Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 11

Hague Convention says no to Atomic Bombs?
This is from Article One of the convention: "Considering that it is important, in order to ensure the maintenance of pacific relations, that hostilities should not commence without previous warning; That it is equally important that the existence of a state of war should be notified without delay to neutral Powers;... The existence of a state of war must be notified to the neutral Powers without delay, and shall not take effect in regard to them until after the receipt of a notification, which may, however, be given by telegraph." Sounds to me that Japan, by attacking unaware US forces in Pearl Harbor before warning either the U.S.A. or any of the Neutral Powers involved, essentially removed themselves from the convention.

In addition: This is from the Annex, Chapter II, Article IV "Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government, but not of the individuals or corps who capture them. They must be humanely treated.  All their personal belongings, except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property." The selection and eating of prisoners kind of goes against humane treatment. The Death Marches do not sound like humane treatment either.

To then claim protection of the convention on one side while ignoring the same rules on the other side seems hypocritical to me. In addition, there is no place in which the document actually talks about the bombing of cities. This was a Naval War document, discussing primarily the treatment of Neutral ships and countries encountered during a time of war. I believe the reference does not say what the article says it does. I will not remove it, but I will add a CN on it pending more details on how the source truly shows that the bombings were illegal according to this 1907 resolution on naval warfare and proper declaration of war and treatment of POWs. CodeCarpenter 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in that paragraph we are reporting the opinion of the Shimoda court, and there's a ref there for it already. If you like, i can dig out those sources and quote 'em here, then we can make sure that text is fully supported by the references.


 * If you want to balance that paragraph w/ a dissenting opinion i can look for something&mdash;no guarantees of finding anything tho.&mdash;eric 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer. veiwing the Shimoda court page, it looks like someone just copied the chunk either from there or to here, they are so similar.  I am guessing I will need to get the Falk book to see the actual context for the reference.  I don't feel a strong need to balance it, since it is in the section for those against, I just wanted more traceable (linkable for web bound folks like myself) references.  By just adding the CN, I figure someone with the time will clear up any missing details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CodeCarpenter (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Here's the passage from Falk:"It is probable that the Tokyo opinion will be received favorably by international lawyers throughout the world, admiration being expressed for its dispassionate approach, careful and exhaustive examination of all the legal questions presented, and its conservative conclusions. The court was careful to refrain from making extravagant claims about the relevance of international law to the conditions of atomic attack and to avoid 'legislating' on the delicate matters before it. At the same time, it reached the clear and momentous conclusion that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illegal. The court acknowledged the delicacy of its role in characteristic Japanese manner by rendering the decision on December 7, the anniversary of Pearl Harbor, thereby linking the aggressive Japanese initiation of World War II with an appraisal of its brutal termination. This was a most graceful way to impart a sense of humility upon the whole proceedings and to express the moral ambiguity of the judge's role in a legal controversy drawn from the events of a major war. The District Court of Tokyo deserves commendation for its competence and tact in handling the case."which some might argue is complete nonsense. The only thing that citation is used to support tho is that the Shimoda court concluded that the bombings were illegal, so the rest is probably irrelevant. It does look like my citation was incomplete&mdash;it's from a reprint of "The Claimants of Hiroshimain" in The Strategy of World Order Vol. 1 (New York: World Law Fund, 1966).&mdash;eric 18:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * From Boyle:"The Shimoda court found that the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was governed in part by the international laws and regulations respecting aerial warfare. These could be found in the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923, the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907, and by analogy to the 1907 Hague Convention on the Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War. Although no nation had formally adopted the comprehensive Hague Draft Rules, the court noted that they were authoritative with respect to air warfare and were consistent with international laws, regulations and customs at the time. In the opinion of the court, therefore, the Hague Draft Rules constituted customary international law on the subject of air warfare as of 1945."&mdash;eric 18:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, missed the first one from Falk, here it is:"...several important conclusions. First, that it is neither possible, nor necessary, to conclude expressly that international law forbids the use of atomic (or nuclear) weapons, although the reasoning of the opinion suggests that such weapons would almost always be illegal if used against cities. Second, that the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war. And third, that these claimants have no remedy..."Actually here i'm not sure if the quotation marks are around "caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering..." are appropriate, the article text looks like we are quoting the court where (i think) we are just quoting Falk.&mdash;eric 18:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done EricR! I agree that the first passage is a bit, ummm, flowery. I doubt that the court waited for 12/7 to render it's decision on purpose, it was more likely a coincidence.  And, their actions did not initiate WWII (just initialted it for the US.  Ask England if WWII started on 12/8/1941. :)  The part where you are quoting Falk is fine, since I am fairly sure it is similar in tone to what the court was trying to say in the first place.  I am going to take the CN off, thanks to your efforts!  Oh, and don't feel bad about previewing, I still forget to sign so much, I probably owe Hagermanbot some royalties! :) CodeCarpenter 21:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the ICJ refers to the  The Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State ruling in their  advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons  (1996). Which it the ruling had had a large influence on international law one would of expected them to have done so.

