Please get your historical facts on the motives for dropping the bomb on Hiroshima right oralboy.
The simple fact is, every history says you are wrong.
vikorr wrote:Quote:In the end, Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#The_Potsdam_ultimatum
Quote:When Japan rejected the ultimatum, Truman authorized use of the bomb. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson felt the choice of using the atomic bomb against Japan would be the "least abhorrent choice." This would be weighed against sacrificing the lives of thousands of soldiers. Military advisers had told Truman that a potential loss of about 500,000 American soldiers was at stake.
It was vital to produce the greatest possible blow upon the Japanese, if the war was to be effectively shortened and the lives of the U.S. soldiers were to be saved. The atomic bomb provided such a blow. The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected as targets after exhaustive study by military specialists. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been virtually untouched by the U.S. and Allied bombing runs.
http://www.vce.com/hironaga.html
Quote:WHY HIROSHIMA?
Hiroshima was chosen as the primary target since it had remained largely untouched by bombing raids, and the bomb's effects could be clearly measured. While President Truman had hoped for a purely military target, some advisers believed that bombing an urban area might break the fighting will of the Japanese people. Hiroshima was a major port and a military headquarters, and therefore a strategic target. Also, visual bombing, rather than radar, would be used so that photographs of the damage could be taken. Since Hiroshima had not been seriously harmed by bombing raids, these photographs could present a fairly clear picture of the bomb's damage.
http://www.hiroshima-remembered.com/history/hiroshima/page4.html
It is really quite easy to find information on these sort of things.
Are you under the impression that anything you quoted is contrary to the reality that Hiroshima was a major center of activity and Nagasaki a center of war industry?
Your last quote has a major error regarding cause and effect. The reason Hiroshima was not bombed is because it was chosen as an A-bomb target, not vice versa.
vikorr wrote:Please get your historical facts on the motives for dropping the bomb on Hiroshima right
I had them all correct long ago.
Childish behavior is no compensation for ignorance.
vikorr wrote:The simple fact is, every history says you are wrong.
Wrong again. The consensus of historians is in agreement with everything I've said.
Go try reading a history book and see for yourself what they say.
Quote:Are you under the impression that anything you quoted is contrary to the reality that Hiroshima was a major center of activity and Nagasaki a center of war industry?
Not at all. We were talking about the motivation for bombing said target.
Quote:Childish behavior is no compensation for ignorance.
Quote:Among its primary concerns was showing off the bomb's power to the maximum effect and making the greatest impression possible on the Japanese with the goal of shocking Japan into surrender.
http://www.theenolagay.com/study.html#SELECTING%20THE%20TARGET
Quote:The work on the actual selection of targets for the atomic bomb was begun in the spring of 1945. This was done in close cooperation with the Commanding General, Army Air Forces, and his Headquarters. A number of experts in various fields assisted in the study. These included mathematicians, theoretical physicists, experts on the blast effects of bombs, weather consultants, and various other specialists. Some of the important considerations were:
A. The range of the aircraft which would carry the bomb.
B. The desirability of visual bombing in order to insure the most effective use of the bomb.
C. Probable weather conditions in the target areas.
D. Importance of having one primary and two secondary targets for each mission, so that if weather conditions prohibited bombing the target there would be at least two alternates.
E. Selection of targets to produce the greatest military effect on the Japanese people and thereby most effectively shorten the war.
F. The morale effect upon the enemy.
These led in turn to the following:
A. Since the atomic bomb was expected to produce its greatest amount of damage by primary blast effect, and next greatest by fires, the targets should contain a large percentage of closely-built frame buildings and other construction that would be most susceptible to damage by blast and fire.
B. The maximum blast effect of the bomb was calculated to extend over an area of approximately 1 mile in radius; therefore the selected targets should contain a densely built-up area of at least this size.
C. The selected targets should have a high military strategic value.
D. The first target should be relatively untouched by previous bombing, in order that the effect of a single atomic bomb could be determined.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp05.htm
I apologize too then, for being snippy.
I generally don't care about misspellings of Oralloy, but I presumed that "boy" was an intentional slight.
vikorr wrote:oralloy wrote:Are you under the impression that anything you quoted is contrary to the reality that Hiroshima was a major center of activity and Nagasaki a center of war industry?
Not at all. We were talking about the motivation for bombing said target.
My position is that the motive for dropping the A-bombs was the hope that it would shock Japan into surrendering.
So far as I can tell, nothing you've quoted is contrary to that. In fact, your quote below mirrors my views almost word for word:
Did something make you think I thought differently?
Walter Hinteler wrote:oralloy wrote:Wrong again. The consensus of historians is in agreement with everything I've said.
Go try reading a history book and see for yourself what they say.
I challenge you to show where the consensus of historians differs from what I say on the matter.
Six o'clock. History Faculty, Modern Times department.
The little park there.
Anything below AGM-129 ACM will be fine.
My secundant will call yours when named.
How about Mohamad Ahamadda
As I see it, this is coming down to a debate about the meaning of terror.
There are numerous such definitions, and a real problem comes about when one is attempting to exclude such acts as Hiroshima and Nagasaki from "legitimate war".
