3 ms·

>Secondly, drone warfare isn't conducted primarily to kill civilian targets. Sure, bystanders do die in the process but there's never been an account of a US dr

>Secondly, drone warfare isn't conducted primarily to kill civilian targets. Sure, bystanders do die in the process but there's never been an account of a US drone strike that was motivated by the desire to instill fear in civilians by maximizing civilian causalities. This isn't a drone strike, but wasn't the goal of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs to kill as many civilians as possible in order to instill so much fear that their country surrendered? If that is the criteria for terrorism, then we have certainly already committed the largest terrorist attack in world history.

alexanderstears 9y ago
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are imo one of the most ethically/morally challenging situations ever. I don't think it's terrorism for a few reasons: 1. America took steps to minimize causalities [0] - America dropped pamphlets and warnings prior the attack (although the warnings were dire, they didn't explain exactly how terrible the bombs would be) 2. America didn't exclusively target civilians or the softest targets, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen for their industrial significance and proximity to airbases. 3. America made an attempt to avert the bombing - they told Japan that something terrible would happen if there wasn't unconditional surrender (Japan was okay with conditional surrender but America wasn't). That's probably near enough a threat but also these were warring States so it's different than a street dust-up. 4. America made the utilitarian decision to drop the bomb after considering the alternatives - the reality is that an invasion of Japan would have been more bloody for the Japanese and the Americans. Fun fact: the military commissioned 1 million purple heart medals as preparation for the invasion of Japan [1] 5. I'd say that terrorists have utopian ideologies and they use the goal to sanitize the means. America didn't have any delusions that they'd drop the bomb and then there'd be paradise, they knew it'd be much closer to hell on earth. I don't think the bombing was defensible, and I'm so incredibly legalistic that I would have preferred that America used the bomb but that America would then have sentenced the aircrews and their commanders to death after a trial at nuremburg. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes against humanity and if we use the nuremburg formulations, they're indefensible and call for capital punishment. The bombs were critical and effective but indefensible and humanity should wipe the names of the bombers and their military chain of command from the history books (probably including Truman). [0]: https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/ww2-america-warned-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-citizens/ https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/ww2-america-warned-h... [1]: https://www.stripes.com/blogs-archive/the-rumor-doctor/the-rumor-doctor-1.104348/are-purple-hearts-from-1945-still-being-awarded-1.116756#.WcF2dbKGNhE https://www.stripes.com/blogs-archive/the-rumor-doctor/the-r...
- jahaja 9y ago
  For me this is just too much giving the benefit of the doubt. I find it much more likely, and I'm pretty sure that most historians agree, that they were dropped to deter the USSR. Japan had lost the war, to assume that there was only a choice between dropping the bombs or invasion is yet again to be too kind.

alexanderstears 9y ago

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are imo one of the most ethically/morally challenging situations ever. I don't think it's terrorism for a few reasons: 1. America took steps to minimize causalities [0] - America dropped pamphlets and warnings prior the attack (although the warnings were dire, they didn't explain exactly how terrible the bombs would be) 2. America didn't exclusively target civilians or the softest targets, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen for their industrial significance and proximity to airbases. 3. America made an attempt to avert the bombing - they told Japan that something terrible would happen if there wasn't unconditional surrender (Japan was okay with conditional surrender but America wasn't). That's probably near enough a threat but also these were warring States so it's different than a street dust-up. 4. America made the utilitarian decision to drop the bomb after considering the alternatives - the reality is that an invasion of Japan would have been more bloody for the Japanese and the Americans. Fun fact: the military commissioned 1 million purple heart medals as preparation for the invasion of Japan [1] 5. I'd say that terrorists have utopian ideologies and they use the goal to sanitize the means. America didn't have any delusions that they'd drop the bomb and then there'd be paradise, they knew it'd be much closer to hell on earth. I don't think the bombing was defensible, and I'm so incredibly legalistic that I would have preferred that America used the bomb but that America would then have sentenced the aircrews and their commanders to death after a trial at nuremburg. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes against humanity and if we use the nuremburg formulations, they're indefensible and call for capital punishment. The bombs were critical and effective but indefensible and humanity should wipe the names of the bombers and their military chain of command from the history books (probably including Truman). [0]: https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/ww2-america-warned-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-citizens/ https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/ww2-america-warned-h... [1]: https://www.stripes.com/blogs-archive/the-rumor-doctor/the-rumor-doctor-1.104348/are-purple-hearts-from-1945-still-being-awarded-1.116756#.WcF2dbKGNhE https://www.stripes.com/blogs-archive/the-rumor-doctor/the-r...

jahaja 9y ago
For me this is just too much giving the benefit of the doubt. I find it much more likely, and I'm pretty sure that most historians agree, that they were dropped to deter the USSR. Japan had lost the war, to assume that there was only a choice between dropping the bombs or invasion is yet again to be too kind.