The term "terrorism" is statist

[Darth Wong]

As it happens the Emperor and his advisors were looking for an exuse to surrender as there was a concern that the population were about to revolt but did not want to be seen, by hook or by crook, to be bowing to outside pressure. The nukes gave them their exuse.

I agree. But anyone who claims that the use of two nukes on fully populated areas in short succession was the absolute minimum is blowing hot air.

[MKSheppard]

If they're so easy to debunk, then debunk them.

OK Then, how do you propose to carry out such a test? You're the
genius. You tell me.

[Gil Hamilton]

Actually, wait. I call foul on you, Gil--I just started reading through the report and read something which directly justifies the March 9th raid:

They still relied, however, on plants employing less than 250 workers for subcontracted parts and equipment. Many of these smaller plants were concentrated in Tokyo and accounted for 50 percent of the total industrial output of the city. Such plants suffered severe damage in urban incendiary attacks.

Except that those plants weren't the primary reasoning behind the March 9th raid. The March 9th raid area was chosen because it was the most densely populated part of Tokyo, not because of the factories. Besides, those factories could have easily have been destroyed by HE Bombs (as most major factories were in Japan) were without the need to use weapons which maximized civilian death tolls. Notice that most of the tonnage of bombs dropped against Japan were against urban areas:

In the aggregate, 104,000 tons of bombs were directed at 66 urban areas; 14,150 tons were directed at aircraft factories; 10,600 tons at oil refineries; 4,708 at arsenals; 3,500 tons at miscellaneous industrial targets; 8,115 tons at air fields and sea-plane bases in support of the Okinawa operation; and 12,034 mines were sown.

Those plants you mentioned in the above quote would be in the "miscellaneous industrial targets" not urban areas.

[Darth Wong]

If they're so easy to debunk, then debunk them.

OK Then, how do you propose to carry out such a test? You're the
genius. You tell me.

You drop the bomb on an area with less people in it than Hiroshima.

I'm sorry to hear that your intellect wasn't up to the task of visualizing such a complex plan, Shep.

[HemlockGrey]

And after seeing the power of an A-bomb on a depopulated area ... oh yeah, they didn't try that. And you just assume it wouldn't have worked.

The first fucking bomb didn't work.

And failing.

No, they only failed because the second bomb hit and shocked the emperor into overruling them. And even then, they attempted to launch a coup.

No, because it killed FAR MORE civilians. 3500 civilians would have been a blip in the casualty counts of what America inflicted on Japan during that week.

I'd appreciate it if you named which major wars and how many thousands of lives the WTC attack ended and saved, respectively.

No, you're talking about the definition of terrorism because that's the thread subject. If you don't like the thread subject, don't participate in it.

Then split this into a new thread, because I am not debating the definition of terrorism.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And they still failed. Yes, they would have also tried if the power of the A-bomb and its obvious implications had been demonstrated in a less terroristic fashion. Who's to say they wouldn't have also failed?

It is a widespread assumption that for some reason, this coup would have succeeded if the power of the A-bombs was demonstrated on anything less than two populated cities in rapid succession.

NO ONE has ever been able to justify this claim.

You assume that the Emperor would have even considered peace in such circumstances. The situation that led to the declaration was very complex and I'm not entirely sure any other combination could have sustained it, to be honest. Perhaps. Obviously the Russian entry--perceived as a treachery by the Japanese and removing their main outside remaining base of support--was critical to the timing. Had we attempted a demonstration, and had it not been successful, later atomic bombings not so closely spaced with the Russian entry might not have had the same effect. We don't know what could have worked--we just know what did work, and what would have happened if it didn't.

[Darth Wong]

You've known me long enough to know what I think of purely legalistic justifications.

Contempt for the law does not absolve one of the necessity of obeying it.

It does, however, call into question the morality of that law, and that is the whole purpose of this thread: to ask whether the definition of terrorism is one that simply exists for the convenience of the major powers rather than the ethical reason it purports to have.

