911, Dresden and Hiroshima

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear.

The word terrorism is on everyone's tongue but what is it? Anthony Gregory gives us his views on the subject in Targeting Civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have heard the arguments that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism. This is not an easy subject for me since my mothers cousin, Richard Nelson, was the radio man on the Enola Gay and a frequent visitor to our home when I was growing up. There are many justifications for the bombings and I have heard them all. But if one accepts the above definition they certainly qualify as terrorism.

People still defend Harry Truman's atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on pragmatic grounds. Truman's defenders say that the bombings saved far more lives than they extinguished. They concede that the bombing was an act of targeting civilians, but insist that it was for the worthy goal of ending the war.

Before even examining the plausibility of this argument, we have to acknowledge the argument's essence. In effect, to rationalize the targeting of noncombatants as the best method of bringing about a greater good is to make excuses for state terrorism. Terrorism, if it means anything, is a method by which civilians are the targets of violence for the purpose of achieving political goals. Having Imperial Japan surrender, even if a worthy goal, was nevertheless a political one, and the targeting of innocents to achieve that goal was an act of terrorism.

Indeed, it was terrorism on an incredibly large scale. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese were instantaneously wiped off the earth on August 6 and August 9, 1945. Many more died in the following years from the radioactive climate left behind by the bombings.

So the questions remain: Was this a case where terrorism was justified? Can there be other circumstances where the overt targeting of civilians can be justified, so as to bring about a greater good?

Let's assume that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified to protect our political and cultural way of life then can't the same be said for the jihadists who see America and western civilization as a threat to their culture. Can you justify one and not the other? This is truly intended to be a question not just a rhetorical one, something we need to think about. While I don't agree with Mr Gregory's blanket condemnation of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki I do think we need to look at the justification of them when we condemn the actions of the Islamic jihadists. We are the victims this time, is that the only real difference?
Update
The Liberal Avenger has picked up this post and there is some good discussion going on over there. This post was intended to ask questions and stimulate thought not to give answers. I don't agree with many of Anthony Gregory's conclusions but I do feel it is important to think about them.