To build the arguments they did Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State argued that "Although the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare [(1923)] cannot be described as part of positive law as they have not yet come into effect as a treaty, students of international law regard them as authoritative on the law of air warfare." but then they totally ignored the "Amsterdam Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War" (1938) which was convenient for their argument because the Amsterdam Draft states:
 * Art. 2. The bombardment by whatever means of towns, ports, villages or buildings which are undefended is prohibited in all circumstances. A town, port, village or isolated building shall be considered undefended provided that not only (a) no combatant troops, but also (b) no military, naval or air establishment, or barracks, arsenal, munition stores or factories, aerodromes or aeroplane workshops or ships of war, naval dockyards, forts, or fortifications for defensive or offensive purposes, or entrenchments (in this Convention referred to as "belligerent establishments") exist within its boundaries or within a radius of "x" kilometres from such boundaries.

which rather spoils Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State's argument on what was or was not a defended town in WWII.

Yes, I don't think the quote is from the judgement, "we are just quoting Falk", (if I can put it like that).--Philip Baird Shearer 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions within article?
A few things I’ve noticed, mostly seem to possible typos or minor mistakes but I’d rather post something here first:

1) In the ‘Manhattan Project’ section: “Over 3½ years of direct U.S. involvement in World War II, approximately 400,000 American lives had been lost, roughly half of them incurred in the war against Japan.”

In the ‘Debate over bombings, Support, Preferable to invasion ’ section: “Total U.S. combat deaths on all fronts in World War II in nearly four years of war was 292,000”

These two statements are contradictory – they appear to be giving two very different values for the WW2 U.S.A. combat deaths. If they each refer to deaths in different theatres/across different time periods etc then this should be clarified, otherwise the figures should be amended to the best sourced and most widely recognised value.


 * Good point Mathew White is always a good source for such things: National Death Tolls for the Second World War: USA. The White source explains the differences. This article should cite him and his sources --Philip Baird Shearer 19:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

2) A citation is still needed on “U.S. military planners projected 20,000–110,000 combat deaths from the initial November 1945” – this is a rather important part of the rationale of the utilitarian justification of the use of the atomic bomb, surely the person that posted this must have based it on a sourceable reference?

3) In the ‘Opposition, Militarily unnecessary’ section, the last three names in the list of US military officers opposed to the bombing are separated with ‘and’ rather than commas. This is either a simple grammatical error or a POV attempt at accentuating the no. of US military officials in opposition – either way it should be changed.

4) In the next paragraph – “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan”. This is not elaborated on and gives the impression that the Japanese offered reasonable terms of surrender which the US rejected because they wanted to drop the bomb anyway for other reasons – this also seems to contradict the part of the ‘Support’ section titled “Japan chose not to surrender” which gives a reasoned argument for Japan not being willing to surrender until after the atomic bombing (I’ve got no idea whatsoever if this is true or not, but the argument is logical and well sourced and as such, seems to fit the historical facts & thus is convincing).

