Hiroshima and Nagasaki is this the first act of Terrorism in the 20th century?

Question

Over 215,000 were killed either instantly or thru time in the after affects of Radiation. Can this be considered an act of terrorism over a civilian population?

Pear Harbor was a MILITARY BASE, Not a CIVILIAN BASE. Pay ATTENTION TO DETAILS.

Answer 1

Invasion of mainland Japan would have killed 10's of millions of Japanese lives and would have cost the allies an estimated 1 million casualties.

Also, nobody realizes that Russia declared war on Japan just prior to the US dropping the bomb. Had Russia participated in an invasion of mainland Japan the Russians would have walled it off just like they did Eastern Europe.

Regardless, It was a Democratic President that would not change the US demand for an unconditional surrender and authorized the use of the bomb.

Bottom line, using a 2007 analogy for a war that ended 62 years ago is a seriously flawed logic...

Answer 2

Dresden was fire bombed long before the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The incendiary bombing of Tokyo produced more casualties than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Hiroshima was a legitimate military target because it contained a military base, as well as a prisoner of war compound in which some Americans were incinerated. Nagasaki was a major shipbuilding area, with the Naval port of Sasebo a short distance away.
As for Pearl Harbor, the Japanese attack also included an attack on Honolulu as well. In fact, the first ten civilian casualties in Honolulu all had Japanese surnames. Bombs don't discriminate.
I've been to both cities. I've also been to the hospitals which treated those who suffered illness from the radiation. Many Japanese citizens, during my eight years of residence in that country, expressed thanks that the U.S. ended the war that way, rather then subject every man, woman and child in Japan to face death in repulsing any land invasion by U.S. troops. The principle of "Kokutai" would have bound them all to that course of action and that ultimate fate.

Answer 3

No it was a Legitimate Act of War.

America had the decency to declare war on Japan after the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.

Perhaps you would care to calculate how many men and women of the various Nations that were invaded by Japan who were murdered or killed during slave labor to the "Empire of the Sun". Both Civil and Military personnel. All the Prisoners of War used as human Guinea Pigs in chemical war experiments.

I will add a list of countries to get you started:

China, Indo-China, Korea, Burma, Numerous Pacific Islands including Indonesia, North Borneo, The Philippines, Guam, to name but a few.

Also to this list you can add the number of British & Commonwealth troops from Australia, New Zealand, India, Nepal (Gurka's), Dutch citizens from the Dutch East Indies and of course the many men and women of the United States Military.

Next time you want to try to be a Troll choose a subject you think you know something about, I am sure somebody will be around to correct your ignorance.

Answer 4

So WW2 was a war of terrorism then! cause thats how war was fought then, and still is today by most countries. The US is the ONLY country that spends billions of dollars trying to make sure that our dumb bombs can be guided to their exact tragets, instead of mass bombing. Here you can read what terrorism is, Mass bombings in WW2 were aimed at destroying infrastructure that supports the enemies ability to support and wage war.

During World War II, the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping and Nagasaki quickly began to assume economic dominance in Japanduring WW2. Its main industry was ship-building. This very industry would eventually make it a target in World War II, since many warships used by the Japanese Navy during the war were built in its factories and docks.

Terrorism in the modern sense is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals. The cities you mention are all Military targets.

Answer 5

I don't think so. First of all, Terrorism is pretty much a product of the 20th century. By labeling a group as terrorist, governments hope to justify deviating from established rules of warfare, kind of a they-are-cheating-too defense. Pretty much before now, there were now implied rules.
The idea of limiting war stems from a civil code of warfare designed to protect both non-combatants and honor. However, to work, both sides must agree to the rules. So terrorism can be defined as the unlawful use of force to achieve an end through terror via political means. Much of this depends on who defines "lawful". Note that sometimes what one side considers lawful is considered unlawful by the other.
In this case, both sides had declared war. Both sides had shot and killed civilians in areas without evaluating the pure military value verses mixed military and civilian damage. As such, we can presume that both sides felt war between two countries legally includes killing and destroying any target or peoples involved with or furthering the war, ignoring corollary civilian damage.
By targeting cities, the US was destroying the Japan piecemeal, leaving enough command and control around to actually end the war, in a manner both sides felt was legal in war, although on a hideously grander scale.
By example, if some mythical radical Islamic county had declared war with us, and started blowing up buildings involved with our infrastructure, it would be war.
For a group to take a one-time shot at a building full of civilians, with the main goal of gaining status through propaganda constitutes terrorism.

Answer 6

That's assuming it's an act of terrorism to begin with, you lame-brain! The blame for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is to the Japanese Imperial Government during the war. They were warned of this, and they didn't accept the offer to end the war. So the emperor was the fool to blame. When Japan didn't accept the offer, the US upped the ante, via 20 kiloton hammers, saving hundreds of thousands of lives that would have been lost had the US Army and Marines invaded Japan. Don't let your national pride get in the way of the facts.

Answer 7

The first American plan to end the war in the Pacific was to invade Okinawa, which we did. This was the single largest invasion in World War ll, even bigger than DDay. The casualties on both sides were enormous. The second part of the plan was to invade the Japanese home islands. The US War department figured 1,000,000 US casualties and 2,000,000 Japanese casualties. Also, the US was not sure if Japan would continue the fight even after loosing so many people in a long battle. The dropping of the Atomic Bombs made the Japanese Emperor speak to the Public for the first time in history when he unconditionally surrendered and ordered all Japanese soldiers to stop fighting. So is 215,000 deaths better then at least 3,000,000. I think that the odds where on our side. We did right.

Answer 8

no, the first act of the present day term "Terrorism "

Was the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand back in 1914. That was done by the Black Hand, or Young Bosnia , which in turned started WWI. but to go father back to use the term terrorist or terrorism, almost every conflict is a result of the Ottoman Empire. "Read your history books for more details, on the Ottoman Empire "
The end of the Ottoman empire march into Eastern Europe was stopped by King JAN II SOBIESKI a POLISH KING .

Answer 9

Actually both Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be considered military targets. Hiroshima was home to one of the largest torpedo factories in Japan and Nagasaki was headquarters for the Japanese 2nd Army.

Can the bombings be considered acts of terrorism? Terrorism is defined by media and politicians. If you believe it to be an act of terrorism than it is an act of terrorism. I am cursious to know if you consider the Rape of Nanking an act of terrorism though, or perhaps Japan's use of chemical and biological weapons. I always find it interesting that no one seems to question ethics involved with the invasion of China and islands in the South Pacific. Only American morality seems to be subjected to this type of scrutiny.

Answer 10

Absolutely not. War is hell. The Japanese were warned.

The real act of terrorism was the unprovoked bombing of Pearl Harbor on 12-6-41. The Japanese people got what they deserved for starting a war.

Obviously, the A bombs won the war and got Japan to surrender. That was a good thing.