So, you are saying that the end (a noble goal) justifies the means. That’s fine, you can believe that, and we could have a whole other debate discussing the merits of that position.
But we are not discussing this. The issue is whether the “means” is terrorism, not whether the means are justified.
Targeting and killing civilians with the purpose of scaring them and/or their government into doing something you want is terrorism.
So, the bombing of Hiroshima is terrorism.
Now, whether terrorism can sometimes be justified is another question.
It appears that you believe that, terrorism is justified if your goal is “stopping the expansion of a brutal empire from conquering eastern Asia”, but correct me if I’m wrong. Or do you believe that we can call it terrorism *only * if the goal is not noble, and when the goal is noble, no action can be called terrorism?
Has anyone seen “Fog of War”? If not, I highly recommend it. It’s a powerful, powerful movie. Somewhat dry, but very powerful in an intellectual sense. At any rate, McNamara says pretty blunty that if the US had lost the WWII, he and others in the administration at the time would have been tried and convicted as war criminals. He was talking mainly about the fire bombing in Europe, but the OP easily fits that category.
Now, I’m not saying that dropping the bomb was the wrong decision. War is hell, and total war is total hell. It’s unlcear to me that there are ANY good decisions in that case-- only a serious of bad decisions. But when your very survival is on the line, I don’t see that there is any real option other than choosing one of the “bad decisions”
And if, in some theoretical future, total war is in vogue again…does that mean that we are wrong? By what yardstick? They are in the future after all…so they HAVE to be right…correct? If, in some theoretical future being gay is not only looked down upon but actively prosecuted, then who was right…and who was wrong? And who judges?? People are molded by their environment…and should be judged by the standards and mores of their times. I think its inconceivable to attempt to judge people from another age by our own standards today…there simply are no universal yard stick of behavior that is good for the entire human race for all ages. It doesn’t exist.
It was a very small attempt to rib you…when I’m going all out for sarcasm you’ll know it.
And I’m not wrong. I DO doubt your assertion. If the US were attacked by nuclear weapons then it would be acceptable to the MAJORITY of the people in the US if we responded in kind. If the US used nuclear weapons against any nation, even NK, first, then there would be a hue and cry by, if not the majority than at least a VERY large minority.
Hell, there would be a hue and cry even if we were nuked first if we responded in kind…and rightly so. TODAY the immolation of several million citizens is not something we could, as a nation, do lightly.
In contrast, the response to the US using nukes in WWII against Japan was pretty universally one of relief that the war was finally over and joy that we had won. It wasn’t seriously condemned even in the world community. Different situations, different times…different reactions.
But the US wasn’t ‘at war’ with AQ in any way, shape, or form. Even if we WERE at war with AQ, civilian targets aren’t part of modern warfare…not DIRECTLY targeted civilian targets. We won’t even get into the SCALE of the attack against mainly civilian targets.
Today, this is unacceptable behavior by the standards of the day…OUR day. And we CAN judge this, because this is OUR time, and there are standards of behavior for this kind of thing…we are using a yardstick that’s our own. By any measure it’s unacceptable in our own time…just like by the standards and actions of the world in 1945 what the US did was acceptable behavior.
That’s where your argument falls apart Polerius…you are attempting to use our standards today to judge people who had their own standards in a past time, and then turning around and aren’t using our own standards to judge events of today…or you are claiming some kind of universal standard that exists today to judge everything by. You should judge both by the ‘standards’ of their times.
How do you expect them to conform to YOUR standards and culture? Time Machine? They should just know because it’s a universal truth/culture/standard?? By YOUR standards and by YOUR culture they may be ‘assholes’…but they were formed and molded by their own times, culture and standards. What makes you so sure that YOUR standards and culture are some kind of universal truth? And if in the future some girl/guy on a message board looks back at what YOU hold to be a universal standard and says YOU are a ‘barbaric asshole’ because what you thought was right wasn’t…by his/her standards? Who’s right Polerius…you or this theoretical future poster? Who’s right Polerius…you or the people from the past?
Well, winners get to write the history books - they are really who gets to decide what actions are called terrorist or not. And since the winners will always say their goals are noble, I would agree that when the goal is noble, then you don’t have terrorism.
Well, this is where we disagree. I think the goal has nothing to do with whether or not something is terrorism or not.
Anyway, we are just arguing about semantics at this point.
In any case, from your reply it seems that “Targeting and killing civilians with the purpose of scaring them and/or their government into doing something you want” is acceptable to you if the goal is noble.
I agree with the generality here. And, by way of context, I should say that I’m generally impressed by the actions and doubts of virtually all of those involved in the decision to use Little Boy against Hiroshima. In the context of the times, their decisions are understandable.
