Someone needs a History lesson.
If you think you have a fraction of the information of what happened in the Pacific War, please come forth. Comparisons like this only a show a real ignorance of the facts. If you even CARE about the lives of civilians, read on:
When the Japanese invaded Burma, China, Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), India, Indo-China (Vietnam), Malaya, Philippines, Siam (Thailand), Singapore, etc., there WERE casualties. Yes, there were MILLIONS of casualties. Millions of CIVILIAN casualties as a result of Japanese invasion and occupation. In China alone - over 19,000,000...!
Yet here you are asking if those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the victims of a terrorist act?!?
If you give up your inappropriate comparison for some time, and read about what the Japanese did during the years 1937 - 1945, and just how many people died -- you will come to understand just how invalid a comparison like this is.
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima was a drastic measure, one which was taken by a government and a people who COULD have defeated Japan militarily, but at the cost of MILLIONS more of casualties, in Japan and throughout Asia.
2007-10-24 02:27:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by WMD 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
It was a military action between two nations at war. A terrorist act is carried out by an independent organization against a nation, or representatives of that nation purely for the purpose of killing and spreading terror and chaos.
During WW2 it was a common event to bomb civilian centers. But where it is different is also the real target. A terrorist act is aimed specifically at civilians. Hiroshima was picked as a target because of factories that were producing war materiel. But with the technology of the time, it was not possible to simply bomb the factory, you had carpet bomb the whole area and hope you hit it. The A-bomb was just a more efficient way to do that.
2007-10-24 04:32:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by rohak1212 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Tokyo was firebombed earlier and almost as many civilians died as a result. And remember Hamburg and Dresden being totally destroyed. Dresden had no military value, while Hiroshima had at least a little value as a military target.
If you subscribe to the idea that the atomic bombing that ended the war was a terrorist act, you probably subscribe to the view that war itself is a terrorist act.
By the way, I don't think the bombing of Pearl Harbor was a terrorist act.
2007-10-24 01:06:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is one of the dumber questions I have read on here. Since they obviously do not cover history in school anymore, let me give you the short lesson. The Empire of Japan and the United States (among many nations) where at war. Unlike wars of today, WW2 was fought like all wars throughout history where fought..total war. That meant on nation against another. The Japanese people, as a nation, where at war with us. Their manufacturing of war material was done in their cities, by their people, much like it was done in this country. The Japanese slaughtered millions of civilians in China, Korea, the philipines etc. Al Queda, as you mention, is not a nation. If they where, they would be similarly attacked.
The part that truely shows your ignorance is that the dropping of the atomic weapons on Japan was not the worst event of the war. Months before, we fire bombed Tokyo two nights in a row, Killing well over 100,000 people, more than was killed in Nagasaki or Hiroshima. The British fire bombed Dresden killing 50,000 in minutes. Fire bombing is a much more horrific death than a atomic blast, BTW. Why was this done? To save lives. To force japan and Germany to surrrender. (The same Germany that killed 6 plus million Jewws and others) An invasion of Japan, by conservative estimates, would have led to millions of Japanese civilians fighting to the death and the deaths of tens of thousands of allied soldiers. The bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while taken as an isolated incident, may seem horrific. But an educated person would view it in light od the entire war and see that it actually SAVED lives.
Your question shows a fundemenatl lack of understanding of the way war works and the differences between WW2 and the present day war on terror. A terrorist is a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities and does not fight as part of a national government.
When we bombed Japan, we where not looking to "convert" them or force our way of life on them, as todays terrorist do. unlike Al Queda, we warned them to surrender beofre hiroshima and Japan refused. They even refused after Hiroshima. It took Nagasaki for them to finaly surrender.Even then, it almost did not happen. The military was organizing a coup to overthrow the emperor and continue the war.
So, to answer your question, there is no comparing the atomic bombing of hiroshima (and Nagasaki, which you probably didn't even know about) to the present day Al Queda.
Oh and Nagasaki and Hiroshima where very much military and industrial targets.
2007-10-27 13:20:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, it was not an act of terrorism. World War II was going on and dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives and ended a very long war. What about Pearl Harbor?
2007-10-24 01:38:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by DAR76 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
You need to read some real history of WWII, not the revisionist pablum being taught. The Japanese soldiers and civilians were prepared to die defending their homeland and would have done so. Millions of Japanese would have died and tens of thousands of American soldiers would have been killed invading Japan. The atomic bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives and forced Japan to accept Unconditional Surrender.
General Douglas MacArthur was the Supreme Commander during our occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1952. MacArthur and his advisers wrote the Japanese Constitution, gave women the vote, instituted property rights, kept foreign businesses out and directed investment in rebuilding the manufacturing base. One might say that MacArthur was the "father" of modern Japan.
2007-10-24 01:07:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by EDWIN 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
interesting thought. according to the other answers, they say not because we were at war. But that would mean if Al Quada attacks the US again it would not be a terrorist attack because we say we are at war with them.
It does fit the qualification of targeting civilians, but I think it would not qualify because it is a country doing the attacking instead of a group. Just like the original attack on Iraq our "Shock and Awe" bombing was not call terrorism, although it was targeting civilian sites. Of course, Bush has labeled Iran a terrorist country, so that theory in not going to work.
I guess the best answer would be that the Victors write the history, and we would never label ourself as doing any type of terrorist activities
2007-10-24 01:20:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by Michael G 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
no. the two countries were at war at that time and Hiroshima was a major military site due to it's massive military arsenals and military production facilities.
The question of "terrorism" is not determined by "what" is done but by "who" does it and "how"
You might just as well ask if boarding a ship at sea is a terrorist act - well it depends on whether it is done by pirates or by the coast guard.
2007-10-24 02:09:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by cp_scipiom 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
It was a necessary evil to bring the war to an end. Japan was prepared to resist invasion and have women and children fight and die to the bitter end. The allies would have lost hundreds of thousands of lives and the japanese would have lost millions of lives and the carnage would have been unbelievable. The bomb was basically a knockout blow to the jaw; the fight was over. But, it sure as heck didn't stop mankind from continuing to fight and make war, did it?
2007-10-24 03:39:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by acmeraven 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
No. We were at War. It - actually Nagasaki - ended the War, saving hundreds of thousands of American lives - not to mention Japanese.
If anything was a terrorist attack - it was Pearl Harbor, despite how others dispute this.
2007-10-24 02:39:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by Sprouts Mom 4
·
1⤊
0⤋