Why not mention U.S.'s use of WMD?

Question

If nuclear weapons are seen as weapons of mass destruction today, and an act of terrorism if used against a large city, wouldn't the Atomic bomb dropped by the U.S. on Hiroshima and Nagaski be considered a weapons of mass destruction and an act of terrorism? Wouldn't the U.S. had demonized another country if that country had dropped a nuclear weapon on a civilian population in the name of saving its soldiers from a prolong war? Or pressing for its enemies to surrender immediately? Isn't it a little hypocritical for Bush to say, "we never used weapons of mass destruction on a civilian population because as a Democracy, we do not commit acts of terror and only tyrannical and barbaric regimes carry out such attacks?"

P.S. I know this question will enrage plenty of people. I'm NOT being saracastic or trying to make the U.S. look like a wolf in sheeps clothing. I asked this question in a serious manner. When U.S. acts immorally its immune to intl court. Other countries are demonized.

Answer 1

Damnit there have been countless times that's been brought up. It's all over these boards and what's the first thing I and many others thought when we declared war on countries with WMD's (and oil)

There has been pleanty of mention. Just no action. I agree with you, I do. But here's somethign to think about:

As a country, if we knew someone hated us and they had the most powerful weapon in human history... shouldn't we be worried? I'm not saying Iraq I'm saying in general.

I know Iraq didn't have WMD's... just think about it.

Answer 2

More things are considered fair during a time of War. And it was a statement at the time that needed to be made for us and for the future of Nuclear weapons. It is unfortunate that it happened and for those in Hiroshima. But if we didn't drop it then we would not continue to be the superpower of the world today AND more importantly there would not be as much fear to use a weapon of as much magnitude as there is today. At this point, even if the Americans used it they would be chastized!
And the U.S. government is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Not the USA but its government. We may vote them in but we didn't chose them = another story.

Answer 3

It's called the difference between being in a declared WAR between COUNTRIES, and the war being actively being fought on all fronts.

In Terrorism, attacks are made in stealth, no country has declared war, and civilians are the primary target.

In you're example, all countries involved had bombed or fought in civilian areas.

Answer 4

You fail to understand a war with a government was involved when we hit Japan. The losses turned out to be less than fire bombing Tokyo. The action taken by the US in WWII was justified because it saved more lives than it cost. You need to check facts before putting questions without a foundation here.

Answer 5

This subject has been discussed numerous times already. The U.S. was at war fighting on two fronts, Germany in Europe and Japan in the Pacific. There was never any "terrorism" involved!

Answer 6

Its a matter of perception. My perception is that if a civilized and fully informed public, back a millitary campaign, it is probably the lesser of two horrendous situations. Can an a-bomb ever be the lesser of 2 bad situations? Perhaps with all the details to hand it gets harder to justify. Each wants to protect their own.
God save the Queen
Peace to all

Answer 7

I don't believe that during a state of war (especially when the US was the 1st one attacked), using them is acceptable according to the world consensus. In that context it's not really terrorism, I don't think.

Although the U.S.A. does seem to have a "Do as I say, not as I do." policy of late.

Answer 8

Perhaps you might consider a visit to a nice Islamofaschist country for some historical perspective...