The term "terrorism" is statist

[HemlockGrey]

So the existence of a second bomb would not have changed their minds even if they had two weeks to examine the first bomb site and even if they demonstrated it in some less lethal fashion than they did? Interesting claim. Care to justify it? Also care to justify your claim that the first demonstration would have been useless if it was on a smaller target?

What do you mean, 'examine it'? 'Oh, they wiped out 10,000 people, we might as well surrender now?' The shock of Hiroshima was that the bomb destroyed so much of the city. Wiping out all the buildings in a small town has nowhere near that same shock value, because we could already do it. We couldn't already reduce a city to a utter ruins in a single foray.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip However, the Emperor himself had very little actual power in the government and certainly no authority to issue direct orders, as per the Meiji Constitution. Hirohito only gained the authority to order the surrender when Prime Minister Suzuki ceeded it to him at the Cabinet meeting following Nagasaki's destruction.

I would beg to differ. The Japanese Emperor at the time was an activist Emperor who was very much involved in the desision making prosses. Befor and after the war Hirohito was the man who gave the go ahead on matters of national importance.
If you want an interesting read on it, I suggest Herbert Bix's book Hirohito and the making of moder Japan.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Kept secret for fear of being caught, because the conspirators knew that the majority of the military would not go along with them. Precisely the point, is it not?

One could argue, I would contend, that the majority of the army agreed with the conspirators but was not willing to disobey the Emperor--that's what makes the coup so unique. The conspirators were sufficiently fanatical that they'd 'rationalized' (it can't really be called that..) "disobeying the Emperor for the good of the Emperor", essentially, as the Emperor was the State. So really the crucial element in the Japanese surrender was the Imperial intervention.

[Darth Wong]

So the existence of a second bomb would not have changed their minds even if they had two weeks to examine the first bomb site and even if they demonstrated it in some less lethal fashion than they did? Interesting claim. Care to justify it? Also care to justify your claim that the first demonstration would have been useless if it was on a smaller target?

What do you mean, 'examine it'? 'Oh, they wiped out 10,000 people, we might as well surrender now?'

More like "oh, they have nuclear bombs. We might as well surrender now." Strawman arguments don't mean shit and you know it.

The shock of Hiroshima was that the bomb destroyed so much of the city. Wiping out all the buildings in a small town has nowhere near that same shock value, because we could already do it. We couldn't already reduce a city to a utter ruins in a single foray.

Are you arguing that the Japanese were so utterly, inconceivably, technically incompetent that they wouldn't know what was unusual about the level of destruction caused by such a weapon? Particularly if they had been warned to expect it so they had observers present?

[Howedar]

There could not have been a force-wide organized attempt, as the entire proceedings were secret.

Kept secret for fear of being caught, because the conspirators knew that the majority of the military would not go along with them. Precisely the point, is it not?

No, as in the entire surrender proceedings were, as far as I know, secret. Military units 500 miles away couldn't very well conspire when they don't know that there's anything to conspire about.

[Stuart Mackey]

Kept secret for fear of being caught, because the conspirators knew that the majority of the military would not go along with them. Precisely the point, is it not?

One could argue, I would contend, that the majority of the army agreed with the conspirators but was not willing to disobey the Emperor--that's what makes the coup so unique. The conspirators were sufficiently fanatical that they'd 'rationalized' (it can't really be called that..) "disobeying the Emperor for the good of the Emperor", essentially, as the Emperor was the State. So really the crucial element in the Japanese surrender was the Imperial intervention.

The army of the time would never have disobeyed the Emperor there entire education and training was predicated on the basis of the orders of the emperor are as those of the gods. The coup was a isolated atremopt and would have been put down by the army in short order.

[HemlockGrey]

More like "oh, they have nuclear bombs....

...that wiped out a small town. Fantastically impressive.

Are you arguing that the Japanese were so utterly, inconceivably, technically incompetent that they wouldn't know what was unusual about the level of destruction caused by such a weapon? Particularly if they had been warned to expect it so they had observers present?

They knew we had nuclear bombs after Hiroshima, and yet they still did not attempt to surrender.

[Darth Wong]

No, as in the entire surrender proceedings were, as far as I know, secret. Military units 500 miles away couldn't very well conspire when they don't know that there's anything to conspire about.

Nevertheless, the fact that they had to kill fellow soldiers in order to carry out this plan obviously means there was no consensus on this idea.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The army of the time would never have disobeyed the Emperor there entire education and training was predicated on the basis of the orders of the emperor are as those of the gods. The coup was a isolated atremopt and would have been put down by the army in short order.

Isn't that exactly what I just said? But not because of they approved of the surrender--the majority of them were indoctrinated in such a fashion that it was totally inconceivable (Hell, some people thought the Emperor was announcing victory in the war)--rather because it was an Imperial Command. The problem of getting Japan to surrender comes down to the point in which the Emperor has the authority to issue a direct command to surrender.

[Darth Wong]

Does any of this nitpicking matter? The point was that the Emperor and much of the government DID want to surrender; they were just hoping to get more favourable terms. The widespread claim that they were all lunatics who would fight to the death is COMPLETELY FALSE.

