Hiroshima - US State Terrorism to end WWII

[righthand]

Rationalizing the targeting of noncombatants as the best method of bringing about a greater good is to make excuses for state terrorism. Terrorism, if it means anything, is a method by which civilians are the targets of violence for the purpose of achieving political goals. Having Japan surrender, even if a worthy goal, was nevertheless a political one, and the targeting of innocents to achieve that goal was an act of terrorism.

This weekend marks the sixtieth anniversary of the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I had expected a thread on this unique occasion with all the usual myths and falsehoods. Many Americans are now coming clean on this blight on human kind. The truth will out.

1. The 'outing' of William Laurence, the New York Times reporter who covered the bombings, while also on the US government payroll is under way by Democracy Now. It's calling for the Pulitzer Board to be stripped from Laurence and his paper, The New York Times, as it was an undeserved prize. See "Hiroshima Cover-up: Stripping the War Department's Times man of His Pulitzer" http://www.democracynow.org/article..../08/05/1548241

2. 60-year-old footage from Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- suppressed and nearly destroyed by the U.S. -- will finally be shown in America. The United States engaged in airtight suppression of all film shot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the bombings. The U.S. military film remained hidden for nearly four decades. Some of the long-suppressed footage will be aired on television this Saturday. See "Hiroshima Cover-up Exposed"
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/23914/

The U.S. government has killed civilians for well over a century. During the Civil War, General William Tecumseh Sherman waged war on civilians in Atlanta. During the Philippine Insurrection at the turn of 20th century, U.S. forces killed about 200,000 civilians, and even had a policy to shoot anyone more than 10 years old who dared to resist the U.S. occupation of the Philippines. During World War II, the Allies ruthlessly firebombed Dresden and Tokyo and other cities in Germany and Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent noncombatants. But there was nevertheless something special about Hiroshima and its sequel of mass horror, Nagasaki. ...Indeed, it was terrorism on an incredibly large scale. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese were instantaneously wiped off the earth on August 6 and August 9, 1945. Many more died in the following years from the radioactive climate left behind by the bombings. Truman has been quoted as saying, "The atom bomb was no 'great decision.'… It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness." He also called the bomb the "greatest achievement of organized science in history," and wondered aloud about how "atomic power can become a powerful and forceful influence toward the maintenance of world peace." Some Americans have celebrated Hiroshima, as though it was a necessary end to the madness of World War II in which 50 million people lost their lives. They perceive the atomic bombings the way one might look at a peace treaty. Several years back, the Post Office even commemorated the event with a stamp depicting the image of the mushroom cloud that took hundreds of thousands of lives. Instead of making excuses for past U.S. war crimes, we need to remember them for the great evils that they indeed were. We cannot undo history, but with determination, we might possibly prevent such horrendous crimes from ever again being done in our name. "Targeting Civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki" FFF by Anthony Gregory, August 6, 2004 http://www.fff.org/comment/com0408b.asp

Part 2 shortly.

[icu]

Hypocrisy and double standards does more damage than an enemy.

[Mr.Vicchio]

I love how people try to use Hiroshima as proof "America is a terrorist state" without looking into the whole war.

Both sides faught what is termed as "tottal war" that required taking away the enemies ability to fight a war. To do that both sides targetd the others cities and civilians.

Japan was not an innocent victim, but an agressor that was taken down. Get over it people and quit trying to spin WWII into something it wasn't.

[Nono]

Actually, there is a Hiroshima thread over in Society.

The purpose of the A-bomb on H&N was not to terrorize the Japanese people since their leaders didn't give a goddam about the state of mind or welfare of the people.

The Bomb was dropped to shock the leadership into unconditional surrender, and that surrender undoubtedly saved far more Japanese lives than it took.

[righthand]

Quote by: Nono The purpose of the A-bomb on H&N was not to terrorize the Japanese people since their leaders didn't give a goddam about the state of mind or welfare of the people. The Bomb was dropped to shock the leadership into unconditional surrender, and that surrender undoubtedly saved far more Japanese lives than it took.

