Hiroshima was a terrorist act

Great Debates
41

Needs to be more precise. Open warfare? What does that mean? That could conceivably leave out 9-11 as a terrorist attack, since Bin Laden has been waging a low-intensity war upon US interests for a while now (and since we had previously bombed what we thought was Osama’s camp, this at least has the appearance of a war with a lot of lag time between attacks).

Do both sides need to believe they are at war then? If so, why? Does a formal declaration of war need to happen (if so, then our present actions now may be terrorism)?

Seems like the line between terrorism and war is probably imaginary. AT any rate I can’t logically make it out, I can only say “I know terrorism when I see it” knowing it is illogical and probably incorrect.

42

Beginning in WW I, and certainly by WW II, Industrial Age warfare was in full bloom. The industrial capacity of a nation is, to a very large extent, its ability to wage war. Natural resources, and political and industrial organization are components of this, but the greatest asset to an industrialized nation waging war is the workforce that produces the tanks, fighters, bombers and naval combatants that actually wage tactical and strategic warfare.

Objectively speaking from a military standpoint, victory can come from either destroying your enemy’s ability to wage war, destrying their will to wage war, or a combination of both to greater-orlesser degrees. The factories and civilian workers are strategic assets. If they can be crippled, demoralized or destroyed, then you have struck at your enemy’s capacity and/or will to wage war. That’s all fine and dandy if you limit your objective to simple victory over the enemy. If you are at all concerned about the aftermath, then a broader view must be taken. With Global Industiralized Warfare being a new thing in the 30s and 40s, and all of the potential repercussions not fully understood at the time, I think that the U.S. struck a decent balance.

I found this site interesting from a purely scientific POV. Distinctly lacking is a military POV. It again uses the conceit of post-analysis in critiquing the decision, and only briefly touches upon the civilian-military relationship of the American government at World War.
I’m not advocating that matters of war conduct be the sole provenanceof the military, but we’ve also had a harsh lesson in Vietnam of too much civilian control over the military in times of war. That door swings both ways.

I also think that the Marshall Plan and the Japanese Reconstruction goes a long way towards absolving America of a great number of what we now call “war crimes.” Had we left Japan and Europe twisting in the post-war wind, then perhaps a greater case can be made for us as bad, evil Americans.

Modern analysis (as was mentioned earlier in this thread) has indicated that the strategic carpet bombing carried out in WW II was of limited success, due to a variety of factors such as the inherent limits of munition’s and delivery accuracy (and this was with the Norden bombsight, one of the best available at the time), but also because of the counter-productivity of targeting civilian assets (as was mentioned earlier in this thread, Germany’s industrial capacity peaked in 43-44, after being carpet-bombed by the 8th Air Force for some time).

That’s the modern take, with years of analysis leading up to it. In 43-44? Who knew?

Ain’t hindsight a great science to practice? Anybody and everybody can be an expert. IMHO, examining history should be a tool to use to avoid making future mistakes, not laying blame, practicing PC historical revisionism, or perhaps playing partisan politics.

Had OBL and his network targeted our tank, helicopter or missile factories, they would have a greater cache of legitimacy to their cause. Especially if they had issued a warning of some sort, or made a declaration of intent prior to the act. Their attack on the Pentagon was the closest they came; unfortunately, the greatest damage was to the World Trade Center, a purely civilian target.

Although…in the Global/Information Age we are currently in, a purely military case can be made for attacking economic assets as well as military/industrial. Anything that can weaken your enemy is a legitimate target if one were to completely ignore things like the Geneva Convention and the Law of Land Warfare, or the possible social make-up of your target in which such attacks could seriously harden the resolve of your victims into pursuing a war. There’s only so many ways to cripple your enemy’s will to wage war.

Which OBL and other like-minded terrorists do, for political and religious reasons which don’t address objective reality, only their own limited, subjective world view. We weren’t much different in WW II, but we did accurately predict the impact of the A-bomb on an enemy’s will to wage war. And possibly saved hundred of thousands, if not perhaps millions of lives, Japanese and American, by doing so.

At least as we thought at the time.

43

DesertGeezer, I accept that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. But I still believe they were terrorist acts, at least by the FBI definition in the OP. Which leads me to question the hypocracy of the war on terrorism.

Even if our morals have changed, is anyone actually arguing that given the same situation we faced toward the end of WWII, that we would make a different decision? That we wouldn’t drop atomic weapons, if we felt no danger of atomic reprisal, and that the only alternative was many hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dead, including civilians, in conventional battles?

Further, I acknowledged earlier that Truman thought Hiroshima was a military target. Check the parenthetical notes above the heading 8/9/45 Letter to Senator Russell in the link provided by Hamish early in this thread, as well as the internal refernce it makes. Notice how the “intent” game cuts both ways in regards to Pearl Harbor and the atomic bomb blasts.