If Japan did sue for peace before the atomic bomb then the terms they offered should be included and juxtaposed with the terms of surrender they accepted after the atomic bomb – if they accepted worse terms (for them) after the attacks than they offered before the attacks then this would be proof that America dropping the atomic bombs on them was a causative factor in their subsequent surrender. Otherwise, stating that Japan was going to surrender anyway before the bomb was dropped is just speculation (if there are good arguements for Japan's impending surrender then they should be articulated) somewhere in the article - again; theories should only be stated in articles like this if they are logically deduced from verifiable, sourced evidence

[EDIT] I've just noticed these other Wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#The_surrender

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm

“Japan's decision to surrender was made before the scale of the Soviet attack on Manchuria, Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands was known (See Downfall, pg 289), but had the war continued, the Soviets had plans to invade Hokkaidō well before the other Allied invasion of Kyushu”

Which seem to contracdict some of the arguements against the bombings leading to the surrender (& specifically the one saying it was the Russian invasion that caused Japan to surrender) and are better sourced etc than the parts of this article they contradict. [EDIT]

As someone without a great deal of independent detailed knowledge of this event, the points I’ve raised are primarily to do with my initial reactions (on my first reading of the article) to what seem to be self-contradictions within the article. Hopefully when these are corrected, along with 1 or 2 sections that ramble on a bit and need the structure cleared up and maybe borderline POV (I’ll post about these later when I have more time) this will improve the article’s quality!Dex 18:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A Wikipedia article is a horse designed by a committee so the result is often a camel. The trouble is that there are conflicting points of view not only between Wikipedia editors but also among the experts. For example "Soviets had plans to invade Hokkaido" well yes they did but the US armed forces had contingency plans to invade Britain during the inter war years. If you look at the discussion pages, there is a debate about if a successful invasion was feasible, (given that the Soviets had relatively little experience of such operations). "The terrible ifs accumulate", given that any plans to invade were secret for obvious operational reasons, did the Japanese consider this when discussing surrender, I don't know, does anyone know? If they did not discuss it did thinking along this line influence their opinions? All we can do here is report what historians have published and try to present a coherent NPOV. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

How much honesty is acceptable here?
In an attempt to explain how difficult it is to arrive at a reliable figure for casualties of these two bombings, the article offers three reasons, one of which is "the pressure to either exaggerate or minimize the numbers, depending upon political agenda." I appreciate this attempt at being dispassionate when discussing such a horrific event in human history, because it seems to be an honest approach. But, while an emotionally detached perspective is probably the best one, I ask sincerely, would such a comment be acceptable in other, similarly controversial articles? For example, is there empirical data that proves that six million Jews were killed in The Holocaust? It's a good question, but it would incite a heated debate if it was even implied in that article. It seems that in any such horrific event, the number of casualties could be exaggerated or minimized, depending on political agenda. So I ask, why is this statement acceptable here, if it wouldn't be acceptable in other articles? Or should a statement like this be included in other articles as well? Follow the links I've included here and think about it. Comme le Lapin 00:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. --Timtak 14:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That statement could be used in the other articles that you link to, if there are credible secondary sources that address the issue of political agendas with regard to numbers of casualties. That's a valied issue if the sources support its discussion. Cla68 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Honesty. To expand on your point Comme le Lapin. There should be some discussion in this article about the current-day American attitudes toward the atomic bombings of Japan. Specifically the general "negation of culpability" attitude.

Opposition Specifically to the Fat Man
There is a fair amount of criticism specifically surrounding Fat Man. The controversy *specifically about Fat Man* does not seem to be covered in this article, nor raised in this talk page or in a heading of any of the 11 archive pages. It is claimed specifically that Fat Man was regrettable, or even criminal, because the timing suggests that the purpose of the bombing was to test the alternative design, demostrate something to the Soviet Union, or kill a lot of Japanese people out of some sort of sentiment of hatred or revenge. The main 'moral' argument in support of the bombings, that they put an end to the war and was thus the less of two evils is persuasive to a degree when it comes to the first bomb, but it is argued that *as a preamble*
 * 1) Japan would have sued for peace anyway.
 * 2) Japan had sued for peace anyway via their embassy in Russia (These first two points are argued in the article on the bombings and I only mention them as a preamble. They are mentioned only to provide evidence for supposing the possibility that)
 * 3) And this is the important point It should have been crystal clear that Japan might have surrendered after Hiroshima. All that we need admit of is that there was a possibility that Japan might have surrendered once they had had time to realise and react to the bombing (especially bearing in mind points 1 and 2). However, the second bombing was only three days after the first. Reports of the bombing only appeared on Japanese radio for instance on the 8th, with the second bombing occuring the next morning. Had the motivation to drop the bomb been peace then the US would have waited longer after the first bomb, to see if it produced the 'desired' effect. The fact that the US did not wait, strongly suggests that this was not the sole desired effect, and that there were other motivations.
 * 4) It is sometimes argued that the motivation for the second bomb was to demonstrate that America's nuclear arsenal was plural and not a one-off thing. If the plurality of the nuclear article were the important point then one bomb to demonstrate the damage, and a second could be dropped over the sea or a mountain, or in the reverse order. This would have been sufficient to demonstrate both lethality and plurality.
 * Do you realize that Fat Man costed truckloads of bucks to the US? Will you put weapon paid by you to such ineffective use?