[Stuart Mackey]

The army of the time would never have disobeyed the Emperor there entire education and training was predicated on the basis of the orders of the emperor are as those of the gods. The coup was a isolated atremopt and would have been put down by the army in short order.

Isn't that exactly what I just said? But not because of they approved of the surrender--the majority of them were indoctrinated in such a fashion that it was totally inconceivable (Hell, some people thought the Emperor was announcing victory in the war)--rather because it was an Imperial Command.

I was pointing out that hre coup was an isolated attempt that never had a chance, nothing more.

The problem of getting Japan to surrender comes down to the point in which the Emperor has the authority to issue a direct command to surrender.

He always had the authority, just not the inclination to actualy surrender.

[Howedar]

No, as in the entire surrender proceedings were, as far as I know, secret. Military units 500 miles away couldn't very well conspire when they don't know that there's anything to conspire about.

Nevertheless, the fact that they had to kill fellow soldiers in order to carry out this plan obviously means there was no consensus on this idea.

Only a fool would assume that there has ever been 100% consensus on anything.

However, there still could have been a majority.

[Darth Wong]

However, there still could have been a majority.

A majority on the idea of overthrowing the Emperor? I seriously doubt it. Not even Marina is arguing that.

[Howedar]

Yet, look at the rediculous lengths Japanese soldiers would go in order to prevent capture and surrender, and look how they treated prisoners.


To be honest, I really don't know enough about Mr. Average Japanese Soldier to say whether any particular possibility is a probibility.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

However, there still could have been a majority.

Fuck no and fuck no again. Even the lower-ranking members of the Konoye Division, the only unit that actually "mutinied", were never actually told what was happening--they were just given orders to take up positions around the Imperial Palace to "provide increased protection", orders which were signed with the seal of the Konoye Division commander, whom the mutineers had just murdered.

[Stuart Mackey]

Does any of this nitpicking matter? The point was that the Emperor and much of the government DID want to surrender; they were just hoping to get more favourable terms. The widespread claim that they were all lunatics who would fight to the death is COMPLETELY FALSE.

The trouble was a few points, namly the future of the Kokutai, ie the Imperial house, insititution and the Emperor himself, combined with a certain degree of self induced arrogance and a few Ideas of racial uperiority in some quaters. about half of the people who mattered wanted to fight on the rest to surrender. The populace were about ready to revolt IIRC.

The bombs were a face saving device for the Emperor in front of his people and set him up for after the war as the man who saved his people. They were never suicidal lunitics..arrogant, yes, suicidal? most were not, and those that were only on the orders of the Emperor.

[Gil Hamilton]

Why do you presume this? An industrial target is just that--an industrial facility which is being targeted.

Which would include the plants we've been talking about.

Listen, dumbfucker, or more precisely, learn how to read:

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.

The plants suffered severe damage in urban incendiary attacks. Do you think this was coincidental? Do you think the bomb tonnage totals for urban areas--where these plants were concentrated happen to have no connection to this whatsoever?

It does not say they were the miscellaneous industrial targets--it says they were damaged as part of the urban raids. In fact, it states that these plants supplied other plants. We're dealing with a specific category here, then. And considering the reduction of Japan's economic capacity was the stated goal of the bombing, the destruction of FIFTY PERCENT OF TOKYO'S INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY seems a pretty good reason to engage in the incendiary raids.

You should learn to read. It says that they were concentrated in Tokyo, not just the specific neighborhood that was raided, which was a densely populated residental area. Naturally some would be in the raid area, but not all of them. Of course, they suffered severe damage thanks to the incindiary raids, because they saturated the entire area. Just because they were damaged does not mean they were the target of the raid. The raid was specifically stated to be against the urban area, not those specific factories. Bombs that were specifically directed against those factories wouldn't be "urban areas" because a specific factory isn't an "urban area", they'd be under "miscellaneous industrial targets" as it reads in the report I linked to.

The fact that they'd be part of the "miscellaneous industrial targets" listing is a no-brainer (or should be), considering that's exactly what they were. They were damaged as part of the raid, but it does not state that they were what the bombs were directed against. The amount of bombs that were purposely directed toward them is significantly less that the tonnage of bombs that were directed at urban areas in general. You seem to be glossing over that and saying that because they were in and around those urban areas and were damaged, therefore they were the target. By this logic, oil refineries that were near urban areas that were bombed fall under "urban areas" even though they received a seperate listing. This plants received a seperate listing too, but you are just lumping them under urban areas and then making the claim that they were the specific target of the raids.

This is getting away from the original point. You cannot deny that the Tokyo raid was specifically designed to maximize the amount of Japanese civilians killed. You cannot deny that it was the whole urban area and not just the small plants that were in and around it that was targeted (how can you, they saturation bombed the whole area, not just the industrial targets). You try to gloss over that, going "well factories were damaged during the raid, so therefore they must have been the target and not the whole area".

I don't think I need to continue this any further, since I can't reasonably expect that you'll admit that you are wrong, even if you know you are. At this point, that is why you are arguing, just to avoid conceding the point or backing off. I've got work and social commitments tomorrow, so I'll back out now and go to bed, because if I don't I know you will argue with me all night out of sheer stubbornness, long after the debate is gone.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

< snip >

Thank you for a glorious list of unsupported assertions and creative interpetation and do have a good night's sleep.