Hardly anyone is arguing Nagasaki. Similarly, the Pentagon was a military target, the WTC was not.

I thought those events clearly showed that the US has no ethical or moral dilemna when using terrorim, if it was justified, and thought Hiroshima would be a good example. I attempted to lay out my concerns in the OP. I am a newbie, so maybe I didn’t do a very good job of it (but in comparison to many other GD threads OP, I don’t feel so bad).

Estilicon, I think your opinions are valid, even though I don’t share them. I do believe that Americans allow their patriotism to interfere with their rational thinking (myself included).

Sua, thanks for the definition. While I would disagee with your addition, at least I know where you are coming from. But that begs the question of what open warfare means. As I mentioned earlier, Al Qaeda declared their intentions, they trained soldiers, and they had previously attacked us. See Estilicon’s post were he starts, “Now my point, …” for the rest of the argument here.

Read Truman’s diary entry for 7/25/45, and let me know if you feel he didn’t have an appreciation for the full effects of the atomic bomb. While he may not have had a clear understanding of the radiation sickness issues, nobody at the time did.

Your analogy was poor because you related the issue to separate individuals with differing philosphies, that happened to conflict. The issue relates to US Foreign Policy, and I don’t believe the standard has changed in the last 60 years.

And on your fourth point, I must have misunderstood what you were saying, since I accept the argument provided.

Tomdebb, point taken, but I think the issue is at least arguable. If I grant you that Hiroshima was a military target, similar to the Pentagon, how would you address Nagasaki?

ExTank, welcome to the discussion.

44

Desert Geezer, please read my last paragraph carefully. I stated that we should al have the standard of morals. If the taliban attack is inmorall (which I believe it is) the same can be said, for example, of the war against the serbs. The only difference between each other is that one was carry out conventionaly, and the other not. I know using an aircraft full of people as a weapon is shocking but so is frying several thousands persons (100.000 in Tokio I believe).
My critic was that everyone were making justifications about Hiroshima from an strategical, or tactical point of view. As I said, you can also justify the attack of 9/11 with the same arguments I’ll repeat it:

  1. Hiroshima Objective: Attack militar, industrial targets, kill lots of people and basically create terror.
  2. 9/11, the same objective.

So if you justify the attack of Hiroshima wirth that kind of arguments, the attack of 9/11 was a legitimate one. My point of view is that you can never justify both attack, both of them were barbaric.

45

I suppose that if you were allowed to define the totality of the debate, you could get away with this. I had more respect for you, Estilicon.

Let’s try a rather different set of “objectives”"

  1. Hiroshima: demonstrate to an enemy with who one has been locked in total war, who has demonstrated a willingness to use massive suicide to push attacks, and who has several hundreds of thousands of troops still armed and equipped, that they face a weapon that will doom even their suicidal attacks to failure.

  2. WTC/Pentagon: demonstrate to a nation with whom one is not currently at war that their civilian population is endagered if they do not remove their (invited) troops from the soil of your homeland.

I see rather different objectives. Spreading terror is not only a different part of the objective, it is a different percentage of the overall goal.

46

::Sigh:: Estiilicon,

For the purposes of this discussion, I will willingly concede to you that Hiroshima was barbaric, terrrorism, or whatever else you want to call it.

I will willingly submit to you that, were the US and Japan at war today, in the same situation with similar comparative military strengths, objective and technological prowess, dropping the Bomb on Japan would be immoral and evil.

Fine. Because we know better now. We no longer live in a world where eugenics, Social Darwinism, racism, and a whole bunch of other beliefs common to the first half of this century are acceptable. We have learned, we have evolved. Hell, US conduct in Vietnam, only 25-30 years ago, would never be accepted by the US populace now. Do you believe it acceptable that bin Laden and his ilk did not similarly morally evolve?

So why is it that the events of 57 years ago are being used by you as a valid comparison for the events of six months ago? Do you think that your nation should continue to be condemned for waging agressive war only 20 years ago? I don’t think that’s a valid condemnation - because your nation and your people have changed.

In any event, your comparison of Hiroshima and 9/11 remains factually absurd. If Al-Qaeda had attacked only the Pentagon (or even also the White House or military bases) and in the process killed civilians, your comparison would be valid. But they also hit a little place called the World Trade Center in a separate attack. It wasn’t “collateral damage” - it was a deliberate attack on a civilian target with, last I checked, neither a military component nor military significance - they didn’t manufacture munitions there.

Sua

47

Ahem, Estilicon, what exactly is your opinion of Argentina’s attack on the Falklands?