Just a quickie for now.
Your partly right in "the A-bomb on H&N was not to terrorize the Japanese people since their leaders didn't give a goddam about the state of mind or welfare of the people." So if this is true, what got them to unconditional surrender? What other event happened that scared them more? For the US "the Bomb was dropped to shock the leadership into unconditional surrender" is NOT the primary reason it was dropped! It was about third. Dropped to shock, yes, but not Japan?

[monty of ll]

righthand, you said: "Dropped to shock, yes, but not Japan?" Yes, I agree that was the main motive, along with it being an experiment to see what the effects would be on a civilian population in a large city. This question will be argued until the cows come home because the U.S. still doesn't want to accept the responsibility for dropping the bombs when it was not necessary.

But one thing we know for sure is that Truman either told the American people that the bomb was going to be dropped on the 'military base' of Hiroshima or told them after the fact that Hiroshima was a military base. I don't quite know how anyone can take that lie and twist it to appear as anything other than a deliberate lie.

Can anyone clear that up as to which it was? Was it before the fact or after the fact? There seems to have been a considerable amount of energy put into covering up Truman's exact words to that effect. In fact I've had discussions with some Americans that deny outright that he didn't call Hiroshima a military base.

Here's a site that I have been told by some Americans is not authentic.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-ag09.html

And here is the paragraph in quesiton:

"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction."

I have no doubt that he said 'military base' because I have heard him say the words, but I haven't heard the entire speech.

[monty of ll]

And:

http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html

"This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful..."

[righthand]

Quote by: monty of ll "This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. .."

Accepting this is true we now have two conclusions:-
1. Trueman knew when saying that dropping the bombs that "I'm sure they will not do that, [surrender] but we will have given them the chance" that Japan would not be surrending.
2. The saving of US or Japanese lives is not the primary reason for dropping it as he wasn't expected to stop the war.

Now dropping the bomb had to have a better reason than say testing it out.

So what was the primary reason for both the US dropping it and Japan surrendering? The reason for both was the same!!!

[Prometheus]

Holy crap, we just had a debate on this topic. It's really easy to point blame right now, but at the time, it was seen as the only viable option. Don't presume to jude the actions of heroes from 60+ years ago. It's easy to bitch about it while you are fat and happy, but when there is a threat of invasion, a 10+ year war with no end in sight, and body bags coming home, things look a lot different.

[monty of ll]

righthand, you said: "So what was the primary reason for both the US dropping it and Japan surrendering? The reason for both was the same!!!"

Huh? please explain.

[PatrickHenry]

The Commies.

[liberal slayer]

Quote by: monty of ll righthand, you said: "So what was the primary reason for both the US dropping it and Japan surrendering? The reason for both was the same!!!" Huh? please explain.

The japs started the war and the US finished it. We saved alot of US servicemens lives doing it.

[monty of ll]

liberal slayer- That may or may not be true that your country saved a lot of lives by dropping the bomb. That is still a subject for debate but one thing is clear, your country took a lot of civilian lives by dropping the bombs. And please liberal slayer, we now speak of those people as 'Japanese', not japs which was a term used for the enemy during that war and is now considered a derogatory term. You wouldn't want others thinking that you have something against the Japanese people would you?

[Nono]

Quote by: righthand Just a quickie for now. Your partly right in "the A-bomb on H&N was not to terrorize the Japanese people since their leaders didn't give a goddam about the state of mind or welfare of the people." So if this is true, what got them to unconditional surrender? What other event happened that scared them more? For the US "the Bomb was dropped to shock the leadership into unconditional surrender" is NOT the primary reason it was dropped! It was about third. Dropped to shock, yes, but not Japan?

Well, we've been waiting for the follow-up to that quicky. Rather than playing around with rhetorical questions, how about giving us the full explanantion?

But I think Pat has already. (Historical note: Stalin was informed of the Manhattan Project [as if he didn't already know] and responded by telling Truman that he should use the thing against the Japanese.)

No doubt showing the Soviets what they had was a plus. But I see no reason to doubt that the purpose of H&N was to end the war quickly. And it did, thus -- I repeat -- doubtless saving the lives of far more Japanese civilians than died in H&R, horrific as that was.