Here's one such attempt to define: (Wikibloodypaedia)
"As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. While both conventional military forces may engage in psychological warfare and guerrilla forces may engage in acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, they both aim at military victory. Terrorism on the other hand aims to achieve political or other goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has resulted in some social scientists referring to guerrilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak" and terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest."[3]"
If one uses a criterion such as "aiming for military victory", (and probably some might wish to add in such things as there being a clear state of war between the US and Japan, and that Japan hit first, and that the bomb was dropped by agents of a legal government) then the bombs get excluded from being acts of terror.
Clearly, governments have a big stake in having their actions excluded from being defined as terror. Nonetheless, we do tend to want to distinguish acts of governents from acts of less formal interest groups.
Whether we are wise to do so can be argued endlessly.
I suspect that, often, how one makes such a definition is dependent upon whether something was done TO you, or BY your side.
This is the US Dept of Defence definition:
"The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims. The FBI uses this: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." The U.S. Department of State defines "terrorism" to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."
The bombs would certainly seem to get included in this definition...however, those saying their dropping was not terrorism will say that the attack was lawful.
Given the lack of international law at the time, that may well be so. Not that internatiinal law has any teeth.
Nice post Dlowan.
And I stand corrected, there is at least one definition that removes Hiroshima/Nagasaki for being defined as terrorism :wink:
Although now I'm curious...if Al Qaeda declared war (does anyone think they haven't?) on the west, then it becomes lawful? Or will they argue that Al Qaeda is a non state entity and not entitled to such?
And what happens in a civil war. Are both sides terrorists? Or only the losing side? Or neither side? Who's actions are unlawful.
Musharraf of Pakistan perhaps?
The world has become a rather complicated place has it not
vikorr wrote:Nice post Dlowan.
And I stand corrected, there is at least one definition that removes Hiroshima/Nagasaki for being defined as terrorism :wink:
Although now I'm curious...if Al Qaeda declared war (does anyone think they haven't?) on the west, then it becomes lawful? Or will they argue that Al Qaeda is a non state entity and not entitled to such?
And what happens in a civil war. Are both sides terrorists? Or only the losing side? Or neither side? Who's actions are unlawful.
Musharraf of Pakistan perhaps?
The world has become a rather complicated place has it not
I think states will say that Al Quadea is not a state, and is not lawfully at war neither.
Civil war? Winner decides, like all wars, I guess.
If Japan had won I see no way in which the US leaders would not have been charged with war crimes.
Not that I think Japan had a moral leg to stand on after their actions in China and many of the areas they conquered. And they STILL have not admitted many of their actions. Sigh. I think possibly only Germany has ever really admitted the wrong they have done. I guess that's we humans for you.
The definition of terror bemuses me
vikorr wrote:The definition of terror bemuses me
It bemuses everyone.
This is why there is no universally accepted definition.
Just google terror + define, and say bye bye to your sanity!!!
Call God Allah? Sure, why not. A rose by any other name....
No. I'm saying that civilians were not the target.
Interersting, the way I read everything, it seems completely obvious to me that civilians were targeted, along with military sites - otherwise the stated objectives could not be met.
However, you are of course entitled to your own interpretation
oralloy wrote:
No. I'm saying that civilians were not the target.
What nonsense.
So..if Hussein HAD had nukes, and had dropped an A bomb on the pentagon, the fact that he happened to wipe out a few million civilians would not have caused you to call it terror, because it was a military target, one assumes?
Quote:When Curtiss LeMay arrived and took command in January 1945, he ordered a switch from high altitude high explosive precision daylight attacks to night area bombing with a mixture of incendiaries and antipersonnel weapons. This prevented the firefighters from putting out the fires, which spread wildly.
From March 1945 through the end of the war, many Japanese cities were subjected to area bombing with incendiaries. Tokyo, Osaka, and many other cities were burned out by firestorms that reached over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. The bombings may have killed as many as 500,000 people.
http://worldwar2database.com/html/japanbom.htm
The only reason I include this, is because it is obvious that civilians were the target in these raids, for they were carpet/fire bombed, with a mix of bombs specifically designed to prevent firemen from putting out fires.
Why then should the use of an atomic bomb against civilians be surprising?
Quote:May 31
The Interim Committee agrees that "the most desirable target would be a vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers' houses."
June 1
Interim Committee makes formal decision decides not to warn the civilian populations of the targeted cities.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/pre-cold-war/hiroshima-nagasaki/decision-drop-bomb-chronology.htm
Quote:7/25/45 Diary Entry (of Harry Truman) :
"The weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new [Kyoto or Tokyo].
"He [Stimson] and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement [known as the Potsdam Proclamation] asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chanceĀ
8/9/45 Letter (from Harry Truman) to Senator Richard Russell: [In response to Sen. Russell's wish that Japan be hit with more atomic and conventional bombing:]
"I know that Japan is a terribly cruel and uncivilized nation in warfare but I can't bring myself to believe that, because they are beasts, we should ourselves act in the same manner.
"For myself, I certainly regret the necessity of wiping out whole populations because of the 'pigheadedness' of the leaders of a nation and, for your information, I am not going to do it until it is absolutely necessary...
http://www.doug-long.com/hst.htm
Just a note - Nagasaki was bombed on 9th August 1945 - the date of the above letter.
