we say terrorists kill innocent people...

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If the US government knew that the bombs could destroy everything within miles of its main target, and it knew that innocent people resided there…and the target was to level such area, knowing that it would destroy everything in the path of the explosions, the mission was to destroy everything within the rage of the bombs…which included civilians.

Balderdash!

oralloy wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If the US government knew that the bombs could destroy everything within miles of its main target, and it knew that innocent people resided there…and the target was to level such area, knowing that it would destroy everything in the path of the explosions, the mission was to destroy everything within the rage of the bombs…which included civilians.

Balderdash!

Straw-man maker...

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If the US government knew that the bombs could destroy everything within miles of its main target, and it knew that innocent people resided there…and the target was to level such area, knowing that it would destroy everything in the path of the explosions, the mission was to destroy everything within the rage of the bombs…which included civilians.

Balderdash!

Straw-man maker...

Liar.

They could have just as easily shown Japan the power of the bomb by dropping it on say mount Fuji

najmelliw wrote:

They could have just as easily shown Japan the power of the bomb by dropping it on say mount Fuji

Would that have demonstrated the bombs' power more effectively than the actual destruction of cities?

Would that have demonstrated the bombs' power as effectively than the actual destruction of cities?

oralloy wrote:

najmelliw wrote:

They could have just as easily shown Japan the power of the bomb by dropping it on say mount Fuji

Would that have demonstrated the bombs' power more effectively than the actual destruction of cities?

Would that have demonstrated the bombs' power as effectively than the actual destruction of cities?

Let's see if you know anything about this matter...

najmelliw wrote:

They could have just as easily shown Japan the power of the bomb by dropping it on say mount Fuji

Would that have demonstrated the bombs' power more effectively than the actual destruction of cities?

Would that have demonstrated the bombs' power as effectively than the actual destruction of cities?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

oralloy wrote:

najmelliw wrote:

They could have just as easily shown Japan the power of the bomb by dropping it on say mount Fuji

Would that have demonstrated the bombs' power more effectively than the actual destruction of cities?

Would that have demonstrated the bombs' power as effectively than the actual destruction of cities?

Let's see if you know anything about this matter...

I have long ago established that I know much on this matter, and feel no need to jump through hoops at the request of someone who has already demonstrated profound ignorance and dishonesty in their posts about the subject.

My questions were directed at najmelliw.

I have long ago established that I know much on this matter, and feel no need to jump through hoops at the request of someone who has already demonstrated profound ignorance and dishonesty in their posts about the subject.

My questions were directed at najmelliw.

oralloy wrote:

najmelliw wrote:

They could have just as easily shown Japan the power of the bomb by dropping it on say mount Fuji

Would that have demonstrated the bombs' power more effectively than the actual destruction of cities?

Would that have demonstrated the bombs' power as effectively than the actual destruction of cities?

Mount Fuji is a holy place to the Japanese. It is intrically entwined with the religion of Shintoism, which was up until that year the State Religion. Not just that, Shintoism was also the foundation of the power of the emperor, in so far that it clearly states that the emperor is divine by nature.
Striking at the core of this religion with such a powerful weapon would undoubtedly have demoralized vast quantities of Japanese soldiers, while,
at the same time, questioning the might of their millitary leader in name, the emperor.

Satisfied?

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought".

And more to the point, the primary goal was not to knock out those targets. The primary goal was to show Japan the power of the bombs. That required using the bomb on a large target.

Overall, the purpose was to shock the Japanese government with the huge power of the bomb and thus scare them into surrendering.

I found the definition of terrorism oralloy had posted earlier quite interesting:

Quote:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought".

Now, re Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you said this:

oralloy wrote:

And more to the point, the primary goal was not to knock out those targets. The primary goal was to show Japan the power of the bombs. That required using the bomb on a large target.

and:

oralloy wrote:

Overall, the purpose was to shock the Japanese government with the huge power of the bomb and thus scare them into surrendering.

I you really believe that and think that the definition of terrorism you posted earlier is fairly accurate, I'd think you have to concede that the dropping of the a-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki equals terrorism.