[PatrickHenry]

I think the US was wrong to use the nukes. It upped the scale of warfare from barbaric firebombing of civilian populations to nuclear terror. The US did need a bigger hammer to finally crush the Japanese military, true. And it MAY BE TRUE that the horror of the nukes brought a capitulation leading to lower loss of life than an extended bombing campaign on the main islands would have. I think the US was wary of an invasion in any case and as an alternative to nukes may have chosen to simply bomb Japan into starvation and industrial convulsion. Their war machine had been largely wrecked, their merchant fleet was sunk, fuel supplies would have run low quickly. I think it is possible more Japanese civilians may have died, but the US would not have been the world's first nuclear bomber...

[quik]

Quote by: Nono Actually, there is a Hiroshima thread over in Society. The purpose of the A-bomb on H&N was not to terrorize the Japanese people since their leaders didn't give a goddam about the state of mind or welfare of the people. The Bomb was dropped to shock the leadership into unconditional surrender, and that surrender undoubtedly saved far more Japanese lives than it took.

Thats is a pathetic excuse for what happend. Eula Gay was dropped for testing purposes. It was dropped on tens of thousands of innocents. They saved hiroshima for a reason - which was to test its power and specifically its radiation effects on an actual city.. America is a terorrist-country. It's as simple as that. I like americans, but the last thing ill stand for is your war-driven government.

All super powers fall - and Americas time will come. I hope I live to see the day.

[monty of ll]

The U.S. becoming the first and second nuclear bombers is a moot point Patrick, due to the fact that it looks like the U.S. will become the third nuclear bomber anyway. But on the positive side, it was probably inevitable that the U.S. would have used the bomb sooner or later, and sooner would be my choice if I had to make the choice. If it was used later say in Korea then the implications would have become much worse.

Now we look at all members of the nuclear club as having a 'deterrant' more than anything. Even Iran getting it's own bombs, if that's indeed what they are attempting to do, would not necessarily be a bad thing inasmuch as it could prevent the third use of the bomb. I'm under no illusion that Iran would attempt a first strike against anyone, especially not Israel, but it would certainly level the playing field a little.

I should explain, I'm an optimist and I look at future developments in this respect as an end to wars in the M.E. Of course I do expect that some Arab countries of the M.E. are going to duke it out with Israel sometime in the future but it would preferably be a non-nuclear settling of scores.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: monty of ll The U.S. becoming the first and second nuclear bombers is a moot point Patrick, due to the fact that it looks like the U.S. will become the third nuclear bomber anyway.

You're an optimist?

[monty of ll]

You don't get it Patrick? I'm an optimist in combination with being a realist. Who can say that the nuclear age didn't prevent some huge wars, especially among super powers? I think it's a foregone conclusion that Iran is toast in the near future and the only way I see of Iran preventing their obvious fate is if they get their deterrant. Let's face reality Patrick, the U.S. is not going to let any M.E. country rise to power the way Iraq was about to do following the Iran/Iraq war. Wasn't that the whole idea behind the Gulf War in the first place in your opinion?

[righthand]

Quote by: PatrickHenry The Commies.

Always of course on top of the game and I will get back with the detail.

Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Have they ever been used in anger?

I seen one report that donkey years later it was discovered that USSR/Cuba had numerous tactical weapon ready for the expected US invasion of Cuba at the time of the CUBAN CRISIS. Is that true. If true there would have been total carnage of US forces. The US military didn't allow for the possibility in their goading of JFK into their single preference of invasion. Not even now does the US or the World appreciate the maturity of this very young man in that decision.

There's no doubt that the losses that would have been inevitable, would have forced the US into full war. I still have a clear memory of how the World was on pause while it was sorted. Very few then knew really how bad it was.

The only other occasion that I know of when Tactical Nuclear were nearly used was after the attack on "USS Liberty" by Israel. Initially nuclear armed US planes were heading towards Cairo under LBJ's direction. I'm not sure who gave the correct info that had the strike called off. Think of the peace the world would have enjoyed since if it was Tel Aviv that was at least targeted as the true culprit.

Does anyone know of an other near uses of Tacticals?