Hiroshima versus 911

[Mister E.]

Which of these events was the greater atrocity and act of terrorism?

[Red]

apples and oranges.

Hiroshima helped end a war; 9-11 started a war. dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't terrorism, 9-11 was.

[KanuckiStang]

Originally Posted by Red

apples and oranges.

Hiroshima helped end a war; 9-11 started a war. dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't terrorism, 9-11 was.

It's not as cut and dried as that though.

First and foremost, the primary targets were civilians. When you specifically target civilians it is either terrorism or murder or both. The slaughter of civilians at My Lai was murder. Three hundred My Lais -- 100,000 dead -- What would that be? Genocide? Terrorism? If such mass murder was believed to have helped end the Vietnamese willingness to fight, would it transition from the heinous to the heroic? According to whom?

Don't you think that whatever words you can use to justify the atomic bombings on Japan in WWII can be turned and used in exactly the same fashion by the Osamas of the world?

[Red]

Originally Posted by KanuckiStang

It's not as cut and dried as that though.

First and foremost, the primary targets were civilians. When you specifically target civilians it is either terrorism or murder or both. The slaughter of civilians at My Lai was murder. Three hundred My Lais -- 100,000 dead -- What would that be? Genocide? Terrorism? If such mass murder was believed to have helped end the Vietnamese willingness to fight, would it transition from the heinous to the heroic? According to whom?

Don't you think that whatever words you can use to justify the atomic bombings on Japan in WWII can be turned and used in exactly the same fashion by the Osamas of the world?

the primary targets were not civilians, but were two major military/industrial targets. in Hiroshima, Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters (who commanded the defense of southern Japan) and the soldiers stationed there; in Nagasaki, the large seaport moving troops & supplies, and factories there producing ordnance and other war componets. both cities were relatively untouched during the large-scale US bombings, and were ideal targets to aid the US in an invasion.

with 9-11, there was no military target, only civilians.

[zipper99]

Originally Posted by KanuckiStang

It's not as cut and dried as that though.
First and foremost, the primary targets were civilians. When you specifically target civilians it is either terrorism or murder or both. The slaughter of civilians at My Lai was murder. Three hundred My Lais -- 100,000 dead -- What would that be? Genocide? Terrorism? If such mass murder was believed to have helped end the Vietnamese willingness to fight, would it transition from the heinous to the heroic? According to whom?
Don't you think that whatever words you can use to justify the atomic bombings on Japan in WWII can be turned and used in exactly the same fashion by the Osamas of the world?

It's still a false analogy. Let's remind ourselves that the United States and Japan were at WAR and had been at war since December of 1941. Japan had not only attacked Pearl Harbour and captured The Phillipines and much of Indo-China but was attempting to create a Japanese Empire stretching across the whole Pacific Rim with eventual plans to conquer Australia AND China.

Until the development of the atomic bomb Allied strategic planning centred around an invasion of the Japanese home islands and an estimated ONE MILLION Allied casualties with a time line for the invasion, occupation and suppression of resistance lasting until early 1947.

Use of the atomic bombs therefore saved hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Allied dead, and the hundreds of thousands of Japanese dead who would have perished in the invasion scenario and shortened the war by almost two years.

Worthwhile, I would say.

[grimrebuke]

The US had firebombed civilian targets in Japan for a while before the atomic bombs were dropped. An invasion of Japan would very likely have been fighting a militia comprised of a large segment of the population. Make no mistake, civilians were largely the target of the two atomic bombs. The goal was to "shock and awe" the Japanese into believing that we possessed a power that they could not defend against. Terrorism is the use of non-conventional tactics used to create a feeling of fear in your enemy. The bombings do meet those criteria.
But let's be honest about the real difference between the two events. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of war. It was one sovereign nation attacking another in the course of a defined conflict. The attack on the WTC and Pentagon were criminal acts. Nothing more, and nothing less. There is no nation of Terroristan. There was no declaration of war. There was no act of war perpetrated by a nation. There was a nation (Afghanistan) that was being run by organized crime. That organized crime group was attacked and driven out of the government for the most part. Don't elevate these gangsters to the title they so desperately desire. They are not an army, they are just a street gang.