[Patrick Degan]

snip However, the Emperor himself had very little actual power in the government and certainly no authority to issue direct orders, as per the Meiji Constitution. Hirohito only gained the authority to order the surrender when Prime Minister Suzuki ceeded it to him at the Cabinet meeting following Nagasaki's destruction.

I would beg to differ. The Japanese Emperor at the time was an activist Emperor who was very much involved in the desision making prosses. Befor and after the war Hirohito was the man who gave the go ahead on matters of national importance.
If you want an interesting read on it, I suggest Herbert Bix's book Hirohito and the making of moder Japan.

Well...yes and no. The actual authority of the Emperor was connected to a series of subtle and complex concepts associated with his Divinity. The constitution invested the direct governmental authority in the Diet and the Cabinet, with the monarchy defined along the lines of the British model as a ceremonial Head of State, But because the Emperor was a Living God, and every Japanese swore personal loyalty to him, he could make his opinions known to his government on particular issues and thus influence decision-making in that manner. But he could not directly dictate policy or issue direct orders from the Throne.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip However, the Emperor himself had very little actual power in the government and certainly no authority to issue direct orders, as per the Meiji Constitution. Hirohito only gained the authority to order the surrender when Prime Minister Suzuki ceeded it to him at the Cabinet meeting following Nagasaki's destruction.

I would beg to differ. The Japanese Emperor at the time was an activist Emperor who was very much involved in the desision making prosses. Befor and after the war Hirohito was the man who gave the go ahead on matters of national importance.
If you want an interesting read on it, I suggest Herbert Bix's book Hirohito and the making of moder Japan.

Well...yes and no. The actual authority of the Emperor was connected to a series of subtle and complex concepts associated with his Divinity. The constitution invested the direct governmental authority in the Diet and the Cabinet, with the monarchy defined along the lines of the British model as a ceremonial Head of State, But because the Emperor was a Living God, and every Japanese swore personal loyalty to him, he could make his opinions known to his government on particular issues and thus influence decision-making in that manner. But he could not directly dictate policy or issue direct orders from the Throne.

Yet he most certainly did give orders and they were obeyed, those oreders were from the throne. The cabinet was, after he became Emperor, was largly dictate by his wishes. Certainly he was not te only one making the choices, but his was the final responsibility.

[Kynes]

So I take it that no one is going to be able to provide a definition of "terrorism" that means anything any time soon?

Here's why you can't:

Terrorism is a sort of backwards signifier. Instead of telling you about what's being described, it tells you about who's doing the describing. Depending on what it is you call terrorism, I know a great deal about you, but almost nothing about the acts themselves.

[Nova Andromeda]

--I don't understand why people seem to be arguing that the use of "terrorism" allegations by the U.S. gov. and Isreal isn't anything, but politics. Can people really be that foolish?
-As for a definition here it is (I bet every 1st world nation has used terrorism of this sort):
terrorism: An attack upon another entity or entities that is knowlingly less effective in winning a contest of power than some other possible attack and carried out in preferrence of the alternative attack in order to cause greater pain and or suffering.

Are you arguing that the Japanese were so utterly, inconceivably, technically incompetent that they wouldn't know what was unusual about the level of destruction caused by such a weapon? Particularly if they had been warned to expect it so they had observers present?

--I don't know the details of each sides cababilities, but informing the enemy of a new secret weapon that you have and the time and place of its use would be idiotic in the extreme if the enemy can possibly intercept that weapon.
-I'm not sure about the argument that the U.S. should have targeted a smaller population either. If the U.S. wasn't reasonably certain that the such an attack stood almost as good a chance to end the war then they were justified in using the methods that they did (assumming they thought couldn't take Japan with conventional forces without sustaining significant casualties). That is, since the U.S. only had 3 nukes the use of those weapons without ending the war would have been a serious strategic and a humanitarian disaster. It seems to me that using two nukes on heavily populated cities was done to demonstrate the willingness of the U.S. gov. to utterly anihilate the Japanese unless they surrendered unconditionally. If they thought this wasn't necessary that would make them rather evil I would say.

[MKSheppard]

So I take it that no one is going to be able to provide a definition of "terrorism" that means anything any time soon?

How about you

You evil man you started an 8 page thread with a simple post, which caused
massive flames, etc and spun wildly out of control (even by SDN standards)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So I take it that no one is going to be able to provide a definition of "terrorism" that means anything any time soon?

Here's why you can't:

Terrorism is a sort of backwards signifier. Instead of telling you about what's being described, it tells you about who's doing the describing. Depending on what it is you call terrorism, I know a great deal about you, but almost nothing about the acts themselves.

Terrorism was defined; it's a politically correct cover-term for a specific category of irregular military operations. You could say that a lot of politically correct words are backwards signifiers.

[HemlockGrey]

I just realized I have a copy of Downfall lying around; I'll have to flip through it and get back on the issue of the impending(or not so impending) Japanese surrender.