ANSWERS: 24
-
Whatever America does, is fine. Thats how the world works. Don't question it....-_-
-
It was during a declared state of war - and it was not much worse then the previous 500 + aircraft raids that virtually destroyed a Japanese City every other day. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm
-
The dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused the Japanese to surrender. if they had not been dropped an invasion of the Japanese homeland would have been necessary to defeat the Japanese. That would have resulted in a number of deaths estimated for allies between 100,000 and 1,000,000 and up to 10,000,000 for the japanese. Both the atomic bombings resulted in less than 250,000 deaths. How many lives were saved by Trumans decision are unknowable. Now what would you say if truman, instead of ending the war as quickly as possible, let it go on for several months longer, killing hundreds of thousands of americans and millions of Japanese, when he had the chance to end it in two quick blows.
-
Strategic bombing attack, to destroy an industrial center of a nation that attacked the US without a declaration of war, and despite having had its navy destroyed, and a collapsing defensive perimeter, gave no sign of considering surrender, otherwise requiring an amphibious assault on Honshu, with estimated casualties of 1 million, three of which might have been blood relatives of mine. Seriously, what on earth are you talking about?
-
In what way WAS it a terrorist attack?
-
If you consider Hiroshima an act of terrorism, then you have to consider every single missle fired, gun shot, bomb dropped, an act of terrorism in a time of war. I think the distinction is if your opponent is a group not recognized as a country, they are terrorists. i.e. Taliban vs. North Korea.
-
The world was way more chaotic back then. Their Kamikazi pilots were suicide bombers. Terrorism was a combative tactic between nations.
-
The difference is that war had been declared and then the fight is on. Terrorism usually implies acts of violence used to intimidate or coerce the enemy, but war hasn't been declared. Yes, acts of war also terrorize the enemy. Look at Bush's "shock and awe" tactics. Those were not new. They had been used before.
-
In a sense it was, but the shock was necessary to force the surrender and spare the people of Japan from a far worse fate, genocide. I wish they could have demonstrated the weapon to the Japanese without wiping out two cities though. However, our fire bomb raids on Tokyo and Dresden did far more actual damage than the atomic attacks. +2
-
The dropping of the bombs saved China, Australia, and every country in the south pacific From the horror and terror of the barbaric Japanese Empire. Ever hear of the rape of Nanking? or the Bataan death march? Unit 731? (Japans evil medical experiment facility that made the Nazis look like little angels?) And the country that dropped these bombs and ended the slaughter of innocents by the Japanese is now being accused of terrorism? This person needs a history lesson, a real history lesson. Not one taught by the politically correct leftwing Marxists.
-
IN PLAIN ENGLISH: "It would have been considered terrorism had Muslims dropped the bomb."
-
There are rules of war (Geneva Convention). The dropping of the two bombs saved over a million lives. Once Okinowa was taken, (largest land, air and sea battle of our history) it became clear taking Japan would cost us and them millions of lives. There were ~385,000 casualties in battle. We took Okinowa because it was close enough for our bombers to reach mainland Japan. It became clear from this battle and the battle of Iwo Jima that millions of lives would be lost if we wanted to take Japan. It was more human to cut loses and make them surrender. It took the dropping of two bombs. There were more casualties in the battle of Okinowa than there were in both bombs combined.
-
We were at a state of war with the country of Japan. Not their religion.
-
If it was, then we answered with our terrorism against their opening terrorism/question on Pearl Harbor. If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.
-
How is WAR not terrorism?
-
It was during a declared war
-
There's no point in judging it with 20/20 hindsight, but in 1945, it was the ultimate retaliation for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, also a terrorist attack...
-
Dropping the atom H-bomb on the 120,000 inhabitants of Hiroshima in 1945 [not to mention the same on Nagasaki] was not to terrorise them but to kill them. Others later died from radiation poisoning and cancer. The rest of the Japanese population WERE terrified,wondering if they were to be next.
-
How is it? It is clearly retaliation for an unspeakable, underhanded and horrible event in our history.
-
It was. Terrorism has a pretty broad definition: it's using fear to influence others. The use of atomic weapons at the end of WWII was a display of power, an attempt to make the enemy afraid of those weapons, and therefore counts as terrorism.
-
I believe that was sort fo a defense from US side. But "atomic bomb" which could kill thousands was a bit too much. It affected generations.
-
If you want to get technical, it's only considered Terrorism if you attack civilians in order to influence religion, politics, or some other similar opinion-driven ideology. Bombing Hiroshima was war-related, and thus isn't technically terrorism. Same method, different reasons.
-
Well, in the same respect.. How was pearl Harbour Not terrorism, How was bombing london every night not terrorism? Wars were faught differently in those days. Yes the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Killed thousands, but in turn saved millions by ending the war quickly.
-
It wasn't. Dropping the bomb on Nagasaki was. We were terrified of the war and what was happening in a desire for outside enemies trying to infiltrate our country and steal our way of life, our freedoms. That stopped the war cold. When you defend against a terrorist, you are not the terrorist.
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

by 