Hiroshima & 9/11
Published by Sean December 29th, 2006 in 9/11, General, terrorismA while back, my father an I got into a discussion about the denunciation of terrorism per se; that is, the idea that terrorism is wrong simply because it is terrorism.
I agree, of course, but a problem arises when one attempts to define “terrorism”. Most reasonable people will agree that soldiers killing each other on the field of battle does not constitute terrorism, but the events of 9/11 certainly did. Unfortunately, this allows a lot of room for debate.
Could one consider, for example, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism? My initial reaction - the conclusion my “sense of life” leads me to - is that they were not. But since first encountering this debate (which seemed particularly asinine in the days immediately following 9/11; less so now), I have been unable to ascertain exactly why. The two events seem hugely disparate on a very basic level, but the details of the disparity have long eluded me. I won’t get into a detailed list of why, but if you want to talk about it, contact me or leave a message in the comments.
In short, I ditched the “terrorism is wrong because it’s terrorism” line, and have since defended the Manhattan Project, its inevitable conclusion, and the foreign policy reforms spearheaded by the Bush Administration in the weeks and months immediately following September 11th, 2001. My argument has been this: The justification of any military action - or any implementation of violence, for that matter - lies in the context of the situation (such as the recent incineration of nearly 3,000 innocent civilians) and the philosophy behind the aggression (such as preventative measures designed to thwart a future attack, the promotion of human rights and democratic governance, or defeating an ideology whose stated goal is the destruction of western civilization).
My father, on the other hand, believes that the difference between terrorism and the events which ended WWII can be discerned, and that terrorism can be denounced outright, regardless of the cause it furthers. He has outlined his points in this paper, and after reading it more than once, I am inclined to agree with him.
If you’re interested in this debate, take a few minutes and read the paper (1,811 KB, PDF format). While you’re reading it, think about the implications of “total war”, and the difference between it and what the United States is engaged in today.
(Of course, if you’re of the mind that Truman was a racist maniac whose unspoken goal was to indiscriminately kill a lot of Asians and scare the hell out of Stalin - you know who you are - you’ll probably find yourself out of place in this discussion.)
Comments, questions, etc. are all welcome.
3 Responses to “Hiroshima & 9/11”
Leave a Reply
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5587990522549547050&q=Iraqi+War+video
This has been pretty consistant to what the majority of my interviews with military folk has been since 2004. Part of completing my university degree in Leavenworth, KS was that there was access to Fort Leavenworth and the Leavenworth Federal Prison and Military Prison.
I have many contacts who I would challenge “acts of terrorism” to “following orders”. The main difference is that modern corporate media will not touch a news story like this. The polarity of our nation does not need to be united on a cause worth fighting for as a society, this being the main reason why Clear Channel, Rupert Murdock, Knight Ridder, etc. own the publics knowledge and awareness of what is making a serious minority of rich people even more rich.
-EJ-
“(Of course, if you’re of the mind that Truman was a racist maniac whose unspoken goal was to indiscriminately kill a lot of Asians and scare the hell out of Stalin - you know who you are - you’ll probably find yourself out of place in this discussion.)”
Rhetorical Device: POISONING THE WELL
Prove that Harry S. Truman was not a racist maniac who didn’t kill a lot of Asians and did not begin a cold war and arms race with the ideals of Communism, which threatened the pockets of people who prospered. I think that if someone were to focus an argument on American terrorism just upon the Truman presidency they would be “out of place” in your discussion, but Truman’s end to WWII may have been the ulitmate terror that threatens the extension of life. Not just human life, but the threats of all living things.
Its not really Patriotic or Nationalistic to be thankful that, as an American, we should be thankful that Truman dropped that bomb before another nation did it first. Maybe this is true, but by dropping the winning hand and taking (most) of the chips first just so you can bully everyone into folding… in war… where lives are at stake… is the ultimate form of terrorism. Macroterrorism is just accepted while everyone’s focus is on individual events that are happening “live”, “latebreaking”, or “featured”.
EJ:
Point well taken. I should clarify: I wasn’t trying to “poison the well”, so to speak, as much as I was trying to couch the discussion in a certain set of terms. That is, someone who believes the above - regardless of the quality of their argument - is going to have a set of opinions which will prevent them from having a relevant view on the subject: If one believes that the context of the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was one of racism and hubris rather than a genuine attempt to end the war in an acceptable way with the smallest number of casualties, the paper my father wrote is irrelevant to them, because it works off a completely different set of assumptions. That’s not discrediting anyone or their opinion - it’s just a statement of fact.
Of course, I can’t prove that Harry S. Truman was not anything; that would be proving a negative, which is, of course, impossible. I would also question the supposition that Communism threatened the pockets of the people who prospered (of course, “those who prospered” may have thought that this was the case, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it was so in reality).
As to the rest of your comments, I think they hit the nail on the head as far as the debate at hand goes. I agree that the focus on “individual events” is out of step with reality in most respects - that is, as you mentioned, a product of the mainstream media, which I would categorize as “dysfunctional” at best. But I also think it’s improper to define “terrorism” in a broad fashion (this is, after all, a problem of definitions more than anything else). Would you call the invasion of Normandy or Hitler’s invasion of Poland acts of terrorism? I wouldn’t, but that doesn’t make the latter any less deplorable (what it does to the former is, in many ways, the topic of the paper I linked to). Regardless of how one characterizes the bombings - terrorism or not - I would maintain that they were justified and the best available option (and from what you said, it doesn’t seem like you would necessarily disagree).
But what I really want to hear is my father’s view on your comments, as you seem to
have tapped into the issue at hand quite well.
Let the games begin… :-)