The term "terrorism" is statist

[Joe]

An action that probably minimized civilian casualties in the long run as opposed to maximizing them. Also, we weren't out to kill as many civilians as possible (if we were, a lot more than two bombs would have fallen). Hiroshima was not a purely civilian target, either.

If you had the option of killing 100,000 civilians to prevent the killing of 500,000 in the future, would you take it? And if you did, would you classify your action as terrorism?

[MKSheppard]

Right, that's why it was largely untouched by Allied bombing until then

Along with several other major Japanese cities. You can't have a good
field test of the Bomb on a flattened rubble field.

[phongn]

It was also a major transportation center, critical to the Japanese
war effort (inter-island shipping was never successfully interdicted
in the way Japan's international shipping was).

Minor point - the US was going to shift her naval and air interdiction campaign to destroying Japan's internal transportation network. Remaining railway links and whatever inter-island shipping that could be caught would be destroyed.

[HemlockGrey]

Ergo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorism; the direct intent was to destroy large numbers of civilians as a demonstration of power and ruthlessness, in order to cow the Japanese government into surrender. Any military personnel killed in the blasts were incidental.

Perhaps, but it was a necessary action as the alternative was much worse.

[MKSheppard]

So would those of you hopping on the "terrorism as panic-spreading" bandwagon agree that, oh, only a terrorist would use a tactic like "shock and awe?"

If we wanted "shock and awe" like you claim we would, we would have
simply unleashed cluster bombs over crowded marketplaces to "shock and
awe" the population into submission, instead of blowing up single buildings
that are power plants and communications centers

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps, but it was a necessary action as the alternative was much worse.

Yes yes, I've heard this before. The end justifies the means ... this does not change the fact that the means in this case was terrorism.

The fact that the Japanese people were terrorized in order to end a war does not change the fact that it was a terror tactic. Does the term "red herring" mean anything to you?

[Joe]

So would those of you hopping on the "terrorism as panic-spreading" bandwagon agree that, oh, only a terrorist would use a tactic like "shock and awe?"

The intent of shock and awe wasn't to make life as miserable as possible for civilians, it was to encourage an early surrender. Again, something that would have actually benefitted Iraqi civilians in the long run. The terrorist, by contrast, is interested in making life as miserable as long as possible for his civilian targets.

[HemlockGrey]

Yes yes, I've heard this before. The end justifies the means ... this does not change the fact that the means in this case was terrorism.

The fact that the Japanese people were terrorized in order to end a war does not change the fact that it was a terror tactic. Does the term "red herring" mean anything to you?

So? You can't seriously compare to the WTC attack, because the WTC's explicit goal was to kill as many civilians as well possible. The goal of Hiroshima was to force the Japanese to surrender and end a war that would have otherwise costed many, many more lives. The ends of Hiroshima were far more admirable than the ends of WTC.

[Howedar]

The goal was not to terrorize the populace. The goal was to terrorize the Emperor and his cabinet. In fact, the populace was shocked and awed by the fact that the surrender was declared; clearly, if the goal was to terrorize the populace it was unsucessful.

[MKSheppard]

The goal was not to terrorize the populace. The goal was to terrorize the Emperor and his cabinet. In fact, the populace was shocked and awed by the fact that the surrender was declared; clearly, if the goal was to terrorize the populace it was unsucessful.

Or how that it was the EMPEROR himself declaring the surrender....many
people had never before heard the emperor's voice

[Darth Wong]

Funny how the bullshit rationalizations come out: "we were just trying to terrorize the government by killing a hundred thousand civilians, we weren't terrorizing the populace!"

Face it; you simply define terrorism as whatever is convenient for you at the time.

[MKSheppard]

Funny how the bullshit rationalizations come out: "we were just trying to terrorize the government by killing a hundred thousand civilians, we weren't terrorizing the populace!"

And 32,000 Japanese Army troops, the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms
Works, and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works (Torpedo Works).

[MKSheppard]

the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms
Works, and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works (Torpedo Works).

Oops. My bad. That was Nagasaki. We placed the bomb aimpoint for that
one in the right location to totally obliterate those two plants

[Kynes]

Oh, right: "we're terrorizing you now to avoid terrorizing you later."

I'm sure bin Laden et al believe the same thing: that they're just affording us a useful opportunity to witness the power of Allah before we're destroyed entirely.

This huge argument only serves to prove my central point: "terrorism" is clearly a meaningless word. You all think it doesn't include the U.S. (or perhaps you do) but you can't find a definition that actually fits all the groups you think it does.

Maybe you should just be honest:

"Terrorism, n. Whatever we want public support for the eradiction of."