[Mister E.]

Do the ends justify the means? Regardless of the outcome, it was a crime against humanity and a blatant act of terrorism.

The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was chosen because of its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction because the city was surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".

Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb.

Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.

One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

[Red]

if you're going to quote stuff, links man, links.

[86Dude]

Originally Posted by zipper99

It's still a false analogy. Let's remind ourselves that the United States and Japan were at WAR and had been at war since December of 1941. Japan had not only attacked Pearl Harbour and captured The Phillipines and much of Indo-China but was attempting to create a Japanese Empire stretching across the whole Pacific Rim with eventual plans to conquer Australia AND China.

Until the development of the atomic bomb Allied strategic planning centred around an invasion of the Japanese home islands and an estimated ONE MILLION Allied casualties with a time line for the invasion, occupation and suppression of resistance lasting until early 1947.

Use of the atomic bombs therefore saved hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Allied dead, and the hundreds of thousands of Japanese dead who would have perished in the invasion scenario and shortened the war by almost two years.

Worthwhile, I would say.

Holy shit. You just bucked the trend and answered in a manner I didn't think was possible from a european.

[86Dude]

Originally Posted by Mister E.

Which of these events was the greater atrocity and act of terrorism?

Oh for crying out loud.

[zipper99]

The idea that "Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender" is not borne out by the facts. The entire Pacific campaign, island hopping westwards had shown the Pentagon that the Japanese forces were highly trained and motivated, fanatical in their devotion to duty and would prefer suicide to surrender because of their code of Bushido.

For a fascinating look at what the invasion of Japan might have been I recommend a novel by David Westheimer (author of Von Ryan's Express) originally published in 1971 as "Lighter than a Feather" it was republished in the 80's as "Downfall".
Eisenhower is hardly an ideal source, firstly because he was writing with hindsight and secondly because his total concentration as Supreme Commander, Allied Forces in Europe left him little time to fully appreciate the nuances of the Pacific War.

[Mister E.]

Oh for crying out loud.

I know. It seems awfully lopsided to me, as well.

terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

[Snouter]

Red wins this debate.

My Grandfather was civilian who was held in a Jap concentration camp for 3 1/2 years. He said it was only after the A-bombs that the Jap guards changed their tune.

[KanuckiStang]

Originally Posted by zipper99

It's still a false analogy. Let's remind ourselves that the United States and Japan were at WAR and had been at war since December of 1941. Japan had not only attacked Pearl Harbour and captured The Phillipines and much of Indo-China but was attempting to create a Japanese Empire stretching across the whole Pacific Rim with eventual plans to conquer Australia AND China.

The Japanese military complex was, not the civilian populations. They should have been off limits for intentional attack, unless one accepts the use of terroristic tactics to subdue an opponent, even in "war."

The bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and Germany's V-weapon attacks on London -- all cases where civilians were the targets -- were also war crimes and state-sponsored terrorist acts, IMHO. You can make yourself feel better about it by wrapping it up in the words "We were at war" which is pretty much exactly what Osama probably does too. You can even justify it by quoting hypotheticals about what might have happened during an invasion, about how many might have hypothetically died blah blah... The fact remains that if, in your opinion, subduing an opponent by massacreing its civilian population is a valid tactic of war, then then you've got no legs to stand on when disdaining the the tactics used by the Osama Bin Ladens of the world.

As I asked above: How many My Lais would it have taken to stop the North Vietnamese fighting? When would the tally have crossed over from being heinous to heroic? Where do you draw the line? How many dead civilians, whether by incineration and radiation burning or by a bullet to the head, is too many?

[Cyclone Ranger]

The Japanese high command had also threatened to execute over 100,000 American POWs in the event of a ground invasion, so dropping the bombs also spared their lives as well.