The strongest point seems to me to be number (3) that if the bomb was designed to make the Japanese surrender then the US would have given the Japanese time to surrender. But the Japaense were not given the time. Hence the second bomb was not motivated by the desire for peace or even victory. --Timtak 14:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see now that there is at least one reference to this isue, that by Bruce Cummings and reference 77, but Bruce Cummings' statement is not explained.
 * The more that I think about it, the more it seems to me that putting the bombings in the same article conceals the disturbing lack of justification for the second bombing. --Timtak 14:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is more criticism of the second bombing than for the first. For example, Edwin O. Reischauer stated that he believed the Hiroshima bombing was necessary, but that the Nagasaki bomb wasn't.  I think a strong case can be made for making the two bombings two separate articles. Cla68 01:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's stay focused here, i think Timtak has a point. But i wouldn't make two seperate articles out of it - that would generate a bunch of redundancies - but the question first bomb / second bomb should be treated somewhere in the section "Debate over bombings". Timtak, do you have background sources on the topic? 88.64.16.78 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that two seperate articles would be going to far and agree with your suggestion. All I have regarding sources are those referenced at the top where 3 and 4 are just blogs I think. I will have a look. About the only piece I can see of relevance is "the Nagasaki bombing has absolutely no justification, since America did not even give Japanese leaders enough time to evaluate the effects of the Hiroshima bombing and to reconsider their decision to not surrender." Does Cla68 have a reference to Prof. Edwin O. Reischauer? --Timtak 05:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The other quote is already in the article... For example, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst."--Timtak 05:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Professor Martin Sherwin, now a Pultizer Prize winner, has kindly agreed to see the quote that Bruce Cumings refers to.--Timtak 15:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This by Bob Fink published in media and university publications "Between bombs, a U.S. demand to surrender ("unconditionally" as always) came as if to appear that Truman was interested in saving lives. But in the three days interim, not even a full report of the impact of this strange new bomb could be fully digested in Japan. The government in Tokyo, unwarned, had not seen the blast and could not react in three days and Truman knew it...Truman "made the record," and then ordered bomb number two dropped. The test of the Plutonium type bomb obliterated 50,000 more people in Nagasaki on August 9,1945. "--Timtak 06:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, this article by Ben Hills (who is a journalist, and may have published it in a newspaper or his book "Behind the Lines") quotes the leader of the Japanese war cabinet, Anami refusing to accept defeat claiming "they only have one" and "it was a fake" between and even after the bombings respectively. --Timtak 09:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bombings as just punishment for Japanese Crimes
I took the liberty of putting SierraSkier's comment in a seperate section, with this title based in particular upon SierraSkier's use of complicitous - 'being an accomplice; partnership or involvement in wrongdoing.'

