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

The Japanese Government was insane, Baff. They still wanted to fight us after we had dropped the bomb, and the generals tried to pull a coup to do it. Nothing less than a full and all-out attack on them would have phased them.

That anecdote does not strike me as relevant...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I'm not really certain that inspiring "terror" was the goal of the bombings — it was a side effect, yes, but the main goal was to destroy the infrastructure that kept Japanese resistance viable. Then again, I've always thought "terrorism" was a relatively poor term simply used to stigmatize things as "bad."

It's probably worth noting that the world felt as little sympathy (probably even less) for Japan at the time of the bombings as they did for the US on 9/11, despite a much larger death toll. There is a fairly sound reason for that.

Read again, AT THE TIME OF THE BOMBINGS.

edited 3rd Sep '11 3:59:59 PM by ForlornDreamer

But it is.

You see. What you are saying is that terrorism can be a legitimate tool in war. Which is Ok with me. I just want you to say it.

The point of this thread is to show that the word "terrorism" is just a vague word that can mean anything and that Bush used to do something more harmful than 9/11 ITSELF.

Lol. The world HATES the bombings.

edited 3rd Sep '11 3:57:29 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

But they weren't attacking their own targets. They perceived Jews to be tantamount to enemy combatants.

By your logic, USAF, that makes it just fine. Just as long as the papers are all in order.

edited 3rd Sep '11 3:55:33 PM by Korochun

When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.

I doubt it. Having a plane with your super-secret superweapon shot down above enemy territory is the last thing you want.

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

Al Qaida declared war on the U.S. By that logic we should had seen it coming

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

Terrorism is hard to define, and I don't support dropping nuclear weapons in cities. But WWII against Japan was an active war declaration. It was a total war condition.

I did read that Soviet Union also declared war on Japan and that might have ended the war, since Japan was on the verge of surrendering.

Now using Trivialis handle.

Al Qaida declared war on the U.S (Osama held a press conference serch it in Youtube). We just didnt think to much about it.. until that tragic day.

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

No, because the victims of the Holocaust were not combatants, regardless of the opinion of Hitler. They were not armed. They were not directly assisting armed soldiers (i.e. artillery spotters). They were not capable of defending themselves in any meaningful way. That is what denotes being a combatant.

The Japanese Government was given ample time and opportunity to either evacuate the cities or shoot down the bomber. We warned them. And they failed to listen. The people of those cities were never the targets, the city itself was, and if the Japanese Government had done its job nobody would have died in those attacks.

I am now known as Flyboy.

We gave warning. Problem was, Japanese ADA was quite ineffective at countering the extreme altitude the B-29 operated at. Their fighter aircraft had practically been wiped out as far as regular interceptions went. (And the B-29 was not a slacker in the self-defense role.)

Ninjas ninjas everywhere.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:00:06 PM by MajorTom

The same can be said of the Japanese kids who died.

And acordign to Hitler the Jews where aiding the Soviet Union.

AND WE DID NOT WARN THEM.

In fact they wherent even sure we had done it until the second bombing.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:02:41 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

But that's the point. Japan couldn't take down the plane and the US knew that.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:03:54 PM by honorius

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

Yes we did. We told them what we had, when we were going to attack, and where. Had they gotten off their asses, those cities could have been empty by the time the bombs fell.

Al Qaeda only told us that it was going to fight us. It did not give specifics on the when and where. Even so, it was still the fault of the CIA and FBI for not being ready when the time came, almost as much as it was the fault of the terrorists for doing what they did. Had we listened to the people of Able Danger, perhaps 9/11 could have been far less damaging.

I am now known as Flyboy.

x5 But did US declare war? The US was not in a total war situation that should brace itself for attack at any moment.

Japan was, and US response to Pearl Harbor made it clear to both sides.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:03:32 PM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

The communique told the Imperial Japanese forces stated that the United States would use a "terrible new weapon"

That is like Al Qaida telling Britain to surrender or other wise god will smite them down.

And once again... why didnt they use it in Tokyo Bay to show the japanese they wherent bluffing?

The U.S was clearly in war with Al Qaida. Besides they had already atacked the U.S.S I dont remember what of the coast of Yemen and the Nairobi embassy.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:06:53 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

Still, it was said during wartime, when people were in the mindset.

Did the Congress actually declare war or was it handwaved?

I don't support the means but the ends were the conclusion of the war against Axis Powers. 9/11 didn't end any wars; it just stirred up conflict.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:08:04 PM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

I already said why we didn't just drop it in Tokyo Bay: they would not have given a damn.

Did you not read: they still wanted to fight after we'd vaporized two of their cities. A bomb in the bay with minimal-to-no causalities would have flown completely over their head.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Then by your Logic the Nazi bombing of London was OK?

But we didnt bother to try it out right? It wasnt worth saving 70000 something civilian lifes.

Besides the faction that sitll wanted to fight was defeated and force to commit suicide.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:10:07 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

Actually that message is accurate. The Japanese HAD faced quite a few new weapons over the course of the war. Radar-based fire control systems for AAA (ship and land based), proximity fuze ammunition, standoff range anti-ship weaponry (Google "Tiny Tim rocket"), the bazooka, the Sherman tank, the P-51 Mustang, the F 4 U Corsair and F 6 F Hellcat (both superior to the A 6 M Zero in every way), among others.

Warning of yet another new weapon was a valid message. They knew we were always looking into new means of firepower.

We already knew it wasn't going to work. Their Navy was completely gone. We'd bombed their capital to rubble. They had no Air Force, and the last of the islands they'd taken were being liberated. And yet they still wanted to fight to the last man, woman, and child.

It was going to be the most massive military campaign in human history. And you know what? It never happened, because we used the nukes. I would have preferred if they were sane and had simply accepted their defeat with grace, but they were not, and did not, and so it came to a choice between hundreds of thousands or tens of millions.

I am now known as Flyboy.

So you think the advances you describe above should have lead them to logically conclude something such as "an Atomic bomb" would have been used.

I dont know about you, but if I had been a Japanese commander I would have thought they where bluffing...

USAF u are not dumb. You should be well aware that their policy was to kill as many US servicemen as they could so that the expected casualties of invading Honshu would had been so enormous that the U.S would not be willing to do it and instead propose a cease fire.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:12:42 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

x3 If war is OK, and two countries are actively engaged in a war, then an attack on a country would be OK by same reasoning.

Like I said, I don't think the bombs were exactly the right decision even though they were quick ends.

edited 3rd Sep '11 4:12:24 PM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

Well, then your logic holds up.

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

Considering we had already demonstrated we could incinerate entire cities with conventional ordnance, there was no bluff to be called. Warning we had a weapon which could incinerate a city in one strike would not be something you'd doubt after being demonstrated that we could incinerate their cities.

Additionally, no competent Japanese officer in 1945 would have doubted anything we proclaim since the IJA and IJN had experienced ALL of our new weapons firsthand.

It would still be terrorism. But perhaps it wouldn't deserve the tag of "most horrible"

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling