It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


USA - WW2 War crimes never addressed and held accountable!

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 02:46 AM
I think we should keep our nuclear bombs in case any rogue asteroids decide to come along.
Can you imagine if the world destroyed their nuclear arsenal the moment before an extinction level event?

We would look awfully stupid.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:46 AM
reply to post by dereks

I'm not ignoring that fact, i do understand there were military targets in both cities. I guess the word i am looking for is overkill.

It would be like dropping a nuclear bomb on Bagdhad and to hit 7-8 strategic targets..

Look the only point i am trying to make is that the military and government that made those decisions ( at that time ) should have been held accountable.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:50 AM
reply to post by Segador

There should never be any reason for nuclear weapons, i am surprised it is still an issue today, yet we have US in control and telling people they can't have them but yet they have a massive arsenal.

Fair enough alot of people will use them for bad things and they should not have them and if hadnt been for the US people with bad intentions would have gotten hold of them.

But i still there is no need for them anywhere on this planet, nuclear technology should only be used for medical and energy needs and not weaponised.

Although you do have a valid point about an asteroid etc, it would be ironic of the moment we got rid of them all something like that happened

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:20 AM
reply to post by Havick007

usa doesnt even have the most nukes, russia does but they seem to like obama according to their media so i wouldnt worry too much about them for a while as they would be stirring up crap if they had a bad relationship.

does anyone know what damage these nukes did to the ozone layer, along with all tested from usa,russia,france etc.....

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:39 AM
reply to post by lewman

Well to bein with CFC's did the majority of damage to the Ozone layer in which Australia suffers the most comapied to many other nations.


CFC's - ( Chlorofluorocarbons )

CFCs and other contributory substances are commonly referred to as ozone-depleting substances (ODS). Since the ozone layer prevents most harmful UVB wavelengths (270–315 nm) of ultraviolet light (UV light) from passing through the Earth's atmosphere, observed and projected decreases in ozone have generated worldwide concern leading to adoption of the Montreal Protocol that bans the production of CFCs and halons as well as related ozone depleting chemicals such as carbon tetrachloride and trichloroethane. It is suspected that a variety of biological consequences such as increases in skin cancer, cataracts,[3] damage to plants, and reduction of plankton populations in the ocean's photic zone may result from the increased UV exposure due to ozone depletion.


Also yes Russia has a higher quantity but almost on par with deliverable weapons, via launch, sub etc etc. So what?

What is your point? Has Russia used nuclear weapons on civilians?

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:28 AM
You guys could add the firebombing of tokyo with incendiary bombs, tokyo was in good part build of wooden houses, so they tough that bi burning the capital and killing oh so many civilians the war could stop earlier, this was an attempt at killing alot of civilians. now thats a horror story, but heck we won the war.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:45 AM
reply to post by dukeofjive

So that is your only justification? ''Well we won the war... ''

Basically the means did not justify the end because in winning the war we put ourselves on the same level as the people we were trying to defeat.

History has repeated itself time and time again, before and after WW2......

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:50 AM
reply to post by sy.gunson

I am not focusing in that part of the war! The only point i am trying to raise is the nuclear bombing of what were 2 majority civilian cities - yes there were miltary targets as well but the point i am raising is that the USa was never held accountable for the use of nuclear weapons on a nation and 2 civilian cities!

I have been asking over and over, do you think there could have been a better way. The blatant disregard for human lives shown by military leaders, knowing that in dropping the bomb, 10's of thousands of civilians would lose thier lives.

They knew it and still dropped the bomb. That disregrad for fellow human lives is what is wrong with this world still to this day. It has to change!

It will change...

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:05 AM
reply to post by Havick007

if you read through my posts on this topic you will realise that i agree that the usa shouldnt have nuked the japanese.
i do think that the nukes have little to do with things now as the uk could obliterate every major city in the world with their 180 nukes. the real weapon now is propoganda and the us is the nation that has all the big movies and all the big tv shows that feed false information bit by bit to the people.
this is why many americans seem so much more brainwashed than other nations as they get it everywhere and all the time and other western nations look at americans as stupid for this, when infact many of these nations are brainwashed to some extent themselvesby their own media and subtly by american movies, its just not in such an aggresive manor as the american news corporations

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:22 AM
reply to post by CommandantLassard

Just to let you know that Australia does not have a President. Our head of state is HRH Queen Elizabeth 2nd and our Prime Minister is Julia Gillard.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:22 AM
reply to post by Havick007

Number killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki:220,000.