48

(italics mine)

osama bin laden has declared war on the united states, at least twice since 1996

Sounds like a declaration of total war to me.
see here and here

I’m not saying, by any stretch, that al-qaida being at war with the us justifies to me the september attacks, but it certainly does to osama. And he uses similar arguments as the american justification of hiroshima to do it. - Psychological warfare (the shock of massive civilian deaths) worked before, and I think osama thought it would work again.

That is your justification for Hiroshima, and with the exception of the suicide tactics part, it closely parallels osama’s justification for sepember 11. Since he views american economic influence (i.e. sanctions against iraq, the flow of oil profits to america) as part of a war against Islam, and considering that the wtc is a symbol of american economic might, from that perspective the target is legitimized, in the same manner that the military industries in Hiroshima were targetted - their contribution to the war effort.

If sept. 11 was terrorism (I believe it was), so was hiroshima.

49

And exactly when did bin Laden become a country? What is that country’s name? When did that country declare war?

The answers for these questions are non-existant as bin Laden is not a country. He’s just one pretty darn evil killer.

50

Technology changes. The tactics that the United States employed during World War II were the best available. You bombed cities because that’s where they make the munitions. A secondary objective is to demoralize the population to reduce popular support of the war. Once Americans took an objective the civilian population was not enslaved or butchered. In fact, after learning from the lessons of WWI, America has a long history of financing the rebuilding of its former enemies, including Germany, Italy, Japan, the former Soviet Republics, etc.

But as I said, technology changes. The fact is that the United States is now capable of destroying military targets with extremely low civilian casualties. This we choose to do when we are forced to wage military campaigns. We don’t have to, you know. We could use those cruise missiles to blow up all those schools where the palestinians train the 5 year olds to grow up and be suicide bombers, but we choose not to. Why? Because we are moral.

Personally I think this whole “terrorism” word is overused and meaningless. Murdering innocent people without a military objective is evil. Killing innocent people while striking a military objective is bad. We realize that; that’s why we try to avoid it wherever it is humanly and technologically feasible, while still achieving the military objective.

In WWII it was not feasible to achieve the objective (ending the war and saving hundreds of thousands or millions of lives, American, Chinese, Japanese, etc.) without bombing (atomic or otherwise) cities. Hence those were the tactics that were used.

Do you honestly think that if Germany occupied France today we’d carpet bomb Berlin? I think not, but its not because America’s morals have changed. Our bombs have. The German tanks, gunships, planes, etc. would be smoking piles of junk before the ink was dry on the French Declaration of Surrender. All with the minimum possible loss of civilian life, just as is the case in Afghanistan even as we type.

And before someone chimes in, don’t get me started on the use of American military force in the prosecution of the “Drug War,” which is 100% immoral, and the topic for another debate.

51

Since when does declaring war require that you be a country? If the us can declare war against a non-state entity (i.e. terrorism) then why can’t that, or any other, non-state entity declare war on you?
You know, america went to war against britain before it was a country. The united states became a nation after winning the war of independance, not before. Until that war was over, the colonies were still colonies. And it was a real war wasn’t it?

52

Two points:

  1. I have provided no “justification” for the bombing of Hiroshima. I replied to Estilicon’s attempt to describe the actions as identical with descriptions showing the specific differences between them.
  2. You are completely wrong in your assertion. The explicit reason claimed by bin Laden for the WTC attack was the second point I described. We have not been engaged in “total war” with the continued destruction of both armies and cities; there are not hundreds of thousands of military troops prepared to continue an ongoing series of battles.

bin Laden may enjoy talking about the struggle between (his version of) Islam and “the West” as warfare, but not even he can claim that the two sides of the struggle have been carrying out “total war” which has an explicit meaning in terms of military actions. Your claim, with its requirement that we redefine actual words in common English to your terms, is without merit.

Part of the problem in this whole discussion is that there are two simultaneous debates going on, one semantic and one philosophical. I’m not that concerned with “resolving” any of the various positions; I am only hoping to keep people from being led astray with incorrect claims of facts.

For example

The answer is that it cannot. President Bush may use whatever rhetoric he chooses to seek the support of the people, but the U.S. has not “Declared War” (a very specific legal instrument reserved to Congress) against anyone. We are certainly waging war, (as is al-Qaeda) but we have not “declared” war.

53

Monty if you read my posts carefully you already know the answer, not only it was an ilegitimate attack but also it put argentinians at the same level that the British :slight_smile: that would be “Invade first, ask question laters”. Those islands are ours. we’ll recover them someday.
You have to recognize though, that it was the first time in our history that we launched an agression war. The British, for example, invaded us at least 4 times. And compared with other wars it was a pretty clean one (if we don’t consider that little incident with the Belgrano).

