Were the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima acts of Terrorism?

Question: Were the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima acts of Terrorism!?

I'm not concerned with whether or not they were justified, I just want to know if they constituted terrorism!. Why or why not!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Yes!. Genocide, and a war crime!. But unfortunately the victors in a war will never prosecute themselves!.

It was an act of propaganda, showing the world the power of the new technology!. It was an act of genocide, killing hundreds of thousands instantly and over the following days!. It was a scientific experiment with unwitting human subjects!.

Non-combatants were slaughtered in a flash, the elderly, infirm, children!. It was disgusting by anyone's standards!.

Some of the given definitions of "terrorism" here would make the founding fathers "terrorists"!. The truth is one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter!.

also, the argument that these bombings somehow "saved lives", which is of course laughable, smacks of state sponsored indoctrination and brain washing in US schools!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Isn't terrorism considered an act of violence on a people for no good reason!? The atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were to end WWII and therefore stop further violence!. They could of chosen Tokyo but instead they chose a smaller city!. It was for the good of the whole world, more people could of died if Japan did not surrender!. So in short, it is not terrorism because terrorism is just violence, it is the terrorizing of mankind with no good intention!. America wanted to end the war as quickly as possible, they didn't feel like just dropping bombs on Japan for giggles, never, they just wanted to stop everything once and for all!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

The definition of terrorism is used too broadly!. In all sense of the word, yes, the atomic bombings were acts of terrorism they were monumental displays of power used to scare the other side into submission!. The first one may be constituted as part of the war but the second one was more of an act of terrorism by definition!.
But in the implied sense of the word, terrorism is a deliberate, focused act against specific people, civilians, to make the general public afraid to go about daily life!. By this definition the bombings weren't terrorism because they were to end the war and by that make it so there were no more attacks!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Yes, I think they were "terrorist" acts, in that they were perpetrated on civilians, and with the intention of terrifying the Japanese into surrendering!. But the the Japanese themselves also carried out terrorist activities, in Nan-king, Singapore, the Philippines, to name only three!. None of it was justified, on either side; the nuclear attacks are more reprehensible than the others, though, because they let the genie out of the bottle, and the world hasn't been the same since!. They were the ultimate acts of terror!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

No!.!.!. if there is no terrorism during wartime, then it is simply stating that while the war on terror is undergoing, acts of terrorism are simply casualties of war and should be considered acts of aggression!.

War is now and always has been a game of terrorism; the first power to scare the other into submission, wins!. The only exception I can think of would be ethnic cleansing in which case the war isn't meant to subdue a power but to eradicate a nation!.

The Japanese bombings were acts of war that probably saved tons upon tons of lives on both sides of the line!. Japanese are very proud people and wouldn't have given up had it not been for such a disastrous serious of bombing followed by fat man and little boy!. In fact, some sources say they considered more aggression after the nuclear 'acts of war!.'

Terrorism is a nonsense term, connotatively, when it comes to warring nations!. In denotation, all acts of war are acts of terrorism!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

They were not acts of terrorism because they were sanctioned by one government against another government!. There was a declared war!.

However acts of war were regulated by Hague conventions made earlier, which clearly stated that bombings of unprotected civilian cities and towns were prohibited!. The German's bombings of several British cities were called terror bombing!. Obviously an act of trying to lower the morale of the people and had been successfully accomplished in Guernica by the Luftwaffe during the Spanish Civil War!.

So that the atomic bombs struck terror is not in question!. That they were an unwarranted use of force is not either in question, because the use of nuclear weapons clearly were!. The question is if they constituted terrorism!. And I would say no it was not terrorism!.

Terrorism has no internationally agreed definition!. The use today is mostly of combatants trying to force an ideological goal onto a people or a government by use of force with no regards of consequense to the people afflicted by the use of force!. The perpetrators have no strong ties to governments!.

This definition resembles what the US did to the japanese, but the mayor difference as I see it is that it was done during war by an internationally reckognized government!. Whereas terrorism as we know it are usually committed during time of peace by a group not openly sanctioned by any government!.

When bombs go off in Iraq should they be referred to as Iraqi freedom fighters or terrorist cells!? Shortly after the invasion they were mentioned as freedom fighters in some leftist European newspapers!. After the Iraqi government has been installed they are more often referred to as terrorists!.

I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder and how you would like to set your definition!. Just beware that people will read political leanings into how you define this word!. Defining this certain act of war as terrorism would open up a whole world of new questions!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

They were terrible but not terrorism!. That's a strategy of using terror in place of military might because of a lack of the latter!. The US had no lack of military might, and those bombings were in many ways just a continuation of policy!. Even before Pearl Harbor, General Marshall had given a confidential briefing to select members of the Washington press corps in which he told them that the US strategy in the upcoming war with Japan would be to burn their cities to the ground!. By the end of the war, over a quarter of the population were homeless!. That's force majeure, not just fear!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Terrorism is when a minority (a group who's views are not generally held by a society - not [necessarily] a "minority" as in a race) tries to impose its will upon the greater society by performing acts that strike fear and terror into the hearts of the masses!.