My great uncle was killed by the Japanese in Okinawa. I talked to my father a bit about this talk page and the discussion of whether or not dropping the bomb was "moral." My father had grown up in a close family, and at age 12 my father lost an important person in his life, and our family lost a great man. I think it is "immoral" to question the decision to drop the bomb without making a careful effort to put yourself into the mindset of the times. In Tahoe I tell people it is not fair to judge the loggers who clearcut the Tahoe Basin based on our current scientific knowledge. There are several on this page who are making that mistake. It is a gross mistake. Maybe dropping the bomb was immoral. My grandfather grew old without his brother because he was killed by the Japanese. That was definitely immoral. Think about that sense of loss, compounded hundreds of thousands of times and you may begin to understand the nations feelings towards war and the Japanese when those bombs were dropped. Now the dead are statistics and most WWII vets are gone, most in that generation are gone, so there is no one around to communicate the sense of loss and desparation when the chapelins knocked on doors in towns across the country, or worse, the telegraph was sent to a new widow. My great uncle died because the Japanese attacked this country first. The fact of the matter is that no government can survive without the support of the people. The Japanese people supported their leaders and supported their war effort. That makes them complicitous in killing Americans and guilty of killing by grandfathers brother. It just may be the American people had lost their sense of humor with the whole thing. Justified? To my family, it was quite justified and to thousands of other families, quite justified. SierraSkier 03:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the bombs were justified as a form of punishment? Today, both Japan and the US enforce capital punishment, and not only as a means of detterent, but also because it is felt that the punishment is just in that it sometimes matches particularly heinous crimes. My first objection to this line of reasoning is that there were children involved. Were they also complicitous? --Timtak 06:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Today
Is true people of Hiroshima/Nakasaki develop cancer until today in result of air radiation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.79.48.192  (talk • contribs)  05:54, 15 May 2007  (UTC)


 * Several hundred people died of radiation-caused cancer between 1950 and 1990. Presumably such cases are still occurring.
 * —wwoods 17:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that it is difficult to tell but they are given free or reduced rate treatment and checkups.--Timtak 05:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Close Proximity Blast Survivors?
Is there any historical record of the longest lving survivor of the Hiroshima blast who was the closest to the physical blast? (Closest to the explosion area) Someone mentioned an elderly Buddhist monk somehwhere. Can anyone suggest a website or book which elaborates this?--Redblossom 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

More post-blast history
It would be interesting to know what happened in days, months and a few years after the bombing. Did occupying American forces themself get some radioactive dirt? In 1945, people were more lax about it IIUC. Did Americans help with treating survivors, and if yes, how? etc...

