Remembering the biggest and most horrific act of terrorism in history.

The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Ok. I will admit. I wasn't expecting that.

Now. Calling it as I see it: FLAME BAIT.

That is all.

edited 3rd Sep '11 3:32:05 PM by USAF713

It is not flame bait.

It is a factual statement.

Would it have been flambait if had said 9/11?

I was expecting Pearl Harbor for some reason.

^No you should have said Pearl Harbor!

edited 3rd Sep '11 3:33:43 PM by Aondeug

Why? It was an attack against a military target.

Yes its flame bait, but is it really a terrorist attack? As far as I knew, terrorist attacks are either to designed to cause terror or send a message. The nuking of both these cities was to save lots of British, Commonwealth, American and Japanese lives.

EDIT: A more probable terrorist attack during the war would be RAF/Luftwaffe bombing raids on cities.

edited 3rd Sep '11 3:35:55 PM by whaleofyournightmare

What about the sacking of Baghdad?

Trough terrorism. I mean... inocent civilians where targeted to scare the japanese into surrender and scare the soviets.

I am not insulting anyone personally. U can not say something is flamebait because u dont agree with it. Its like, I am not allowed to think differently.

I, personally, wouldnt call that terrorism.

edited 3rd Sep '11 3:37:08 PM by Baff

Compared to the expected casualties of Operation: Downfall, that was what you call merciful. Or would you rather have had 10 million Japanese lose their lives with that operation?

Maybe that is what Al Qaida thinks about 9/11

Pearl Harbor was not an act of terrorism because it was an attack by one military on another. It was, however, underhanded, due to manipulation of the declaration of war.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also not acts of terrorism, because they were targeting significant industrial complexes. They were, however, underhanded, because they were indiscriminate attacks.

However, the alternative would have defined "A Simple Plan," and would have resulted in orders of magnitude more death, so...

Their main goal was to create terror. Thus terrorist attack.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki where not valuable targets. Following your logic Tokyo should have been bombed. Or what about Okinawa?

edited 3rd Sep '11 3:39:31 PM by Baff

Well that certainly backfired. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were displays to stop the fighting conclusively, not spark it.

Btw. what about Kristallnacht? does that not count?

So terrorism can sometimes be a legitimate tool to reach a goal? What about negotiating a cease fire?

Yes it does.

edited 3rd Sep '11 3:40:53 PM by Baff

H and N were basically "We got awesome superbombs and if you don't capitulate you will see more of them". That's still instilling fear however horrible the other options might have been.

Edit: ninjaed quite badly.

edited 3rd Sep '11 3:42:46 PM by honorius

Tokyo should have been bombed, and was bombed. Enemy capital = significant target.

Both bombings were warned for in advanced, carried out by marked bomber craft, and done against enemy targets. The only problem was that the munitions we were using were too big.

How 'bout the Dresden and London bombings?

They are horrific too. As well as Tokyos fire raid which caused more deaths than all the previously mentioned events.

But Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a special cruelty about them, when one considers that the atomic bombs could have been detonated in TOKYO bay thus harming (or a relatively small amount of people) no one and persuading the Japs to surrender.

edited 3rd Sep '11 3:44:21 PM by Baff

Dresden was unfortunate as I think Bomber Harris got carried away with revenge attacks. London was the failed strategy of the Luftwaffe to bomb Britain into submission and instead bought the RAF time to rearm and resupply.

edited 3rd Sep '11 3:44:39 PM by whaleofyournightmare

Dresden was wrong. London was wrong only because they attacked randomly, and did not go after political targets properly.

Was it "terrorism?" In a very strict sense, perhaps, looking at the goal. It was, however, against a proper target (industry is a proper target) and done by official military personnel in proper order.

Once again, the only thing wrong with the H&N attacks was that we were indiscriminate. If there had been a way to avoid it, I'd be mad about it. But the only viable alternative was infinitely worse, and so there's no logical way for me to say "it was a bad idea." When it's a Morton's Fork, you can't expect to get a good outcome...

What about a cease fire as proposed by the Japanese?

Or bombing Tokyo bay (and blinding a couple people in the process)

Proper target? Done in proper order?

There's an awful lot that can be justified with these statements.

After all, by that logic, the Holocaust was a-okay because it was done on proper targets, and in proper order by proper military personnel. Germans were very efficient about it, and most of the time rather professional.

Anything less than unconditional surrender would only have led to another war with Japan in revenge. We set out in the beginning of World War Two to remove three evil governments from power, and millions had given their lives for it. We could not, would not, and should not have abandoned that at the end. The Japanese knew it, too.

Executing en masse entire sections of your civilian population is not attacking a "proper target." The target of H&N was the industry and the cities. We told Japan to evacuate. We told them we were coming. They could have shot the bomber down. They did not.

edited 3rd Sep '11 3:50:53 PM by USAF713

Never has a masacre (genocide) been carried out in such an efficient logical matter.

What I am traying to say here USAF is that bombing Nagasaki was not the only resort. Invading Japan was not unavoidable, bombin Tokyo Bay would have served the same purpose.

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING:

this is a little anecdote. In the 40s some Japanese soldiers where executed after being sentenced (rightfully) guilty for torture. Their method, water boarding. Why did they do it? "To prevent a horrific attack against the motherlad". Such as... and atomic boming. See where I am heading?

EITHER HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI WHERE TERRORIST ATTACKS, OR 9/11 WASNT.

edited 3rd Sep '11 3:53:08 PM by Baff