But I do worry about Truman. Did he know what he was doing? Based on his diary entry for 25/7/45, he does appear to have understood the scale of the power unleased at Alamogordo:
(It’s also quoted, with minor differences in transcription, in Off The Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, 1980, ed. by Robert H. Ferrell.) The Biblical language is hardly untypical compared to later reactions, though it does also run through some other entries in this diary he kept through this trip to Potsdam. The worrying aspect is the way the entry continues:
The physicists, soldiers and Cabinet members (including Stimson) recommending the bombing probably understood the nature of the target. Did Truman?
The object in the waging of war isn’t to defeat the enemy’s armaments; it is to defeat the enemy’s will to fight.
This is typically achieved through “shock.” A resounding defeat in a decisive battle is the usual method, but there are others.
IOW, you want your enemy so shit-scared that you are going to do again what you just did to him (and he’s still trying to wrap his mind around that) that he drops his weapon and surrenders.
The above principle, if broadly interpreted, could be construed to imply that ALL war is about TERROR, and would possibly have some basis in truth.
The “Total War” concept as I understand it never encouraged the deliberate targeting of civilian populations in and of themselves; it was just an unpleasant adjunct of targeting the industrial centers (usually located in urban population concentrations) of The Enemy.
Did the “concept” get out of hand in WWII? I would say that it did to some degree, even as I point out that it was the AXIS powers who opened that door first. The ALLIES were not, of course, morally obligated to follow.
And neither is Al Quaeda. Especially considering that all of the WW II policy-makers, AXIS & ALLIED, are all long dead, and the legal concept of “The sins of the father…” is NOT recognized in any internationally recognized court of law.
But the motives behind the targeting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was NOT “We’re gonna kill us a whole shit-load of Japs to teach those yella monkeys who they’re messin’ with!” It was “We’re gonna show 'em what we can do, and hope they ain’t so stupid to think we won’t do it all over the damned place and send them back to the stone age!”
And it’s the moral difference between the Islamic terrorists and the rest of the civilized world (including other people of the Islamic faith).
They kill other people because they hate them, and like killing them; we kill them until they’ve had a bellyfull of death and give up. Then we stop, make peace, and go about living our lives. In peace.
Others have already pointed out how applying the moral and ethical certitudes of today to decisions made in 1945 is wrongheaded. But let’s take a closer look and we see that even using today’s moral and ethical lens we can find little fault in the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
What options did the US have in 1945?
Stop the war and go home.
It would take a peacenik of epic proportions to think that was a real option or a desirable option. I doubt Gandhi would have backed such a notion. Hopefully we can agree this is a non-starter. If not I suggest you start a new thread to hash it out. Before you do remember that the Japanese we war mongering and pretty much as evil as they come and that is not from a “winner writes the history books” brainwashing. Rape of Nanking, Bataan Death March, medical experimentation that would have probably made Mengele sick, forcing conquered women to whore houses to serve Japanese soldiers…the list goes on. They were patently evil in anyone’s book. Bottom line they needed to be stopped.
Negotiated surrender.
The Japanese government’s idea of a “negotiated” surrender never came close to being acceptable to anyone and the Japanese seemed as inflexible in giving up more as the US was in maintaining unconditional surrender was all it would accept. The Japanese idea of negotiated surrender amounted to pretty much going back to the pre-war positions (including leaving the existing regime in power). No one besides the Japanese I am aware of was trying to push this as reasonable much less acceptable.
Blockade Japan.
Japanese were already facing serious privation and starvation by the time the atomic bombs were dropped. A blockade would essentially have been a process of making that go into overdrive and see starvation on a massive scale. Hard to say how many would have died had this course been followed but I think it is reasonable to say many more than died to the atomic bombs and the bulk of that would have fallen on civilians (children being particularly hit) as the army would see itself fed first. Does anyone care to make the case this was a more humane or ethical option?
Aerial (non-nuclear) bombardment of Japan.
Basically continue what we had been doing all along. While everyone throws out Hiroshima and Nagasaki many forget (or never knew) the conventional firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than died to the Nagasaki atomic bomb (80,000-100,000 people died in one night in Tokyo to this). Hard to see this as “better” than atomic bombs and it certainly got Japan nowhere near surrendering but I suppose we could have kept it up indefinitely. However, I am not sure how long the US could continue doing that before (over time) people everywhere saw the Japanese as victims and the US had to pull out without the surrender it sought.