"western imperialism"
are you kidding? the Japanese Empire was "suspicious of western imperialism"? I think we can safely change that to "the west" and lose the connotation there, given the circumstances. I'd have done it myself, but some fag has protected the page. Cheers. 69.143.136.139 22:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Be civil please. Many historians believe that the subjugation or forced trade agreements with China, the Philippines, Indochina, the Dutch West Indies, and many of the Pacific islands by "western" countries (U.S., UK, Netherlands, France, Germany, etc) before World War II constitutes "imperialism."  Sure, it's a POV word, but how POV is it, really? Cla68 00:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As "POV" is boolean, and the tolerance policy for POV ness is approximately "zero", a non-zero POVness constitutes reason for the verbiage being loosened a little. It would be equally silly to suggest that somebody who calls an editor on wikipedia a fag is themselves upset about the lack of civility. It's pointless to mention, redundant, and stupid. Thanks for trying, though. 69.143.136.139 03:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with "western imperialism," and do not think that it needs to be changed. The Japan was suspicious that the west was being imperialistic. Makes sense to me. But on the other hand, I think that if it is generally considered POV, the article would not suffer if it was changed to simply The West.  N i g h t F a l c o n 9  0 9  0 9 '  T a l k  13:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Civility is expected of all wikipedia editors and if you're aware of that but still refuse to abide by it, you should also be aware people are liable to ignore uncivil people. In any case, these kinds of things are difficult. The key factor her is we are talking about the Japanese POV. Contrary to what 69 seems to think, NPOV doesn't mean we should remove POV, on the contrary the whole article is full of POV. NPOV simply requires we present competing POVs in a fair and neutral manner. In this instance, I think western imperialism is better then the west. The simply fact is, Japan were scared of Western imperialism not the west per se. Whether western imperialism actually existed is not really relevant to the point Nil Einne 06:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's entirely silly. Was the British Empire concerned about the "imperialism" of other empires? To state that an empire is afraid of (or suspicious of) imperialism of somebody else is redundant and unnecessary. Is a criminal worried about the criminal activities of another criminal, or the activities? The connotation of "imperialism" is not sterile; it comes with a 69.143.136.139 22:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Or, you know, I would, if it weren't protected. Way to preserve the status quo and point of view. This is why I don't sign up for an account. The politics of the Wales Machine make me sick. 69.143.136.139 22:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please try to stay calm. The reason the page is protected is so that people like you don't go changing things that aren't the general consensus of the editors here. I don't think that imperialism is used unfairly, and unless the majority here do, it stays.  N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9  0 9 '  T a l k  01:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 *  Consensus is not truth!!  It is mob rule. Witches were burned, negroes were lynched, and millions of jews were exterminated by popular consensus. So let's not pull the consensus card. I wasn't making a significant change to the page, I was making a simple, discussed change to the page. I'd really like it if the text was removed by somebody with an account. Nobody has presented a good reason for it to be there, and I have presented a complaint about it being there. And good god, man, trim your signature. 69.143.136.139 00:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. In this case, mob rule among editors rules. If people decide that imperialism is POV, then they can put in their word here. Otherwise, it stays. Or you can take it to some admin or to WP:RFAR.  N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9  0 9 '  T a l k  01:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The phrase describing the "Japanese Empire" as "suspicious of western imperialism" is most definitely POV, not so much by what it says as by what it leaves out. A far more accurate and balanced statement would be something like "The Japanese Empire was bitterly resentful of the wests imperialist exploitation of territories, including China, the Philippines, Indochina, and the Dutch West Indies, that they (the Japanese) regarded as their exclusive domain to exploit." That's a mouthful, but I'm trying to make a point... the Japanese Empire was not "suspicious" of western imperalism, it was embroiled in a "winner take all" competition with the west regarding the exploitation of large regions of southeast asia. And that's what makes the sentence unfairly POV, by merely stating that Japan was "suspcious" of western imperialism without providing the historical context, it makes the Japanese Empire appear to be "victims" of western imperalism.


 * I think what we are trying to say is that the Japanese resented the west for being faster off the mark in the imperial land grab and saw its sphere of imperial influence being eroded by the imperial aspirations of the other imperial states of the time. As for imperial aspirations being pov - it would probably have been justified prior to 1914 but by this time that age of empire building by the west had long gone. --LiamE 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think "suspicious of western imperialism" hits a fault line between historical American and British points of view. The Americans did not (and do not) consider their actions were imperialistic and viewed their contribution to WWII as one of anti-imperialism, but they did see Britain's motives as imperialistic for example an American joke was that SEAC really stood for "Save England's Asian Colonies." Britain under Churchill was imperialistic, ("if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years...") but under Attlee's government (during the last few months of the war and beyond) those views changed under the combined weight of political philosophy (it is difficult to be a democratic socialist and an imperialist) and pragmatism (no cash in the piggy bank to stand up to the USA views on this issue even if they wanted to). --Philip Baird Shearer 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: LiamE. Your statement that empire building by the west had long gone after 1914 is naive. The atomic bombings of Japan were part of a bigger plan by the U.S. to extend sphere of influence and prevent Soviet and Chinese aspirations in the area.
 * Well thanks. I was under the impression that Britain had already began to give independence to its former empire by the 1940's but obviously I must be mistaken. Canada, Australia and New Zealand must still have been under government from London. And of course US empire building. How could I have missed that. I must have thought that empire building and trying to spread and preserve democracy were 2 diferent things. How naive of me. Please enlighten me further as to territories added to western empires between 1914 and 1940 so I don't make the same mistakes again. --LiamE 22:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There is only one current western empire, the U.S.A. One of the means by which they spread their influence is through "democracy building." Another means, as in the example of the atomic bombings of Japan, is a "show of force". America was saying to the world, but specifically the Soviet Union and China, that this what we have and we will use it. We are the new dog now. Of course Liam, I agree with you. America does not fit the classical definition of empire. But there is no other word to describe a country that has military bases all over the world, acts against international rule of law and conducts many many other examples of "empire-like" behavior.


