Atomic Bomb: Terrorist Act?

Anybody who dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki is murderous scum in my book.

[quote=“spook”]Anyone who attacks a military target knowing that innocent civilians – particularly children – are certain to die is murderous scum in my book.

Close behind them on the murderous scum scale are those zealots who attempt to whitewash or explain away the deaths of the children as the necessary price for waging their zealots’ war.[/quote]

Right on. :bravo:
Innocents die in war; it’s regrettable, reprehensible, and far too common. Anyone who causes more people to die than can possibly be avoided is murderous scum.
The first atomic bomb dropped on Japan, probably not necessary. The second bomb? Definitely not. Neither killed as many people as the firebombing of Dresden, another unnecessary killing ground. But these things are excused because “They started it.”

That said, there being no credible excuse for the current war in Iraq, what should we call the chicken-hawks responsible for starting this round of butchery?

…uhhh…I blame G.W. Bush… :unamused:

I’m pretty sure they only dropped one on Nagasaki. :smiley:

And what’s your assessment of the leadership who still refused to surrender after the first atomic bomb was dropped on their country?

It was only 72 hours after Hiroshima. It would have been earlier too except the initial bombing runs had to be aborted. I seriously doubt the communications were there. The whole of Hiroshima was destroyed. The carnage was unimaginable until that very day.

It took CNN longer to start coverage of the Asian tsunami. The damage reports of which took months to compile even in 2004/5.

[quote=“Fox”]It was only 72 hours after Hiroshima. It would have been earlier too except the initial bombing runs had to be aborted.[/quote]Actually, how quickly the second bomb was dropped is irrelevant. Even after the second bomb, there were many in the Japanese government and military who were still opposed to surrendering.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/combat.htm

And what leads you to doubt that?

Nonsense. The same carnage had already been visited upon numerous Japanese cities, only with conventional weapons and over the course of two or three days rather than two or three seconds. Where are your bold pronouncements about those cases? Where are your bold pronouncements about bombings of cities like Dresden? If viewed objectively, there is nothing at all appalling about the results of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The results were nearly the same as the conventional bombings of quite a few other cities. The only thing shocking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the efficiency of the destruction.

I think the only reason you take issue with the bombing of Nagasaki is because there was a mushroom cloud. There were other cities that were incinerated in quick succession during the war. Where’s your outrage about that? Where’s your outrage about the Japanese leadership’s refusal to surrender after any of those cities were burned to the ground, killing far more people than the number that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? For Christ’s sakes, we are talking about a situation where the USAAF would broadcast in Japanese that that night they were going to flatten five cities with fire bombs, so civilians should get out of them if they could. And then the B-29s would do it, killing tens if not hundreds of thousand of people in one night. And did they surrender? Nope. If you think the USAAF, in its haste to drop the second bomb and wrap up the war, were scum, but you somehow think that the same lable doesn’t apply to the Japanese government of the time, then you are either incredibly ignorant or have a very slanted view of things.

“War is hell” is no cliche. Is it regrettable that a second, or even a first bomb was dropped? Sure. Did that bomb have to be dropped on Nagasaki in order to achieve the desired result? We’ll never know for sure. However, your labelling the USAAF as murderous scum is decidedly one-sided and extreme.

During the Korean War the US military tested chemical weapons on Winnipeg and San Francisco. In Australia, the British sent their own troops and Aussies into the fallout zones just to test the radiation effects.

These people were crazed you can be an apologist for them if you like.

Point taken that all parties involved are culpable. (I’m happy to concede the point… I made it as well.:slight_smile:)
You sure you want to stand by that wording? Viewed objectively, weren’t all of these bombing campaigns appalling, horrific and shocking? Doesn’t much matter whether you drop nukes, fire bombs or murderous-mutant-chia-pet spores… the wholesale destruction of cities and of tens or hundreds of thousands of people is appalling.

[quote]Fox wrote:
Anybody who dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki is murderous scum in my book.

And what’s your assessment of the leadership who still refused to surrender after the first atomic bomb was dropped on their country?[/quote]

[quote]Fox wrote:
It was only 72 hours after Hiroshima. It would have been earlier too except the initial bombing runs had to be aborted.

Actually, how quickly the second bomb was dropped is irrelevant. Even after the second bomb, there were many in the Japanese government and military who were still opposed to surrendering. [/quote]

I see so your point was irrelevant.

My point is why the second bomb. It was only 72hours later. The fist bomb destroyed an entire city killing 120,000 people. I’m pretty certain communications were down. You don’t have to be Einstien to work that out. 72hrs is not a long time to call off a war that has been going for years. It’s just an apologists argument to say they weren’t prepared to stop the War, and slightly mad in my reckoning.

Sorry about the Einstien comment. I tried to tidy it up, but too late as it turned out. :slight_smile:


– Winston Churchill