War often does strike fear/terror into the hearts of ones enemies!. However, we have found that attempts at this almost always backfire, galvanizing your opponent against you!. Look at England during the bombing of Britton - these attacks made the Brittish more unified, which had a far greater effect than the damage that was caused!. Terror doesn't work - it just pisses your enemy off, which is why the U!.S!. Military generally tries to avoid such things!.

However, this does not constitute "terrorism"!. "Terrorism" is performed by one segment of a group against the larger group itself!. The U!.S!.A!. was not part of Japan, ergo, the act was not terrorism!.

All war is itself an attempt to impose one group's will upon another group!. Thus the goal of imposing your will, in and of itself, doesn't constitute terrorism!.

In some case the "group" in question is all of humanity!. Thus someone in say Egypt could perform a terrorist act that would be against Americans (as well as everybody else in the world)!. But generally speaking one government cannot perform "terrorist acts" per see!. An exception to the rule is when a society is ruled by a minority that has seized power, like in Iraq (or Saudi Arabia or Indonesia - I'm not saying these countries do perform terrorism, but I'm saying a minority group here controls the government)!. Having said that, the U!.S!. may step in to stomp out terrorism in another country where the targets are not U!.S!. citizens at all!. The fact is terrorists have an interest in supporting other terrorists - exchanging ideas and methods!. We can't let terrorism breed anywhere as it will spread!.

In the case of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the "target" was not the unfortunate victoms of the attack!. It was not intended to spread fear into the hearts of the Japanese population!. It was intended to convince the Japanese leadership that continuing to fight was futile!. Yes, these bombs killed a lot of people!. But had we invaded, many many more people would have been killed, on both sides, fighting that war!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Was the Rape of Nanking terrorism!? They all had civilians as the primary victims, much as 9/11 did as well!. One definition states:
terrorism
Noun
the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political ends

By that definition all acts of war could be labeled terrorism!. Modern standards seem to indicate it primarily effects innocent civilians!. You be the judge!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

No, Japan declared war on the US, after which, we were openly engaged with Japan!. Dropping the bombs where we did (2 were in fact necessary to pull off the ruse that we had a useable stockpile) made the point so they'd surrender sparring millions of American and Japanese soldiers AND civilians!.

Finally, you have to understand, in World War II!.!.!. there were no "civilian targets," everything was targeted, cities leveled as they were approached!. The idea ( and the most effective, or even useable, strategy) was to dismantle the enemies infrastructure which included no only industry but the populace!. This was the strategy for ALL sides in the war!.

Of course, "terrorism" is subjectively defined!. The terrorists of America believe they ARE in a war with us, their tactics aren't "terrorist acts," they're just the only means they have to defend against and/or fight their "enemy!."Www@QuestionHome@Com

From Dictionary!.com

ter·ror·ism /?t?r??r?z?m/ [ter-uh-riz-uhm] –noun
1!. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp!. for political purposes!.
2!. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization!.
3!. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government!.

Why did we drop the bombs!? Because we wanted Japan to submit so we could win the war!. We used violence and fear in order to do so!. By definition, Americans DID perform an act of terrorism on the Japanese!.

I'm not going to justify, nor am I going to condemn!. I'll be honest, though, and point out that the Japanese started it with their own act of terrorism!. I'd also like to point out that even though forcing Japan to submit "saved a lot of lives" in the end I think that the bombs killed just as many if not more than were "saved"!.

Bring on the thumbs down!

ETA:
More from dictionary!.com:

"the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear "

I'd like to point out that we CALCULATED the act of violence (bombings) to inspire fear (also known as intimidation) to end the war that was being fought for an ideological reason!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

It depends which side you were on!.

If you are from the US, or Britain, or other Allied nation, the bombing of the Japanese cities made the war end without an invasion of Tokyo, which would have taken many lives, Allied and Japanese!. It as a well-thought-out war strategy to save lives of the Allied nations!.

If you were from Japan, it was certainly an act of terrorism!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

If "terrorism" means acts of violence that kills or maims innocent civilians, then I would have to say yes, absolutely!. Though the US feels justified in this act I would have to answer that every person who commits and act of terror feels justified in some way or another or they wouldn't be doing it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

In war you can do anything like killing innocent people, women, children, rape, plunder, force them to convert their religion etc and all are under cover of war!.

Certain religions were forced on people by victorious armies by forced conversions!.

Rape and plunder are also committed in war!. In a certain east Asian country many women have been raped and forced to carry children of the victorious !.

So in war anything and every thing is done!. only other countries make lip sympathy with the affected countries!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

No!.
Both were actually acts of mercy!. The effective use of nuclear weapons, after the experiences suffered by Allied, Japanese, and civilians on Okinawa, prohibited the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Allied and Japanese military personnel, perhaps a million Japanese civilian casualties and shortened World War II conflict by at least a year!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com

How is responding to attacks on our country an act of terrorism!? Man, you liberals have a warped view of the world!.