[Sea Skimmer]

Except that those plants weren't the primary reasoning behind the March 9th raid. The March 9th raid area was chosen because it was the most densely populated part of Tokyo, not because of the factories. Besides, those factories could have easily have been destroyed by HE Bombs (as most major factories were in Japan) were without the need to use weapons which maximized civilian death tolls. Notice that most of the tonnage of bombs dropped against Japan were against urban areas:

Japanese industry was based around thousands of small urban shops feeding components to larger factories which where really just assembly plants. That was why firebombing was implemented. Destroying the factories accomplished nothing since they where little but hollow shells.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You drop the bomb on an area with less people in it than Hiroshima.

I'm sorry to hear that your intellect wasn't up to the task of visualizing such a complex plan, Shep.

Would you go ahead and propose a site that would allow the Japanese to fully measure the capability of the device without killing an undue number of persons and etc?

[Darth Wong]

The first fucking bomb didn't work.

Prove that, since they didn't even have enough time to thoroughly inspect the site before the second one was dropped.

No, they only failed because the second bomb hit and shocked the emperor into overruling them.

Read: burning past their delays.

And even then, they attempted to launch a coup.

Which you believe would have been bound to succeed if not for the level of civilian casualties sustained?

I'd appreciate it if you named which major wars and how many thousands of lives the WTC attack ended and saved, respectively.

I'd appreciate it if you provided something other than speculation for your claim that anything less than what happened would have led to total failure of the A-bomb as a method of forcing Japanese surrender.

Then split this into a new thread, because I am not debating the definition of terrorism.

No, you're just too cowardly to deal with any point other than your nitpick.

[MKSheppard]

Would you go ahead and propose a site that would allow the Japanese to fully measure the capability of the device without killing an undue number of persons and etc?

That would be like taking a bunch of Red Army Generals in 1981 to
Grafenwohr and showing them in person a Laser guided bomb impacting
a dinner plate and then telling them that all their tanks are now obsolete,
so don't invade Europe.

If I recall correctly, a congressional delegation when shown the MBT-70s
capability of shooting lightbulbs out while on the move, the congresscritters
claimed that the army had lied to them and had planted explosive charges
in the lightbulbs and remotely detonated them

[Darth Wong]

You drop the bomb on an area with less people in it than Hiroshima.

I'm sorry to hear that your intellect wasn't up to the task of visualizing such a complex plan, Shep.

Would you go ahead and propose a site that would allow the Japanese to fully measure the capability of the device without killing an undue number of persons and etc?

Any small town would have sufficed. They didn't need to use one with a six-figure population.

[Gil Hamilton]

Japanese industry was based around thousands of small urban shops feeding components to larger factories which where really just assembly plants. That was why firebombing was implemented. Destroying the factories accomplished nothing since they where little but hollow shells.

Read the report. The Japanese cottage industry had largely ceased to exist by 1944, more than a year before Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe or any of the major firebombings.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

< snip >

So all factories in Japan that employed more than 250 people were either arsenals, aircraft factories, or oil refineries? Do you realize how fucking stupid you make yourself sound, Gil?

[Gil Hamilton]

< snip >

So all factories in Japan that employed more than 250 people were either arsenals, aircraft factories, or oil refineries? Do you realize how fucking stupid you make yourself sound, Gil?

No, they would be "miscellaneous industrial targets", which had it's own listing.

[Darth Wong]

That would be like taking a bunch of Red Army Generals in 1981 to Grafenwohr and showing them in person a Laser guided bomb impacting a dinner plate and then telling them that all their tanks are now obsolete, so don't invade Europe.

False analogy; nothing new for you in this thread, unfortunately.

[MKSheppard]

Any small town would have sufficed. They didn't need to use one with a six-figure population.

So after $20 billion in expenditures, you want to use one
of only 3 bombs in the inventory to destroy a podunk town which a single
squadron of B-29s would be capable of doing on the cheeeeep? That's not
impressive. It's simply stupid.

[HemlockGrey]

Prove that, since they didn't even have enough time to thoroughly inspect the site before the second one was dropped.

The bomb nearly wiped out Hiroshima and the military government did not want to surrender. They knew that the bomb had wrecked massive devestation on the city.

Read: burning past their delays.

The bomb wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the military government did not want to surrender.

I'd appreciate it if you provided something other than speculation for your claim that anything less than what happened would have led to total failure of the A-bomb as a method of forcing Japanese surrender.

