come up during the war as it dragged out longer. But I think a key aspect as someone
mentioned was ending the war before Russia got in. The United States did not want the Soviets in Japan, because they
knew what that would mean after the war was over. Just as important, they wanted to send a message to everyone,
especially the soviets, that the USA had and successfully employed atomic bombs, and all could see now just how
destructive these first models were, putting the US in a seat of power in all situations which in fact last to this day
since the US is still the only nation to use an atomic or nuclear bomb against another nation.
Another side of this debate though I think people have made a few too many assumptions. There are many forms of
Terrorism, and many reasonings. Not all are trying to scare a government into doing this or that. Not all are
neccessarily religious fanatics or a number of other things they've been stereotyped as. In fact, the idea of
trying to scare a government into change for whatever reason isn't really all that accurate even in the terrorists
we think of today, we just confuse it for such since our cultures and lines of philosophy are different. Many terrorists
and terrorists groups aren't trying to change anything, they are trying to DO something. They are trying to do
something with their lives, something they believe in, they are trying to PARTICIPATE and make a kind of statement
sometimes, not solve the problem of some nation being immoral or change anything. They are standing against something,
and doing something against what they are standing against, the end (sorta, since they aren't really looking for an
end neccessarily). Some terrorists are trying to do what has been said as scaring a government into change or chaos or
destruction. Some aren't. Some don't care about civilians, true. But there are others that might actually, and
do tend to pick they're targets a little differently. What defines terrorism then? Its really more along the lines
of their methods and form of orginization and such then neccessarily their purpose, although that can come into play as
well.
It seems to me that for some (although not all) aren't really looking at this question as "Was this terrorism
or war?" but more of as "Was this good or bad? Allowable or not allowable? Neccessary or a horrific act?"
When thats not really the situation. War isn't a good, or a neccessity either. Terrorism isn't all "Lets
go kill people so they run and hide." Personally, I see both as being wrong, although depending on the situations
and what is being done, they may be moreso or less so. Killing civilians would deffinetly make an act more wrong, but it
doesn't make something either Terrorism or War. Same ideas can be applied to many things. Neither Terrorism nor War
have ever been trully Justified. Even with the Just War Theory, which many go beyond and say is unattainable, has in
fact never really been met, or questionably so. WWII, which I would say is the closest to being met, in some respects
didn't due to some actions taken during the war and how it was opperated on the so called "Justified"
side, including the bombings. Do I think we should have allowed the Nazi's and Japanese to take over most the
world, kill off and abuse the Jews and Chinese (and gypsies, homosexuals, mentally handicapped, Catholic Priests and
various other groups you don't usually hear about whom the Nazis sent to concentration camps), no. It was a hard
situation to deal with, and the world dealt with it the way they did. I, luckily, don't have to worry about
wheither it was good or bad, and wheither I would involve myself in it the same way.
To finish though to the point. The Bombings were an act of War, inside a War. Pearl Harbor was an act of War inside a
War and starting War with another nation that had been to that point in diplomatic discussions. 9/11 was an act of
terrorism which somewhat set off a "War" on terrorism, but was still terrorism and wasn't done for any
real military reason. All were evil acts.
