Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Oct 2001 02:39:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
598 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > 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,
>
> I see no definition there, only opinion.
I think you've defined, although in your opinion, that the bombings
were terrorism. That's actually a pretty good analogy--the word
"terrorism" has a semantic load, as does "definition." Is it a
subjective or objective term? I'm not making a particular argument
with you here, but those matters do bear thinking about when we
use a particular descriptor.
> > *any* act taken in a military conflict is
> > "terrorism."
>
> I've made my distinction several times before - attacks on *military targets* I
> don't consider terrorism.
>
> > The major difference
>
> Compared to what?
>
> > is that the civilians of Japan
> > had no basis for an *expectation* of safety
>
> ????? So what???? What has their "expectation of safety" to do with whether or
> not it was terrorism?
In the case of war, it has a lot to do with it. The argument can
reasonably be made that in total war--like WWII, and perhaps even
WWI--there *are* no non-combatants. This is because the war effort
is vertically integrated across the *entire* home front. How do
we decide? Do we draw an arbitrary line? Are war-industry workers,
railway workers, or unmobilized reservists "military" targets?
I'd argue that they *are* in the context of a fully militarized and
regimented society at war. My point is that you can't draw the
distinction.
And what happens when you've clearly crushed the enemy on the
battlefield, yet they still swear resistance to the very end?
> > --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.
>
> Are you saying you don't consider Aug 45 terrorism because of the
> indiscriminate firebombing of Tokyo in March?
Re-read that. No expectation of safety in war, modified by a
direct knowledge of what's happening to other Japanese cities,
is the point there. Total war has already come home; the smart
thing would be to head for the countryside.
> > 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)
>
> I've seen many attempted definitions of terrorism. Many are similar to this. So
> let's go with it for now.
>
> > 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.)
>
> Check out http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html Particularly: Protection
> of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War, League of
> Nations, September 30, 1938
Not applicable. The United States and Japan, if not also Germany,
were not signatories--they were not members of the League. With
the experience of WWI still very fresh in people's minds, I'd be
very surprised if even Britain and France didn't have issues with
this particular statement, because it puts the power in the hands
of those willing to violate its tenets.
In fact, nothing on that site addresses total war--the ratified item
from 1907 predates the era of total war (I don't count the Russo-
Japanese and Second Anglo-Boer Wars); the others, regardless of
the intent, were never ratified. In the case of the 1938 piece, I'd
bet those who pushed it through were playing on the Spanish Civil War
and the destruction of Guernica. That act was rather different than
the bombing of Japan--there's no way Guernica could have been classed
as a military target, and regardless of Legion Condor's affiliation,
Germany was not at war with the Republicans, and there was no military
goal to the bombing.
> > 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.
>
> In your opinion. It doesn't give any limit on the size of the group (or the
> size of the government / society).
No, it doesn't, but the semantic implication is there. It takes
willful disregard to deny that.
> > 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.
>
> Pearl Harbour: Definitely a military target, so not terrorism.
> Port Arthur: No attempt to coerce anyone - just a massacre resulting from the
> wrong person getting access to firearms & too much money. Certainly not
> terrorism.
Uh, I think the wires are crossed. I'm talking about Port Arthur,
1904 (Japanese surprise attack on the Russian naval station). What
did you think I was talking about? I'm curious.
> > Attempting to equate military acts against specific targets during
> > war with terror attacks against civilians during peacetime is, IMHO,
> > dead wrong.
>
> Tow points here:
>
> 1. Change it to "...specific military targets..." and I totally agree.
See above. My objection is that defining "specific military targets"
as opposed to civilian ones in the context of total war is both
unrealistic *and* impossible.
> 2. bin Laden has declared war on the US, so it's not peacetime, no matter what
> the citizens of the US want to think. He's given several warnings in the past,
> and people chose not to do anything (when did all the talk about increased
> security begin?)
If bin Laden lays claim to a chunk of land and screams "This is
Binladenia, and we hereby declare war on the USA" then yes, I'll
allow him that. But just because some twit--even a rich one--
declares a personal war on the USA doesn't make it legitimate.
Definitely not in the sense that WWII was a declared war.
And, if it were possible for him to declare a war, why hasn't
Congress passed a formal declaration of war against bin Laden?
Because it's ridiculous. He's not a country, he's an (annoying
and dangerous, admittedly) insect.
> So I think it *is* valid to compare Aug 45 with Sep 11, though the method and
> overall size of the two were significantly different, they were both (IMHO)
> terrorist acts.
Again, we disagree, though I can see your reasoning. The problem
is that "terrorist" includes a certain semantic load that really
isn't applicable to Hiroshima--horrific, yes; terrible, yes; but
"terrorist" in a way implies that it was unjustifiable *and* that it
was on a relatively small scale, both of which are untrue. Hiroshima
belongs in a class by itself, but only barely given the fates of
Tokyo and Dresden in the late days of the war.
I wonder, though--would you also class US unrestricted submarine
warfare (the #1 reason for the shorting of Japan's ability to fight)
and Doolittle's Raid as terrorism? What about Bomber Command's
night raids on German cities that brought the Luftwaffe down on
London and thus saved the R.A.F.? And, of course, are you using
"terrorist" as a semantically neutral word or one with a necessary
and negative moral connotation (the latter of which I think it now
most certainly has)?
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) I gave Aug 45 as an "example" of terrorism. No attempt at definition. I've *never* considered "definition" a subjective term, however, I *do* consider "terrorism" subjective (as I outlined here (URL) if you consider terrorism a subjective (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
