When we nuked Hiroshima, is that considered terrorism?

Answer 1

That was considered blowing the bejesus out of a city.

Answer 2

The sad reality in those days was that if your country was in a war, your country's major cities were military targets.

The major cities often were prime military targets due to their high concentration of enemy troops, manufacturing centers, and what have you.

And as a port city, Hiroshima had a lot of military significance for Japan. So did Nagasaki, which was home to a major Japanese weapons factory.

Also, destroying a country's infrastructure was (and still is) important to stopping their war effort.

Lots of Japanese cities, including Tokyo, were heavily bombed during WW II prior to Hiroshima. They were hit with conventional bombs, not atomic ones, and high numbers of people still died.

It wasn't that much different with Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- the difference being that these cities were hit with single bombs (not multiple ones) which were atomic.

The argument could also reasonably be made that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought about the end of the war much more quickly, thus saving thousands of lives -- maybe even a couple million lives.

Without the bombs, the other action would have been a full-scale invasion of Japan -- which would have resulted in huge casualties on both sides, especially the Japanese civilian population which was being trained to fight against the coming invaders. Even little kids were taught to used guns and bayonets.

Answer 3

Officially no, of course. War, strictly speaking, is not terrorism. However, Webster's definition for terrorism complicates things: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." That's exactly what dropping the bomb was. We were trying to scare Japan into surrendering, and thus saving likely hundreds of thousands of American lives. It worked, in the end. I know the US looks like the bad guy since we're the only ones to have dropped the bomb, and believe me, we are the bad guy in Iraq, but let's not forget that Germany, Japan and Italy were trying to take over the world. This isn't some stupid fantasy about the spread of Communism, this was real. We weren't the bad guys this one time. So, in the end, regardless of context, if you take Webster's definition of terrorism, the nuking of Hiroshima was terrorism.

Answer 4

????WE???
Identify yourself.
Those two bombs stopped a world war with a very large powerful army that had been terrorizing the far East for 25 years or so. It saved as estimated "2 million lives" from certain death in the coming invasion of Japan.
I personally think the decision to use the bomb was correct. I also think that the USA was way too nice on the Japanese as a nation after the war.



Edit: Obviously you are one sick mixed up sob. I wonder what you real story is?

Answer 5

Depends on which side of the bomb you are on.

Japanese leadership has never accepted full responsibility for the actions the nation committed in WWII. In their eyes, the bombing was an act of terrorism because it targeted civilians and not the armed forces.

To the US it was justified because the bombs brought an end to what promised to be the most bloody and costly conflict the world had ever seen - the Pacific Theater.

Answer 6

I don't know about terrorism, but it sure was evil. It worked, but was it worth it? No. Nuclear weapons are evil, no matter who has them. How does it feel to realize North Korea has them? With that maniac in charge? We could very easily be the next country to get nuked, we certainly have enough enemies.

Answer 7

I thought about that too. They say it was OK, because it stopped us from killing all the Japanese, and 1 million Americans as would be in a land invasion. Then there were US concentration camps that we put Japanese citizens in to stop them from rebelling. It is OK for us, because we make excuses, and call it another name. What we did does have a purpose, but by definition, we were scaring japan into surrendering. It was terrorism, but you decide if it was OK.

Answer 8

No. Get real. Obviously you were not born yet or you would realise we did that to save lives and end the war, we did not start by the way. Do not speak of which you know nothing about.

Answer 9

By todays standards, most definately! Nuking innocent civilians?

Answer 10

No! That was a defensive action to save lives. Terrorism is an aggressive actioin to take lives.