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Mike, I would suggest that, ultimately--the rules and conventions of war which restrict actions, around their intent, are designed to lessen civilian casualties. They are ultimately designed to make War, a very messy business at best, more humane. However, when one side violates these rules for its own advantage, it is almost certain that the other side shall do so as a reciprocal action; they are simply and ultimately rules which exist as a convention between States and have no founding except as the agreement of those States to lessen the violence of War, either as written or as a traditional custom.

Even when another State does not likewise escalate, it may be suggested that it could in fact be moral for them to do so, as Hemlock argues--that we saved lives by the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The speedy end of war is always something to desire, even if it must be most vigorously waged for the conclusion to be reached.

It is natural for States to press every advantage possible for their survival, and only by mutual agreement can they really remove the possibility of utilizing an advantage which might come through actions against civilians. Once this agreement is broken, escalation occurs--and in some cases thus staves off further suffering. The only "moral" equation in the question of escalation could possibly be who started it, which I would submit is still relevant. State survival remains in precedence and ultimately if escalation is begun by one side, it is the paramount duty of the other side to follow if it is necessary for the survival of the State and the protection of the citizenry. Tracing the beginning of the process of escalation, however, can certainly show the depraved side of a conflict--precisely because they chose to shatter first a convention which otherwise might have maintained the conflict as one strictly between the military elements.

[Sea Skimmer]

Minor point - the US was going to shift her naval and air interdiction campaign to destroying Japan's internal transportation network. Remaining railway links and whatever inter-island shipping that could be caught would be destroyed.

We already had, with the B-29's spending as much time mining as bombing by the end of the war. Train hunting was also well underway is the fast carriers flying fighter sweeps to hunt them down, Though no doubt many would have survived in Honshu until we had airbases in Kyushu and could keep up constant patrols day and night.

[MKSheppard]

Maybe you should just be honest:

"Terrorism, n. Whatever we want public support for the eradiction of."

Howabout hijacking passenger jets and using them and the hapless
passengers as gigantic suicide bombs for your own twisted ends?

[Joe]

"Terrorism, n. Whatever we want public support for the eradiction of."

That includes poverty, drugs, illiteracy, smallpox, and corrupt business practices, then?

[Darth Wong]

I hate to do this, but you fucking Hiroshima apologists have forced me to point out some harsh facts:

1. The WTC was a huge part of America's economy
2. The American economy is the engine which drives American arms shipments to Israel and pays for American intervention and military presence in other countries
3. Al-Quaeda wants the American presence in other countries (specifically Saudi Arabia) removed, and has publicly declared war on this point. It also wants American arms shipments to Israel stopped.
4. Ergo, the WTC is an "infrastructure" target, and is no less legitimate than attacks on shipping.

Their goal was to give America a bloody nose and make its people pull out of the Middle East, because they figured that Somalia was indicative of the American reaction to casualties. Of course, it backfired on them, and quite badly, but that doesn't change their intent, which was a military strategic one.

Like it or not, the line between military action and terrorism is finer than you think. Didn't you wonder why Marina is soft-shoeing this thread?

If you disagree, then provide me with a fixed, precisely worded, ironclad definition of terrorism which I can't turn around on you.

[phongn]

Oops. My bad. That was Nagasaki. We placed the bomb aimpoint for that
one in the right location to totally obliterate those two plants

Radar-bombing meant that we missed by a good distance, though.

[Howedar]

Funny how the bullshit rationalizations come out: "we were just trying to terrorize the government by killing a hundred thousand civilians, we weren't terrorizing the populace!"

Are you going to simply mock the other position, or are you going to present a rebuttle?

[Joe]

Like it or not, the line between military action and terrorism is finer than you think. Didn't you wonder why Marina is soft-shoeing this thread?

I wouldn't call it a thin line at all; I would call it a gray area (the bombing of Nagasaki, IMO, occupies this area, since it seemed like needless cruelty).

[MKSheppard]

I hate to do this, but you fucking Hiroshima apologists have forced me to point out some harsh facts:

Then explain why they hijacked PASSENGER JETS instead of just
walking in and stealing some FedEx jets for their little jaunt.

[Darth Wong]

Funny how the bullshit rationalizations come out: "we were just trying to terrorize the government by killing a hundred thousand civilians, we weren't terrorizing the populace!"

Are you going to simply mock the other position, or are you going to present a rebuttle?

That was it. A huge number of civilians killed, despite an earlier definition that any action with primary intent to kill civilians or cause terror was terrorism. As I said, the definition of terrorism is revised whenever you realize that it can be turned against you; this says VOLUMES.

[Darth Wong]

I hate to do this, but you fucking Hiroshima apologists have forced me to point out some harsh facts:

Then explain why they hijacked PASSENGER JETS instead of just
walking in and stealing some FedEx jets for their little jaunt.

Irrelevant. We're talking about intent, remember? Or are you changing the definition of terrorism yet again?

I'm still waiting for someone to answer my challenge about an ironclad definition ... *drums fingers on desk*