If the destruction of an entire city failed to make the military leadership wish to surrender, what the hell makes you think the destruction of a village or small town would have?

No, you're just too cowardly to deal with any point other than your nitpick.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never attempted to debate the definetion of terrorism, and I have no wish to, so stop trying to strong-arm me into a new debate.

[MKSheppard]

False analogy; nothing new for you in this thread, unfortunately.

You severely underestimate the human ability to make inconvient facts
disappear unless faced with irrefutable proof of it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

< snip >

So all factories in Japan that employed more than 250 people were either arsenals, aircraft factories, or oil refineries? Do you realize how fucking stupid you make yourself sound, Gil?

No, they would be "miscellaneous industrial targets", which had it's own listing.

Then the ones employing less than 250 people would be in the urban areas just like I contended and just like the report stated, and, ergo, the reason for the firebombing? Thank you for conceding.

[MKSheppard]

So after $20 billion in expenditures.

For comparison:

All bombs, mines and grenades — $31.5 billion

Small arms materiel (not incl. ammunition) — $24 billion

All tanks — $64 billion

Heavy field artillery — $4 billion

All other artillery — $33.6 billion

[Darth Wong]

Any small town would have sufficed. They didn't need to use one with a six-figure population.

So after $20 billion in expenditures, you want to use one
of only 3 bombs in the inventory to destroy a podunk town which a single
squadron of B-29s would be capable of doing on the cheeeeep? That's not
impressive. It's simply stupid.

Prove that it would have no effect on the leadership, particularly when they have been properly informed beforehand of the existence of nuclear weapons (note that they were blind-sided; Truman could have told them exactly what they were preparing for them, but chose not to) and then given a clearly worded ultimatum.

PS. note that the size of the expenditure is irrelevant to the supposed purpose (to end the war). Unless, of course, you are admitting that value for money means killing lots of civilians, which puts the lie to your claim that killing lots of civilians was not the point.

[Stuart Mackey]

As it happens the Emperor and his advisors were looking for an exuse to surrender as there was a concern that the population were about to revolt but did not want to be seen, by hook or by crook, to be bowing to outside pressure. The nukes gave them their exuse.

I agree. But anyone who claims that the use of two nukes on fully populated areas in short succession was the absolute minimum is blowing hot air.

As it happens the Japanese went to surrender after the first, their internal politics, ie the Emperor and company, ment that they didnt get their shit together till after the seconed. If they hadnt the US would have invaded in which case you have more cities destroyed and more civvies killed in the fighting, all of this done by conventional means. Nukes or no nukes, there is a good chance those civvies, and more besides, would have died. Fortunatly they surrenderd.
As to terroism, as far as I am concerned its pure semantics overall. Terroism is something that is decided by the victor.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It does, however, call into question the morality of that law, and that is the whole purpose of this thread: to ask whether the definition of terrorism is one that simply exists for the convenience of the major powers rather than the ethical reason it purports to have.

Well, I'll agree that terrorism as a definition is worthless in the context of the Law of War. However, terrorists are also illegal combatants (though not all illegal combatants are terrorists, of course). And I would contend that the Law of War is an important covenant between nations which, if kept, can serve to greatly reduce civilian bloodshed--but has the inherent failing of being something which is less law than, indeed, just that, a covenant. A law covering several nations can never really be enforced, so one must entrust it to the common desire of those nations for such an agreement to be kept.

That's ultimately where such "silliness" as the requirement for uniforms comes from. An intent to keep it clean, if you will, for I think the very laudable goal of reducing civilian casualties. The problem of course is that both sides must be willing to do so or the rules are at once reduced to so much paper.

[Darth Wong]

The bomb wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the military government did not want to surrender.

The Emperor did. Their contrary opinion is irrelevant.

If the destruction of an entire city failed to make the military leadership wish to surrender, what the hell makes you think the destruction of a village or small town would have?

It wouldn't. However, the Emperor is in charge, remember? Small detail you apparently missed in your studies.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never attempted to debate the definetion of terrorism, and I have no wish to, so stop trying to strong-arm me into a new debate.

THEN YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE POSTED IN THIS THREAD, ASSHOLE.