 * What, exactly, is the point of the preceding comment? What does it have to do with the article? America has bases all over the world to force people to behave themselves, because they won't do it by themselves and no one else will stand up and make them do it. Those bases are in conquered areas, (Germany--they really behaved themselves, huh?) countries that rely on America for their protection, (South Korea) and on land that is legally leased (Guantanamo Naval Base). Regardless, modern day America-bashing has less than nothing to do with what the article is discussing, and as such it has absolutely no place in either the article or the talk page. It is especially out of place when one considers how isolationist and xenophobic America was in the late 30s/early 40s. So just take it somewhere else. There are plenty of forums available to you across the internet where you can express your feelings on the subject. Primium mobile 19:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism?
I suppose the atomic bombings fits into most available definitions of terrorism, so I think it would be suitable to have a section with a discussion of it in the article. Thoughts? Merat 09:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that a majority of 'allied' readers feel that the bombings were justified, lifesaving and good. I feel therefore that those that feel that the bombings fit available definitions of terrorism need to consider and counter the justifications, with references. --Timtak 13:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I like to think otherwise, and the Fox (although probably not one of the most reliable sources) says so: "Most people in both countries (United States and Japan) believe the first use of a nuclear weapon is never justified.".
 * And personally, I think of terrorism as any non-government driven attack, in disregard of the means used. Ellamosi 12:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether they were justified or not doesn't change anything. Some may feel that the 9/11 attacks were justified, but it is still clearly outwritten that it was an act of terrorism in the 9/11 article.

UN: "The second part of the report, entitled "Freedom from Fear backs the definition of terrorism - an issue so divisive agreement on it has long eluded the world community - as any action "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."" []. --Merat 16:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Using that logic, does'nt pretty much all of WW2 constitute "terrorism"? 206.169.172.212


