Was the bombing of cities during WWII considered terrorism?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Adam
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether the bombing of cities such as Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshima during World War II can be classified as terrorism. Participants explore the definitions and implications of terrorism in the context of wartime actions, considering both moral and legal perspectives.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the bombings do not fit the dictionary definition of terrorism, citing that they were not unlawful and lacked a gang-related or ideological motive.
  • Others contend that the bombings were not acts of terrorism because the civilian populations were aware of the war and the risks involved.
  • One participant suggests that the bombings were unnecessary for the war effort and were intended to intimidate the Soviets.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes that the bombings were conducted in the context of a declared war, with prior warnings issued to Japan about the potential use of devastating weapons.
  • Some participants note that the cities targeted had military significance, as they were involved in the production of military equipment.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on whether the bombings constitute terrorism, with multiple competing views presented without a clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

Definitions of terrorism and the context of wartime actions are central to the discussion, with varying interpretations influencing participants' viewpoints.

Was it terrorism when the Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and other cities were bombed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 57.1%
  • No

    Votes: 6 42.9%

  • Total voters
    14
Adam
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
Was it terrorism when the Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and other such cities were bombed?
 
Science news on Phys.org
I voted no on this one, only because I don't believe that it fits the dictionary definition of terrorism. It's was not found to be unlawful, it was not gang related, nor do I believe it was "political or religious or ideological in nature".
 
I voted no because all inhabitants of this countries knew their government was in war with another country. So that, they were prevented.
 
I voted no
 
I voted yes because it was completely unnecessary to the war, it was purely to scare the soviets.
 
No. In the case of Japan, we were in a declared war, the country was asked to surrender and told that a weapon that would cause immeasurable destruction was going to be used against them. They were warned prior to the attack. Although the cities bombed were populated by a large percentage of civilians, the cities were chosen because of their military importance (manufacturing of military equipment, etc).
 
using 4 threads...
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
8K