Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:28:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
698 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> >
> > The most devastating war in ALL of human history is a very
> > hard thing to Monday-morning quarterback. In a total war,
> > how much is too much? Historians try to put themselves into
> > the contextual position, and to figure out who knew what, when,
> > and why they might have made the decisions they did. And to
> > my satisfaction--both personal *and* professional--the right
> > decision was made. Indeed, it was the only politically and
> > strategically--in the long term--viable decision given the
> > context of 1945.
>
> That is open to argument, but I don't have enough knowledge of politics at the
> time, so I'll bow to your greater knowledge. But though it's changing the
> subject of the thread, I still believe the acts of dropping the bombs were
> terrorism, no matter whether or not they were necessary / justifiable.
By that definition, *any* act taken in a military conflict is
"terrorism." The major difference is that the civilians of Japan
had no basis for an *expectation* of safety--especially when you
consider what happened to Tokyo in March, and virtually every
*other* Japanese city (and even their own, lightly) within the
preceding year.
They were a nation at war, fully mobilized, and prepared for
defence (in fact, they went into the shelters at first). The
weapon was dropped from a US plane, with limited escort. I'd
call that very, very, very straightforward. War causes terror,
as well it should--but terrorism is defined as:
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person
or an organized group against people or property with the intention
of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for
ideological or political reasons." (American Heritage)
Seems to me that in a declared war, by standards of international
law articulated to that time, the bombing was lawful. (In fact,
I defy you to locate pre-1945 evidence that it was not.) And note
that it says "organized group" for the actor and "government" for the
target, which implies that there must also be a severe disparity
of power between the terrorist and the target of terror. You can
argue that Japan's power in 1945 wasn't even the merest shadow of
the U.S.'s, but that's taking the historical moment out of context
and reversing the expected relationship.
So no, I don't believe it was "terrorism" as the term is generally
defined. It caused terror, but it was an act of destruction in
war, not terrorism against a society at peace. I'd also argue that
Pearl Harbor wasn't a terrorist attack, nor was Port Arthur.
Attempting to equate military acts against specific targets during
war with terror attacks against civilians during peacetime is, IMHO,
dead wrong.
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) the (...) I see no definition there, only opinion. (...) I've made my distinction several times before - attacks on *military targets* I don't consider terrorism. (...) Compared to what? (...) ????? So what???? What has their "expectation of (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) That is open to argument, but I don't have enough knowledge of politics at the time, so I'll bow to your greater knowledge. But though it's changing the subject of the thread, I still believe the acts of dropping the bombs were terrorism, no (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
