Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Oct 2001 04:56:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
597 times
|
| |
|
|
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:
> > > 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.
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
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13695)
So if you consider terrorism a subjective term, how can it have a single
definition?
> > > *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?
Again, you gave a "definition" of terrorism and are now adding more subjective
clauses to it. I saw nothing regarding "expectation of safety" in your quoted
"definition".
> > > --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.
OK, that was a rhetorical question, I'm glad you found it as absurd as I did.
> > > 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
So anything goes if it's a situation which hasn't been foreseen (or explicitly
considered)?
> --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.
I don't know enogh about those events to comment.
> > > 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.
In your opinion.
> > > 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.
Yep! As I said, my historical knowledge isn't anywhere near yours! I was
talking about the massacre at Port Arthur (Tasmania) in 1996
(http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/bryant/index.htm). Guess the fact that I
lived about an hour down the road at the time influenced my mind-set.
> > > 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.
I think it's unrealistic to say Nagasaki was a military target. Total war or
not.
> > 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.
I think the bombing of some US interests around the world makes it slightly
more formal than a twit declaring a personal war. How legitimate does it have
to be?
> 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 why are we committing troops to a war that hasn't been declared?
> > 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.
Again, you've brought in ideas that aren't in the definition you quoted. And
I'm happy with that concept, as I don't think the definition is complete (or
possible) anyway. So it seems our difference of opinion stems from our
differing notions of terrorism, which I'm happy with, too. I don't agree that
terrorism implies unjustifyable, or that it implies any sort of scale. Maybe it
does belong in a class of its own, but I still think that class would be a
sub-class of terrorism.
> 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)?
I'll have to do some more reading before I'm prepared to comment on those.
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 18-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
|
|
|
|
