The A-Bombs

While that is likely true, we need to keep in mind that Pearl Harbor was a military target and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were civilian targets.One definition of "terrorism" I've heard repeatedly is "a military or para-military attack on a civilian target".Following this logic, the US responded to a military attack with one of the greatest acts of terrorism in history. (As a comparison to the 9/11 attacks, more US citizens and allies in Japan were killed as a result of the A-bombs than the total death toll of 9/11).

So I dohave a point? What are you saying here?
Or perhaps more to the point - how would you define 'terrorism'? I never said that the actions of the Japanese leadership and military were honorable or good. That's a bit much - I wish I knew what political statement I was so intent on making - perhaps you could explain my intent to me?I was simply responding to the oft-cited logic that because of the Pearl Harbor attack, Japan somehow deserved to have two cities and (I believe) over a hundred thousand civilian lives destroyed.That is neither logical nor ethical.The fact that carpet and fire bombings were routine in WWII does not make them ethical, either. If such methods were ethical, the US would currently not be so intent on the use of targeted weapons to avoid wholesale destruction.I'm sure a contemporary example will make you wince since you are arguing historical context, but what the hell:
If in response to the US invasion of Iraq, Saddam had destroyed two major US cities without warning, say with the use of nuclear 'suitcase' bombs, the US would scream "terrorism!"
How is it different? The hypothetical Saddam wanted to force the US leadership to capitulate, without risking further Iraqi lives...I do not believe that the furthering of military goals should include the murdering of 'enemy' civilians, regardless of the atrocities committed by one's enemies. When such acts are committed, they are atrocities in themselves. Thus I also would never support the wholesale destruction of any city, since the civilian casualties are far beyond unavoidable collateral damage.Did the US have no other viable alternatives? Others on this thread seem to believe alternatives existed.I agree that the intentional spreading of malaria through China was an atrocity. However, was the US response, a double-city-holocaust, morally correct or even logically justified?What, specifically, prevents the use of atomic weapons from also being labeled an atrocity?

DS, you reply is frustrating, namely because you spend your entire message responding to things I never stated. Not once did I state that the use of the atomic bombs was different than any other atrocity (unless you can show me where I did so), yet you argue against that throughout your post.The rest of the post is similarly arguing against misconception, especially if you read my previous posts in the context of the thread I was responding to.As far as my definition of terrorism, I was told that was the US military definition by someone I trust in the US military - admittedly I have not checked for a primary military source on that.Actually, when you weren't arguing against things I didn't say, you were basically reiterating the content of my previous posts...