[Mister E.]

Basically what I'm getting from Hiroshima supporters:

- If it's in America's best interest, it's not wrong.

- It's only a gross atrocity if it's done to America.

- The ends justify the means.

Did I miss any?

[Feenix566]

Originally Posted by grimrebuke

But let's be honest about the real difference between the two events. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of war. It was one sovereign nation attacking another in the course of a defined conflict. The attack on the WTC and Pentagon were criminal acts. Nothing more, and nothing less. There is no nation of Terroristan. There was no declaration of war. There was no act of war perpetrated by a nation. There was a nation (Afghanistan) that was being run by organized crime. That organized crime group was attacked and driven out of the government for the most part. Don't elevate these gangsters to the title they so desperately desire. They are not an army, they are just a street gang.

You seem convinced that there's a fine line between governments and gangs of thugs; there isn't. The only difference between a government and a gang of thugs is that the government won the last war.

In Chicago, the black kings collect protection money from every business in the south side. These payments are not optional. Residents can't or won't turn to the police to remedy this, because most of the business owners are operating without a license or permit.

Why do I bring all this up in a discussion about Hiroshima and 9/11? In many ways, the black kings are acting like a government of the south side of Chicago. They collect taxes. They are the primary wielders of force in the area. If you don't pay your taxes, you can expect them to use violence against you. They are, by all definitions of the word, a gang. But they are also a government. The line between the two is blurred to the point where one is indistinguishable from the other.

The same holds true for Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. They're a gang of thugs. But they're also the government. Their ideology is heinous to our sense of right and wrong. But so was the ideology of the Japanese government! From the Taliban's point of view, they're fighting a war against us.

America has been heavily involved in Middle Eastern politics since the end of World War 2. America funds the Israeli military. The Arabs see Israel as an invading force. It doesn't matter if you see it that way or not. What matters is how they see it. They know that the only way to drive the Israelis out of the Middle East is to stop the flow of dollars from the US. The only way to do that is to cripple the American economy. That's why they attacked the World Trade Center, because of its economic importance.

As far as they're concerned, every single American taxpayer is an enemy combatant, because American tax dollars pay for Israeli rockets and tanks. From that point of view, attacking civilians is just as justified as attacking military targets.

I'm not saying they're correct. All I'm saying is that if you want to defeat them, you must first understand them.

The difference between the Taliban and the Japanese government of WW2 is almost nonexistent. The Japanese emperor didn't win an election, but he still had a mandate from his people. The Taliban didn't win an election, but they still have a mandate from their people. Not all Arabs support Osama Bin Laden or his cohorts, but I'm sure not all Japanese thought it was a good idea to invade the entire Pacific rim.

The difference between a criminal operation and a war all depends on your point of view. Governments and countries only have as much legitimacy as you give them.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles."
-Niccolo Machiavelli

[enkahootz]

the japanese were brainwashed speed freaks.
there was only one way to get their attention...

[GROFF200]

Even Robert McNamara, in the documentary "Fog Of War", conceded that the Japanese were totally defeated long before the A-bombs were dropped. If McNamara thinks an act is too violent, then that's notable considering he had the stomach to help send thousands of Americans to die in VietNam.
He demonstrated this fact by showing that basically every major city in Japan was more than 65% destroyed by the time the bombs were dropped. Most buildings in Japan at that time were made of wood, thus allied bombing raids had almost totally destroyed Japanese infrastructure.
My problem with the decision to drop the bombs is that the US can never appear moral in its desire to prevent other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. No matter how you spin it, there is only one country that has ever deployed a nuclear weapons on civilians in wartime, and that is the US.

[86Dude]

It goes like this canadian children:

War is bad. Total War is worse. The U.S. didn't invent total war but was pushed kicking and screaming in to it. The axis waged total war against the world to the best of it's ability. The allies waged total war against the axis to the best of their ability. All the big boys were trying to figure out how to make uranium go boom, but we got there first, case closed, go whine to someone who cares.