Japan declared war on us, and the US responded and declared war on Japan!. The US won!.

If I started a renegade group to go into Japan and blow ourselves up in crowded civilian areas, THAT would be terrorism!. The US bombing a country it is at war with is not terrorism!. If it is then all the attacks on the US that started the war should be called "terrorism" too!.

also, even after all the damage and murder Japan brought on the US, the US did not take over their country, but rebuilt it and helped turn it in to one of the leading nations in the world!.

I don't see a terrorist group doing that!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com

no!.

the best definition of the term "terrorism" i can provide is: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp!. for political purposes!.

The United States did not bomb Japan to promote or cause "fear" or " terror!." we bombed the 2 cities to end the war!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

by all rights it should be, we were trying to scare the japanese into submission by destroying a lot all at once
but we were at war, that and they definitely attacked first with their own act of terrorism!.
to me it is a declaration of war that provides a difference

added to this is:

"They could of chosen Tokyo but instead they chose a smaller city!."

Tokyo wasn't on the list of possible targets as it had already been bombed during raids earlier in the year(March 9/10)
Choice of targets

On May 10–11, 1945 The Target Committee at Los Alamos, led by J!. Robert Oppenheimer , recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets!. The target selection was subject to the following criteria: (1) they are larger than three miles in diameter and are important targets in a large urban area (2) the blast would create effective damage, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by August 1945!. "Any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb!." These cities were largely untouched during the nightly bombing raids and the Army Air Force agreed to leave them off the target list so accurate assessment of the weapon could be made!. Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarcation in the middle of an urban industrial area!. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged!. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage!. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target!." The goal of the weapon was to convince Japan to surrender unconditionally in accordance with the terms of the Potsdam Declaration!. The Target Committee stated that "IT WAS AGREED THAT PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS IN THE TARGET SELECTION WERE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE!. TWO ASPECTS OF THIS ARE (1) OBTAINING THE GREATEST PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT AGAINST JAPAN and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released!.

this was an attempt of terror,
but like i said earlier, it is negated by the fact we were at warWww@QuestionHome@Com

These two bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not acts of terroism but tactical warfare launched by America during the Second World War to subdued the Japanese Imperial armies for attacking the Pearl Harbour in Phillipines causing inflicting damaged and loss of marine lives!.

Www@QuestionHome@Com

IMHO yes because a lot of innocent people were killed and maimed!. I think we should have demonstrated a bomb somewhere so the world would see its power before we dropped in on a city!. But I am glad we won that war for sure!. And I was not alive when it was dropped so the outcome was favorable for the US for sure!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

So, you won't accept the bombings as part of war huh!? How about Pearl Harbor!? What was that anyways!? Terrorism!?, Then yes, I guess you are right buddy, the US was a bunch of terrorists terrorizing those poor innocent Japanese!. Are you happy now!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

did it terrify civilians!? yes!.

and dont say "OH IT WAS WAR"!.!.Islamic Extremists (even though we all know the U!.S!. government funds them), are "AT WAR" with the West's corruption, does that justify their terror just cuz THEY SAY SO!? war is WAR right!?

u americans are all hypocrits!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

well im Australian and i know for certain that if you guys did'nt do that then i would be speaking japanese right now!.

No thanks to our so called protector 'England', the PM simply drew a line across the top of the northern territory and said "let them have that and we'll come to your aid soon"!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Honestly, in 1945, I don't think "terrorism" would have been a word that any English speaking person would have understood!. It was a different time, and by your admission, you know it was justified!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

I WAS 16 WHEN THE BOMB WAS DROPPED AND THANK GOD FOR IT---YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN WHAT THE JAPS WERE DOING TO OUR PRISONERS---IT WAS HORRIBLE---HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE BATTAN DEATH MARCH AND MANY MANY MORE--I DOUBT IT----HAVE NO USE FOR ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE USED THE WEAPON THAT ENDED THE WAR----REFER TO THE RAPE OF NANKING---ENOUGH SAIDWww@QuestionHome@Com

"War is different from murder, terrorism or genocide because of the reciprocal nature of the struggle, and the organized and political nature of the groups involved!."

Very interesting question!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Yes, If you were a citizen of Nagasaki or Hiroshima you would consider an unprovoked attack on your city that didn't have any military significance an act of terrorism!. Just the way that we we did with 9/11Www@QuestionHome@Com

No, because officially, these bombings were acts of war!.

(Terrorism can only be performed by secret/clandestine movements, not governments - just going by the dictionary definition, here!.)Www@QuestionHome@Com

Its amazing that some people could even consider dropping the A-bomb to end WWII as an act of terrorism!. It ultimately saved millions of life’s by ending it early!.

If any, it was an act of compassion!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com

The United States and Japan were at war so it wasn't terrorism!. It could be considered a war crime!.

You're logic is flawed, because the War on Terror is not an actual war, and Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I'm not sure where some people are getting these definitions from!. Those are like textbook terror bombings!. http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/Terror_bomb!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com