Invade Japan
Depending what source you care to look up this was expected to cost anywhere from 20,000 to 1,000,000 American lives. Personally I have bought the 200,000 Americans dead number as “likely”. Regardless, how many Americans were worth sacrificing to bring about the end of the war? If Operation Olympic then Coronet happened and it was later found we could have not lost a single American life by using a new bomb how many threads would you see on the horrible decision to not use them? Even if we take the most optimistic view of “only” 20,000 dead American soldiers remember the number of dead Japanese to add to that. The Japanese had shown over and over and over again their willingness to fight near literally to the last man. Women and children were being armed and told to repel the invaders which would have seen American soldiers faced with machine gunning down kids with pointy sticks in hand running at them intent on skewering an American. The Japanese populace was terrified of “evil” Americans and many would commit suicide rather than be captured (this was witnessed…not just supposed…ever see the film reels of women leaping from cliffs in Okinawa?). There was nothing to indicate the Japanese would do anything but fight tooth and nail all the way to the bloody end. Again you can pull numbers from all over but Japanese dead would likely have far exceeded the numbers who died from the atomic bombs and that includes civilians (likely the bulk of it) and then toss whatever number from 20,000 on up of dead Americans to the butcher’s bill.
Drop the atomic bomb.
Yes, these bombs are horrid, nasty, brutish weapons. But in the calculus of war in WWII they offered a potential speedy end to a long, bloody war with no risk to our own soldiers. What commander wouldn’t jump at that? Heck, he would be obligated to do it. That they also ultimately saved more lives than they took (I know, perverted isn’t it but the math is hard to ignore) was even more compelling. Remember, even after the two nukes and Hirohito was going to surrender some in the Japanese military attempted a coup and came close to succeeding. Even after all of this (nukes, firebombings, etc.) there was still a strong effort to continue till utter bloody end.
Wildcard = USSR. Remember they were on their way and the soviets were not known for their tender mercies. On their way is closer than many think…heck, to this day the Russians still possess the Kuril Islands (meaning they were already capturing Japanese islands historically part of Japan). The geopolitics of the time could not be ignored. Finishing the war sooner than later was better for the US and, in hindsight, better for the Japanese too.
Wildcard 2 = I wonder at a world where the atomic bombs were not dropped in WWII. This is an argument from hindsight but if they had not been used and everyone had not been scared silly by them I wonder when they would have been? North Korea I am guessing. Still, imagine a Cuba Missile Crisis had an atomic bomb never been used in anger. As it was the world came to the brink. Without that potent scare ability from the past would the line have been crossed then but now in a full-on nuclear exchange? I don’t know but I for one am glad it wasn’t tested that way.
So, where is the “better” option in all of this than dropping the atomic bomb? And realize all of the above is with the benefit of hindsight. Place yourself in 1945 without that benefit…with your family members, friends and countrymen dying overseas. Still find the decision to not use them so crystal clear?
Xtisme and Polerius have been doing a great job of arguing the two sides. I’m going to take the liberty of arguing back against this post by Xtisme, as it was quite meaty.
There is a difference between understanding and judging. I’ll give an example. The prosecutors of the Great War were under a misapprehension that this was to be the “War to End All Wars.” So, even though millions were being slaughtered for no reason, the good part was that people would see how bad war was and they’d never do it again (I’m not saying that this was their justification for participation; merely that they thought incorrect things like this). I understand, to a degree, the thinking of the time, and with the help of hindsight I consider it naive.
As for Hiroshima, I think I also understand what they were thinking. “If we could only get through this one, horrible, indescribably awful war and make it to the other side.” They thought there would be a breather. Again, they were wrong, as karma just keeps marching on. Soon you had a hell called Korea, then (juicy irony!) a hell called Vietnam in which the US got to play the bad guy!
So yes, one should see what the US was thinking/doing in the context of the times, but when it comes time to judge, moral relativism has nothing to do with it. They thought they just had to get over this one hump of trouble, and then all would be sunshine and OKness forever. But that was incorrect thinking. What they did was wrong, whether it was Dresden or Hiroshima, and directly affected what the US was to do in the future in other countries.
I think we’ve learned something as a species from our big, failed 20th-century memes. The Reich will not last a 1000 years. The US is not always for truth and freedom. We don’t believe our propaganda as much as we used to, and are less willing to kill people for it. This is a good thing. Obviously, with the president we have now and the amount of people supporting him, we have a long, long way to go. He’s really been a throwback to the 19th century.
Yeah, but you have to get into the details. One thing about WWII is that they always superficially justified civilian bombing as attacks on military targets, the enemy’s ability to produce, etc. They wouldn’t be able to get away with that today for a variety of reasons. Put an AFAIR on that, as I would have to look at newpaper articles at the time, etc.