Note that the UN's definition refers to acts carried out by clandestine or semi-clandestine personnel. It doesn't refer to an overt military attack.

najmelliw wrote:

oralloy wrote:

najmelliw wrote:

They could have just as easily shown Japan the power of the bomb by dropping it on say mount Fuji

Would that have demonstrated the bombs' power more effectively than the actual destruction of cities?

Would that have demonstrated the bombs' power as effectively than the actual destruction of cities?

Mount Fuji is a holy place to the Japanese. It is intrically entwined with the religion of Shintoism, which was up until that year the State Religion. Not just that, Shintoism was also the foundation of the power of the emperor, in so far that it clearly states that the emperor is divine by nature.
Striking at the core of this religion with such a powerful weapon would undoubtedly have demoralized vast quantities of Japanese soldiers, while,
at the same time, questioning the might of their millitary leader in name, the emperor.

Satisfied?

I was asking more about what on the mountain could be destroyed by the bomb to demonstrate its power.

Are you suggesting the bomb be dropped at a lower altitude where there is a forest so the felled trees would testify to its power?

If so, what would prevent the Japanese military from securing the area from the public and then denying the scale of the destruction?


If the bomb were dropped at an altitude where there was only snow, the effects of the bomb would only be a few inches of melted snow. That would be unlikely to impress anyone.

oralloy wrote:

Note that the UN's definition refers to acts carried out by clandestine or semi-clandestine personnel. It doesn't refer to an overt military attack.

Yes, the definition refers to clandestine or semi-clandestine state actors (among others). Now, given the secrecy of the Manhattan Project and the missions of the bomber crews who delivered the a-bombs, and given the fact that the existence of a device like a nuclear bomb was unknown at that point and that the USA did not announce its intentions to drop the bomb to Japan, an argument could be made that the attack involved indeed semi-clandestine state actors.

Apart from that, the rest of the definition still applies:

- immediate human victims of the violence were chosen randomly

But I'll concede that the attack should maybe rather be characterized as a war crime than as an act of terrorism.

There are shrines on the mountain, which would be destroyed.

I very much doubt the destruction of the Abomb on a mountain would result in merely a few inches of metled snow, oralloy. Not if you consider the devastating effect on the cities.

Anyways, the impact of an atomic bomb is clearly visible for anyony surrounding it.

Warding of the mountain with soldiers in order to prevent civilians from approaching it, would in itself be a powerful statement that something terrible had happened.

Not just that, but the American government could easily point out to the Japanese that they had more bombs of that type, and would not be shy to use the next batch on cities if surrender was not discussed.

...and that the USA did not announce its intentions to drop the bomb to Japan...

I don't think a large (for its time) warplane would count as clandestine.

Also, I don't think the definition was thinking of "attacks on soldiers and arms factories" when it talked of victims.

Yes. Indiscriminate bombing in a population center is a war crime.

old europe wrote:

...and that the USA did not announce its intentions to drop the bomb to Japan...

Just for the record, the US sort of announced its intentions, although not the methods, in the Potsdam Declaration.

The United States had not warned Japan about the attack, and the population was completely unaware of the risk of an attack (unlike in Dresden, for example).

From: https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol46no3/article07.html



Front side of OWI notice #2106, dubbed the "LeMay bombing leaflet," which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following warning: "Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately." (See Richard S. R. Hubert, "The OWI Saipan Operation," Official Report to US Information Service, Washington, DC 1946.)

oralloy wrote:

Also, I don't think the definition was thinking of "attacks on soldiers and arms factories" when it talked of victims.

That would be an interesting question. In that case, the attack on the USS Cole would obviously not count as a terrorist attack, but rather as a military operation.

However, the difference is of course, as you already mentioned, that striking military facilities was in no way the prime target of the attacks. The primary target was terrorizing Japan into an unconditional surrender, and the USA willingly accepted that a far greater number of civilians than of military personnel would be killed in the attack. The point about the unconditional surrender is important, as diplomatic approaches at that time had shown that Japan would have been willing to discuss a surrender, but on the condition of the retention of the institution of the emperor.

Ironically, the US later agreed that Japan could retain the monarchy.