What you said.

I really like this post and I am ever so grateful that someone has finally put a bit of sanity into all the atomic whining.

I think that sanity remark in relation to me is taking matters a bit too far.

I'm not sure I agree with this.

The globe headline calls the bomb a terror weapon. It does not call the dropping of the bomb an act of terror.

The debate about the morality of bombing civilian targets will continue -- probably forever. The headline, however, does not re-start the debate it calls the bomb a weapon of terror. If you think the anticipatory fear is a critical component of declaring something a part of terror then surely nuclear weapons fit the bill.

Whether an act of violence is an act of terrorism is almost always decided by the victim of the act. The purpose of the group performing the act is always the same: to change the political or military behaviour or the victim. From the perspective of the US and the allies it may have been merely a demonstration of capacity but I doubt the Japanese looked at it that way.

My problem with your argument goes further though. Isn't whether an act of violence is called an act of terrorism based almost entirely on context. WWII is full of routine military acts, which if performed today, would be called terrorism, crimes against humanity, or geonicide (allied acts include for example Dresden, or fire bombing Tokyo). However, in the context of WWII, bombing civilian targets was part of standard military practice for all sides.

On the other hand, it seems common now to use the demonizing word terrorism even when it occurs against military targets (eg USS Cole).

So, while I agree with you that the word terror is much overused, and I'm certain that political leaders of today would act in exactly the same manner that leaders did in WWII, I think that calling the nuclear bombing of Japan an act of terrorism is consistent with today's context and meaning of the word.

Whether it was a moral act is a separate discussion.

I think my problem is today's use is poor use and that is what I wrote about, not the moral question which is as you say separate. <i>Terror</i> today is not a word which one can get a handle on given all the wishery to apply it here and there. Taking that vaguery and applying it to events in WWII is doubley poor - especially as I pointed out that terrorizing was not the goal. <p><i>Terrorizing</i> in itself is an unending state, the inducement of panic to maintain panic, to make a person or population or government act against its interests or to act illogically for fear of the next boogieman. Against that idea, the USA's three week open warning to "surrender now or be devastated" and the eventual use of the atomic bomb in Japan did not have that quality. It was the reasoned if fastastically grave use of a warning of impending doom of awful and awesome deadly force and the exercise of that doom and force. Not watery - perhaps failed - terror implied in Rumsfeld's phrase "shock and awe" of two and a half years ago but the display of immediate and uttlerly indefensible utterly devastating force.<p>Why did Japan's leaders only then surrender. Not from terror of the unknown but in full awareness that the next target would likely be a glazed Tokyo and the complete destruction of the fascist administration. There was no other option.

I dunno. I understand the distinction you're trying to make but it doesn't add up for me.

No 'terrorism' is unending. It always ends when the underlying conflict ends or when one side capitulates. No one is terrorized by the unknown, they are terrorized by the know; they are terrorized when the very small possibility that they will die violently becomes a very real possibility. Is it any less terrorizing when the very real possibility becomes a certainty? When the only uncertainty is whether it will be your city and not your train?

If your only point is that the word terrorism lacks consensus in meaning and use or that you wish people wouldn't apply todays context and meaning to events 60 years ago then I can understand that.

I guess my own point is similar but takes the opposite interpretation: given todays context and todays general meaning of the word, dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian target could reasonably be called terrorism. It meets the commonly accepted criteria for terrorism: (1) it is the use of violence or the threat of violence; (2) it is done by a state, individual or group ( in this case a state ); (3) it's purpose was to bring about a political or military objective; and (4) the target was (primarily) non-combatants. I don't think it could be called an illegal act so it doesn't fit on that count.

Besides, headlines aren't about the proper use of language it's about grabbing your attention. Equating the nuclear bombs with terror bombs is a much more effective headline than equating them with terrible bombs -- except maybe for BA English majors :)

Why not, then, just remove "terror" from the headline?

Another point which is somewhat tangential: could the headline read "The Greatest WMD"? Had "WMD" been deflated as a word due to its connection to the absence of them in Iraq? Is it now so 1993?

Terror could be a correct wording according to Merriam-Webster.
I agree with what you (seem to) suggest with the entry: both Arthur and I had the same mixed feelings the last few days.

The problem that we have, in relation to terror, is that we tend to conveniently forget history. It has always been deemed appropriate when white races use various means and methods to accomplish it's own goals. Later in history we are then appalled when others use various means and methods to rebel against the society which has sought to marginalize and dominate them. We talk about terrorism as though it is an evil and bad thing, worse than our own methodology. The American government terrorized its own people by constantly showing A-Bomb movies, teaching kids to put their heads between their knees during an A-bomb attack. Terrosim is the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I find it annoying that we have the audacity to use the word terrorism to define the actions of those who we suppress, denying our own political use of terror.

right, isn't history written by the victorious?

Al, you're right. Gary, on the other hand, is making distinctions, without differences.

One can describe any act during war that includes attacks on civilians as an "act of terror", but one would be wrong to do so. There are still proper distinctions made between acts of war and acts of terror.

The fact is the attack on Nagasaki took place, as Al has pointed out, in a declared, total war, which required each side to achieve total victory or ultimately suffer total destruction. Civilians working in support of the war effort in factories, dockyards, government offices etc. of either side were seen by both as appropriate targets for attack in order to destroy the otherside's ability to make war. The Bomb's principal use was to destroy two industrial port cities, and to show Japan how quickly the Allies could bring about Japan's total and certain destruction. It was not designed to be used as a "weapon of terror and terrorism", it was designed to be used as a "weapon of total war and total destruction ". "Fear" (or "terror")in the Japanese military and civilians might have been a byproduct of its use, but "destruction" of, and "unconditional victory" over, Japan was its only goal.

The headline, in my view, was designed to create some sort of "equivalency" in the reader's mind between the act of the Allies (read "United States") in the use of the Bomb on Nagasaki and, say, the acts of terrorists in Breslan or on 9/11. What does one make of the article that follows which states that at the Nagasaki Museum "...visitors see a timeline of Japan's own military adventures, and exhibits note Tokyo's alliance with Nazi Germany "? Memo to self: ask the residents of Nanking about their 1937 Japanese "military adventure", and research further the "notes" about that Japanese/German/Hitler/Tojo/Nazi thingy.

If the citizen of Nagasaki were warned of an impending atomic bomb attack, I think it would be semantically correct to call it a 'terror weapon'. But I'm not exacly unbiased.

Memo to self: ask the residents of Nanking about their 1937 Japanese "military adventure", and research further the "notes" about that Japanese/German/Hitler/Tojo/Nazi thingy.

Why would you do that for?

I second Mike's thought, back there in the first comment.

On the note of the word terrorist, I'm swapping over to (especially wrt Iraq) using the term "paramilitary death squads", which is probably a more accurate description.

I can't leave it at that. Note that there were a lot of civilians involved in WWII that never get interviewed for their opinions on Dresden or Hiroshima. Next year, let's get a roundup on how the Korean's felt about nuking Japan. The nice thing about firebombing Dresden (the place where precision optics were made for bombers, BTW) was the Allies could be pretty certain they weren't going to hit any Jews.