News Reexamining the Terrorist Nature of WWII and the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima

  • Thread starter Thread starter cesiumfrog
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Act
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the comparison of civilian casualties in the September 11 attacks and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Participants debate the classification of the bombings as "terrorist attacks," with some arguing that targeting civilians constitutes terrorism, while others assert that these actions were part of a declared war and thus differ fundamentally from acts of terrorism. The conversation touches on historical context, with references to the nature of warfare and the moral implications of targeting civilian populations. Key points include the argument that the bombings were intended to end the war quickly and potentially save lives compared to a ground invasion of Japan. Participants also discuss the evolution of the term "terrorism," suggesting that its definition is subjective and often used politically. The conversation highlights the complexities of war ethics, historical narratives, and the differing perspectives on acts of violence by nations versus individuals. Overall, the thread reflects a deep examination of historical events, their interpretations, and the implications of labeling actions as terrorism.
  • #51
rewebster said:
Do you mean, like Korea or Viet Nam?

Yes. Throw Iraq in the mix too.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
What does 'win a war' mean? It's a very loose concept. There will always be residual opposition from survivors to any imposed peace unless one pursues a policy of genocide. As this is not morally acceptable it is simply best to avoid war in the first place.
 
  • #53
drankin said:
Yes. Throw Iraq in the mix too.

and Cuba..."Bahía De Cochinos"
 
  • #54
Art said:
What does 'win a war' mean? It's a very loose concept. There will always be residual opposition from survivors to any imposed peace unless one pursues a policy of genocide. As this is not morally acceptable it is simply best to avoid war in the first place.

WWII, Allies won. Japan and Germany were defeated. Basically, to win a war, you have to thoroughly crush your enemy until surrender. And if your enemy has a "no-surrender" policy, continue crushing. That is how you WIN a war. Don't go to war unless you are prepared to WIN.

Iraq for example, not prepared to WIN. It's like telling someone to paint a house and handing him a little water color brush. Mowing a football field with scissors. You get the idea.
 
  • #55
drankin said:
WWII, Allies won. Japan and Germany were defeated. Basically, to win a war, you have to thoroughly crush your enemy until surrender. And if your enemy has a "no-surrender" policy, continue crushing. That is how you WIN a war. Don't go to war unless you are prepared to WIN.

Iraq for example, not prepared to WIN. It's like telling someone to paint a house and handing him a little water color brush. Mowing a football field with scissors. You get the idea.

Why don't you explain how you would have won the war in Viet Nam?
 
  • #56
rewebster said:
Why don't you explain how you would have won the war in Viet Nam?

If it were up to me, I wouldn't have gone in in the first place! BECAUSE, we weren't prepared to WIN. How's that?
 
  • #57
This thread is going nowhere.

Thanks to all that participated.
 

Similar threads

Replies
38
Views
7K
Replies
325
Views
34K
Replies
31
Views
6K
Replies
39
Views
6K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Back
Top