... that the Bomb fell on Hiroshima.
It was another of what seems to be scores of "turning points" in our history. This is when the USA became a "superpower," and when the President became, unquestionably, the most powerful man on earth.
Before the Bomb, Presidents usually asked Congress for a declaration of war against a country before waging it. But they haven't since. Why?
The USA's nuclear arsenal is our trump card. The real power behind nuclear weapons is the diplomatic advantage of the President's ability to press the button whenever he feels like it. If Presidents were constrained by the Constitution to ask Congress to declare war, he'd be at a diplomatic disadvantage. The ability to launch nuclear strikes without Congressional declaration is the means by which the USA can hold the world hostage. And the reason countries seek to develop such weapons for themselves is for deterrence: the USA doesn't bully countries with nuclear weapons.
This is the age of Nuclear Terror, thanks to the good ol' USA.
James Leroy Wilson's one-man magazine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
You're exactly right that we don't bully countries who also have nukes. Bullies never pick fights with someone who may fight back, be it in a schoolyard or a nation. That said, the bomb would never have been dropped without Pearl Harbor. "Those who complain about the way the ball bounces are usually those who dropped the ball in the first place."
ReplyDeleteWhether they were necessary or not depends on your perspective. It killed 200,000 and 140,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively. Civilian casualties? The emperor was prepared for an American land invasion, and was spreading propaganda for women and children to defend their country with knives. If there had been a land battle in Japan, would more than a quarter million people have died? There's a very, very good chance.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree that dropping the bombs were terrorist attacks. We were nations at war. Throughout Europe, cities were levelled by bombing. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks, then the logic follows that much of WWII was not warfare, but terrorism. I've got a post on justice coming up on my blog which may help explain my point, but I'll summarize it this way: if I hit someone, I have no say in how they retaliate. Japan struck the US. How dare they complain about the force and "fairness" of our attack on them.
Ridiculous: What was the bombing of London by the Germans, to name only the most famous example.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're half right about a surrender. Half the Japanese government was against it, and half for it. The problem was that the Japanese emperor was against it, and thought it would be wonderful if "Japan were destroyed like a beautiful flower" in a land invastion. The more I've read about Japan and its culture, particularly prior to and during WWII, the more I've come to understand that the Zero pilots were not the few - they were the majority, more than willing to die for their emperor.
I fear that many oversimplify bombing in wars. It's either unfair and aimed at civilians or fair and aimed at military personnel. Unfortunately, we've moved from the age of medeival warfare where two armies line up and go after one another.
Secondly, your definition of terrorism, while easily found on-line, is a bit dated and oversimplified. It's like defining war as a battle where men line up on horses, archers in the front, and do glorious battle. Sure, that's war, but only one small and outdated definition. Here's a better definition I found on-line: "Terrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. Under the second definition, the targets of terrorist acts can be anyone, including civilians, government officials, military personnel, or people serving the interests of governments." I prefer the second. Because the Pentagon is the basis of our military, and while not housing arms, is the base of all our military. So was that not a terrorist act? What about the bombings of our embassies, which for years were blown up, Marines stationed at the front gate more often than not the casualties. But there were civilians inside? Terrorism is no longer such a simple thing as an act exclusively against civilians.
If Pearl Harbor was not terrorism, then was the attack on the USS Cole not terrorism either? Just curious as to how you would differentiate the two. Can we justify any attack on any military installation, ship, or post, regardless of the attacked country's current involvement, or lack thereof, in war? A nation at war is fair game, a nation standing on the sidelines is not. So I'm saying that "the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, a military base," is not justification for terrorism, but it was in turn its own form of terrorism. The US was not at war with Japan at the time. In fact, it was an attack which aimed at taking us out of the war before we entered, by attacking naval ships that were docked in port. Once Pearl Harbor took place, well, all bets are off. There has never been a fairly fought war. That's an oxymoron.
Alas, this is a complex issue which cannot be so easily summarized and sides taken in such short exchanges.
Please point out where I said Pearl Harbor wasn't a terrorist attack. I may be wrong in my opinions, but please don't put words in my mouth. I simply stated that in my opinion, Pearl Harbor was just as much an act of terrorism. According to Wikipedia, "No definition of terrorism has been accepted as authoritative by the United Nations. [1] In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act". [2] This does not define what would count as an "intention" to cause death or injury to non-combatants. A controversy exists over whether this proposed definition would include an action like the American nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities at the end of World War II. " To say that the men sitting on the boats in Pearl Harbor were combatants is simply taking too much of an Anti-American stance. To say the men on the Cole were combatants is blind as to what they were doing. I can see you're too intent on being "independent" to admit that maybe the US and Japan were on equal terms in the war, and the US wasn't the big, bad bully with the nukes and Japan the small, innocent victim.
ReplyDeleteI'll also add that no one can agree on what the definition in this day and age of terrorism is. To say it *must* involve civilians is going against that which experts are unsure of, have added the terms "non-combatants."
Seems I've ruffled your feathers by disagreeing, and for that I'm sorry. I didn't think my claims were "ridiculous." In fact, you didn't address my specific example of bombing during WWII to support my claim.
Again, I thought an exchange of ideas was possible, but that's what's wrong with politics nowadays, putting words in others' mouths and defining terms to suit one's on cause. What is sex? What is is? And that's why so few people can talk about politics without it becoming mudslinging.
I was hoping for more, but I've clearly offended by disagreeing.
My point was this, and I'll repeat it with my feathers firmly in place: if the bombing of Nagasake and Hiroshima was a terrorist attack, then so were the bombings of London during WWII, a comparison you "took issue" with. Yet, you never disclose how they were different. I'll add Warsaw to that comparison. They are the same, civilians were specifically targeted. And this has always happened during warfare. Indians did it to settlers, settlers did it to Indian homesteads, the British did it during the Boston massacre and other spots in America. I'm sorry,but your definition of terrorism must apply to all. You can't say that if America does it it's terrorism,but if Germany or the Brits or the Indians do it, it's OK. I'm simply asking you to apply your definition to all countries and all instances the same way. By your definition of terrorism, if N&H were terrorist acts, then nearly ever war ever conducted has used terrorism. I don't mind which side you take, but you can't selectively apply your outdated and, as I mentioned before, unnaccepted definition.
ReplyDeleteHere's what you said:
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, your indirect comparison of the attack on Pearl Harbor (a military base) and the attacks on Hiro and Naga (both were cities) is ridiculous. I particularly take issue with this statement:
If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks, then the logic follows that much of WWII was not warfare, but terrorism.
That is false.
Now you're saying it's true, and agreeing with me. The prosecution rests.
Terrorism and war are indistinguishable. Both entail the use of violence to achieve a political, economic, ideological, or religious goal. Regardless if the targets are military or civilian, death is the result. Military personnel are civilians that were either forced or tricked into fighting a war. War and terrorism bleed into each other, which is why one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
ReplyDelete