Says who? They say they’re at war, and so they are. It’s just a state of mind, anyway, isn’t it?
Don’t get me wrong: Al-Q is evil, plain and simple. They’re fighting for a meme that, to me, isn’t worth 10-day-old piss. They’d kill anyone for their cause. And to top it all off, their branding and packaging sucks! But I have to admit that they are willing to die for their cause, and it doesn’t all seem to be about profit, or something cynical like that. I also recognize that our karma is coming back to bite us: we blew up buildings and people because we were “right.” We said, both in words and through our actions, When you’re in the right, you can kill people and blow up cities. They learned the lesson we taught.
Fortunately, we are teaching a different lesson, have done so in these past two Gulf Wars and Kosovo: When you’re in the right, you can blow up military targets, and you have to avoid civilian deaths. In the future, I think our enemies will learn from this lesson. Call it karma, call it plain ol’ game theory, but it’s the way to go.
You talk as though actions just happen to be acceptable or unacceptable in a given era. That’s not the case. Actions are deemed one or another based on the big memes of the time and the science of the time. But memes can be right or wrong–absolutely. The slave owners in the US were wrong. The people in the North who didn’t fight against slavery but benefitted from cheap cotton were, to a degree, wrong. Both sides got the shit kicked out of them in the Civil War. I call this a “karmic purge.”
The moral law of Reality is absolute: love begets love and happiness; hate begets more hate and unhappiness. But, like the law of gravity or any other natural law, there is not a red light that comes on when one’s memes are off or one’s actions in the wrong. Rather, one is responsible for learning from one’s own comeuppance.
Polerius is basically right, because he’s got the basic meme down: don’t hurt people. There have been those, such as the Buddhists, who “got it” a long time ago, even before the Romans had their ampitheater fun. And they don’t look stupid either, 2700 years later.
You’re right, Polerius. I misspoke. Al-Quaeda doesn’t like killing other people. We’re not “people” to them. We’re the “Great Satan.” We’re every western boogeyman they’ve hated and feared since the First Crusade.
Killing us is doing God’s will.
Doesn’t make it any less delusional. Note that I do not ascribe these beliefs to every Muslim.
And the great “strategy” of 9-11? Staging another World War perhaps? Launching an East vs. West cultural war? Hoping for a glorious all-or-nothing showdown?
AT best, 9-11 was a spectacular tactical ambush. And if the American response hadn’t been so completely mishandled by the Bush Admin., it would have been a strategic blunder rivaled only by Pearl Harbor. At least the Japanese mostly attacked military targets. Against the USA that is. Anyone care to remember Nanking, China? The Japanese certainly don’t. They barely acknowledge WW II. Period.
Bush is a poor man’s sick caricature of Harry Truman, and thus is robbed of most (if not all) of Truman’s moral imprimatur by his Iraq policy, regardless of how awful Saddam Hussein is, was, or will be revealed as being. It is this loss of moral sanction in the world’s eyes that have allowed Al-Quaeda to turn 9-11 (after the fact!) into a strategic victory of any sorts.
IOW: The USA is screwing up more than Al-Quaeda is succeeding. A subtle but definite distinction.
A generally don’t get a good vibe with Truman (btw, I’ve heard his grandson speak and talked to him. Seems like a nice guy, but he does worship his gramps).
If Truman was using “wittle Bible stowies” to understand modern technology, then, yeah, the guy was a first-rate idiot.
Yes, it’s crystal clear, an absolute no-brainer. Plus you get to scare the shit out of Russia and keep them in line for a few years.
The bombing of Hiroshima wasn’t just one event. It was the result of, and a portion of, an evil logic that had been going on since 1939 and in which several countries had participated. The momentum behind it was nearly unstoppable.
The thing is, we got very, very lucky with Hiro/Naga. Japan did surrender, and they played nice during the occupation. It could have been otherwise. Had they not surrendered, we would have been left with Whack-a-Mole’s original list with not much progress made.
Also, you’ve got to keep in mind how evil works. The fact that your enemy has done something evil to you does not make you good. In fact, that evil usually has the effect of drawing you in to commit evil acts of your own. The thing that gives WWII its superficial moral clarity is the Holocaust, by which Germany became the unambiguously evil country that had to be defeated at all costs. As an ally of Germany, Japan gets tainted as evil, even though the nation really wasn’t that bad at the time (hell, the 1940 Olympics were planned for Tokyo, just 3 years after Nanking). Without the Holocaust, though, you basically have a bunch of stupid countries blowing the f*ck out of each other for no reason, just like in WWI.