Now returning to the thread you were already at “war” with Osama’s Bin Laden organazation. Remember the bombings of your african embassies or the attack ordered by Clinton against a “Supposed” chemical weapons factory. Of course according to international law you can not declare war against a country but then again Bin Laden doesn’t care a bit about any kind of law.

That is why terrorist are so dangerous, we have to eliminate them but Monty if you want to learn something more from Argentina. If you use illegal methods to stop terrorism, the state itself will become one. If they don’t care about international conventions, you do.

54

im_a_loser -

You seem to be under the impression that the American Colonies, when fighting for independance, coudln’t declare war because they were not a country.

That’s right. That’s why it was called a “rebellion”. Have you ever heard that line from the Delcaration of Independance about ‘fortunes, lives, freedom, and sacred honor’? (Not an exact quote, I know)

The reason for that is because the Founding Fathers were NOT the leaders of a nation. They were the leaders of a rebellion. Rebellion is considered sedition and treason. That is punishable by death (hence the whole “lives” bit in the quote above).

Rebels who lose a war are executed. National leaders who lose a war negotiate. Had the rebels lost the war, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that every name on the Declaration would have ended up swinging from the gallows.

-Meri

55

Right. The 9/11 attacks killed about 3,000 people, almost all civilians. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed over 100,000, almost all civilians. One big difference is that a significant portion of the Japanese victims were children.

Have those morals changed in the last sixty years?

And Truman wasn’t? Please. The reason we don’t do any of those things is because making such decisions goes against our moral grain. We would do ANY of those things if our country and freedom were truly threatened. As the only remaining superpower, we don’t do those things simply because we don’t have to.

Regarding this “country” issue, let me try to cut right to the chase and make three statements.
[ul]
[li]Only recognized “countries” can wage war.[/li][li]Recognized countries at war cannot wage terrorism.[/li][li]War, to be a war, must be declared.[/ul][/li]
Does anyone really agree with any of the three? If not, please refrain from this potential hijack.

(and sorry for my delay, I hate it when the real world keeps me from my new addiction - the SDMB!)

56

Ok so let me get this straight:
War is only war if two (or more) nations are involved, and congress, through ‘a specific legal instrument’ says its war? In that case:
The war of independance wasn’t a war.
The vietnam war wasn’t a war.
The civil war wasn’t a war.
The war against terror isn’t a war.
…etc.
What - were/are these all fucking tea parties then?
It would seem enough for that a public declaration, followed by the actual waging of war-like acts, or even just the waging of war is enough to make a war real.
shrub seems to think he’s waging a war here people. We’d let him know he’s not.

57

OK, get it straight. Look at what has been said, and not how you would wish to imagine it.

Having had to correct you about a position I had not asserted, I took the time to point out another factual error.
You specifically talked about “declaring war” against a non-state. I pointed out specifically that one cannot declare war against a non-state.

I then very clearly pointed out that one certainly can wage war, regardless of whether one or both parties are recognized as nations. A Declaration of War is a legal instrument. Killing people requires only weapons.

Now, if you would care to stop trying to (incorrectly) tell other people what they said, perhaps you could provide a useful contribution. 'Round these parts, we burn straw men.

58

…which in practical application amounts to an official declaration, whether or not one has occurred.
source

59

im_a_loser and tomndebb,

Your both right. im_a_loser holds that the US has declared war, for all practical purposes. I accept that. tomndebb holds that we have not Declared War, in an official (US legal) sense, and I buy that, too.

But unless either of you are arguing that you can’t commit terrorism if you are in a declared war (like WWII), the argument has no relevence to this thread.

Funny, though, when I wrote the OP, I thought the rhetorical part of the “War on Terrorism” was the “terrorism” part, but maybe its the “war” part! :stuck_out_tongue:

60

im_a_loser, I would suggest that popular news outlets (especially for countries outside the one concerned) are not the best sources for determining the laws of a country.

Nevertheless, if you will actually read what you posted, Jefferson received authorization from Congress to conduct his campaign against the Barbary Pirates. Jefferson did not have the authorization to Declare War, himself. So, too, Bush has gone to Congress for authorization to pursue al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. The president cannot Declare War except as an act of rhetoric (which President Bush has done). Congress has not Declared War against al-Qaeda and Congress did not Declare War against the Barbary pirates–in both cases it authorized the president to use force to protect the country without Declaring War. That we are engaged in warfare is not in dispute. However, if we Declare War, various insurance policies are void for damage arising from related actions and other business contracts are also affected. There are reasons why one does or does not Declare War–always against sovereign nations. That the president can (or that the Congress has) Declared War is not true.

This is tangential to the discussion, anyway. It was simply a point I brought up in an effort to encourage you to get your facts straight before you post.