 * Do you mean the definition? I suppose the Dresden & London bombings does too. Merat 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wartime actions are not terrorism, they are war. Pearl Harbor, and all other bombings of installations, factories, dams, roads, rail, would all fall under that definition.  There is foreknowledge that non-combatants will be killed, and the hope is that this will cause the citizens to sue for peace.  It is too broad of a definition, and in a declared war, unlikely to fit under terrorism.  Pearl Harbor was more of a terrorist act than the atomic bombs, so if this falls under Terrorism, so does the reason the US joined the war against Japan in the first place. CodeCarpenter 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of definitions of terrorism, many (if not most) of them doesn't contain your non-war criteria.
 * Pearl Harbour has little to do with this, but if you insists: the "civilian targeting" criteria is common in most relevant defitions of terrorism. The civilian casualties in Pearl Harbour were accidential. --Merat 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What?!? 2400 non-combatants were killed in a surprise attack against a neutral country, on a Sunday morning while they were sleeping, off-duty, and in church. That was not "accidental", that was the goal of the attack, to kill an unsuspecting (and therefore civilian) population in hopes of cowing the American people and preventing an American response after war was declared.  That was more terrorism than Hiroshima. CodeCarpenter 18:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Attack on Pearl Harbor says "2335 military and 68 civilians killed, 1143 military and 35 civilians wounded". I think the civilian casualties fall into the category of collateral damage.
 * —wwoods 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Had it been during a declared war, then yes, they would be collateral damage. Since war had not been declared, it was all in one bundle, whether they worked directly or indirectly for the government.  However, if collateral damage is an acceptable reason, then the civilians killed in the atomic bombings, where factories and wartime production was done within civilan areas to reduce the chance of targeted bombing taking them out, were also under collateral damage.  Since there was no location in Japan where only military targets were available without civilians nearby, it was not terrorism to use a method of war on an enemy comabant.  If a tank blows down a two story building to take out the snipers on the second floor, and the people living in the first floor are crushed in the collapse, it is collateral damage.  I guess the proximity rule depends upon the weapon used, but military targets were hit in both cases, they just had more impact than a conventional weapon. CodeCarpenter 19:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, attacking soldiers is still terrorism when there is no declared war. The attack on the USS Cole, the 9-11 attack on The Pentagon, and the roadside bombing of soldiers in Iraq are all acts of terrorism, since they are done against soldiers not in a state of war.  If you get this page labelled terroism, just accept that many, many other pages, by the same definition, will also get that label.  The choice is yours.  CodeCarpenter 21:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you missed the first post. I'm asking for a section in the article analysing whether this was a terrorist bombing, with the use of relevant definitions of terrorism. I'm not very intrested in branding this as a terrorist attack as if it was a fact.
 * Attacking enemy military is, according to most definitions, never terrorism. The USS Cole bombing isn't considered terrorism, neither is the attacks on American soldiers in Iraq. If you would consider them terrorism, you would also have to consider the bombing of Serbian forces in Kosovo as terrorism "since war had not been declared" (The USA has started quite a few wars without declaring war now, which then means that a lot of American bombings against foreign military since the WWII would constitute terrorism according to your own definition).
 * The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (as well as London, Dresden etc) were obviously directed against the civilian population. (Therefore, the term collateral damage is irrelevant for this discussion, as it means unintentional damage). You don't use strategic nuclear bombs, V2-rockets or incendiary bombs to take out one or two weapon factories. The civilian populations of the two cities was a target. And as i previously said: there are hundreds of definitions of terrorism, many (if not most) of them doesn't contain your non-war criteria. --Merat 15:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The RAF was the major Allied firebomber in Europe. They did not target people they targeted their homes with the rational that "Investigation seems to show that having one's home demolished is most damaging to morale. People seem to mind it more than having their friends or even relatives killed. At Hull signs of strain were evident, though only one-tenth of the houses were demolished. On the above figures we should be able to do ten times as much harm to each of the fifty-eight principal German towns. There seems little doubt that this would break the spirit of the people." (see the dehousing paper) --Philip Baird Shearer 20:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the above post was supposed to be in support of or in opposition to my previous post, I think it can be read as both. But as I'm a pessimist at heart, I'll presume the latter and answer it as such (Although I hope I don't offend you if it wasn't).
 * First, remember that you quoted the Brits, while it was the Americans who carried out the bombings in Japan. And even if it would be true that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki only were directed against homes of the city populations, I find it quite difficult (not to say impossible) to separate the bombing of civilian homes from the bombing of the civilians themselves (both in theory and in practice; people tend to be in homes), especially when using strategic nuclear weapons. Personally, I think this "dehousing" term just sounds like an euphemism for the usual terror bombing against civilians. Merat 03:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to say, really well put, Merat. Ellamosi 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you :) Merat 03:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If I can interrupt the patting on the back with some facts: First of all, Merat claims that the suicide bombing of the USS Cole was not terrorism.  This flies in the face of international opinion.  From USS Cole bombing "The attack, organized and directed by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist organization, was carried out by suicide bombers Ibrahim al-Thawr and Abdullah al-Misawa."  I added the links to Osama, al-Qaeda, and terrorist, to help Merat see that the Cole was a victim of a terrorist attack.  Second, you claim that the killing of soldiers on peace-keeping duty in Iraq is not a terrorist attack.  Perhaps reading this link Terrorist attacks of the Iraq War will assist you in seeing that the killing of anyone, even if they have an American flag on their shoulder, with roadside bombs, grenades, rocket launchers, or bullets as a civilian is a terrorist attack.  Videotaping civilian workers as they plead for their lives, followed by chopping their heads off for the amusement of your friends but the horror of civilized people is a terrorist action.  To claim otherwise is not only blatent POV, but a POV that is not commonly accepted.  Finally, your comment that a foxnews article is a bit off base, in many areas.  First, the poll was about current usage of the bomb, as a first strike tool, not regarding usage of the bomb in wartime during WWII.  Second, the article links to the actual poll.  . It answers that question (see item 6), 84% of Americans over 65 (meaning involved in WWII) feel the bombings were justified and necessary.  Even Japanese over 60 felt by over 35% that they were unavoidable.  And 80% (see item 8) in the poll feel that the bombings saved the lives of American soldiers.  Thanks for providing the poll which helped to show my point, that it was not terrorism and that it was justified and saved American lives.  Based on good faith, I will assume that you were not pushing an agenda here.  CodeCarpenter 18:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)