General MacArthur's staff anticipated about 50,000 American casualties and several times that number of Japanese casualties in the November 1 operation to establish the initial beachheads on Kyushu. After that they expected a far more costly struggle before the Japanese homeland was subdued.

So, you got the same amount of dead JUST to establish the beachhead- not counting who knows how many more years of bloodshed after that....
And your statements about how this was done so casually without any regard for human life is incorrect.

Truman learned about the atomic bomb soon after becoming president. Now, he agonized over whether to use the weapon against the Japanese.
edit on 28-12-2010 by Skippy1138 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-12-2010 by Skippy1138 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:00 AM
yes it was a good thing...
I am not happy saying this.
as I hate what was done to japan.
But if we did not have this to look back on.
do you thing USA and russia would have gone to war if
they did not have the horrors of japan to look back on?

it came very close.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by Havick007

You would make a better Kiwi and an Australian

I think you'll find a majority of the world is against nuclear weaponry, I personally don't think we should even have nuclear power plants either.

On the flip side of the Israel having nuclear bombs keeps her Arab cousins from taking her in to another full scale war of multiple Arab countries. They know by wiping out Israel means the fall out equals wiping out pretty much the intire Middle East. If Israel dismantled her nuclear arsenal tomorrow, would that 101% guarantee none of her neighbours would seek WMD? I think not.

I won't go in to hypotheticals of Russia or China using their WMD on any nation because the fallout, they know, would destroy the intire world and I am reasonably confident they would never use their big ones in any war on earth. Smaller more contained WMD like the Atom bomb used over Japan? Perhaps sometime in the future. Their nuclear power stations are probably a greater worry. I suspect the USA may have used at least one or two very small ones over Iraq. Would Iran or North Korea? The stakes are higher. Both Iran and Iraq used biological WMD during their conflict with eachother and both countries have it on the Kurds. So who is not to say Iran would use nuclear WMD ? Pakistan? I have no doubts they would use their capabilities on India if forced to do so.

May I also remind you of the atmospheric nuclear experiments by both British and American in South Australia during the 1950s? The fall out still continues to this very day.

Strange how the major nuclear powers signed a treaty to stop nuclear atmospheric, sea and space experiments but NOT underground.

We don't need nuclear power stations period however if solar panels were alot more affordable....if African huts can power up using solar panels as small as 2x A3 size cheaply then why can't every home around the world have them?

Now let's go to space. It is not an impossibility earth could be endangered by an alien invasion at some time in the future. What then?

I do know the Americans have lazer technology in their arsenal that can turn a man's eyes to dust and could cut a man's body in pieces in seconds but has not been used on the war front to date (or have they?). Perhaps lazer technology is more feesible than nuclear WMD. Either way, the nuclear race is on and I'm afraid to say there are now many other countries now sniffing around to obtain nuclear technology; I know Jordan, Egypt, Burma and Saudi Arabia are big contenders. Iran...I'm already certain they have enough to build 1-3 bombs already; size? Is anyone's guess but I'm sure Israel and the USA have far better inside knowledge to their every move. I'm afraid it's pretty much too late now to stop the nuclear race. To keep it out of the South Pacific and nuclear free....won't happen because even though NZ is nuclear free, we all know there are American nuclear powered with nuclear WMD on board their subs that roam NZ waters and the rest of the South Pacific.

The USA and war crimes re Japan? A very close relative spent 2 years in a Japanese POW camp and close to death when his camp was liberated by the Americans. You want to know how many American and Coalition soldiers were murdered in these POW camps? Not many got out alive and barely! We still don't know the true count of those missing that walked in to those POW camps and were never seen again. I won't go in to details what went on in those camps but I can tell you what those Japs did to our men would make even the worst Nazi blush! You are aware of at least 2 Japanese subs that invaded Sydney Harbour during WW2. They bombed a ferry full of innocent people. The sub sunk and was only just discovered a year or so ago.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:17 PM
I see it this way. The japanese deserved the attack, but not in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Those were two of the most unstrategic locations anyone would lob off a bomb. Why not do it at the emporer?

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:26 PM
reply to post by Havick007

Shame on you...
"How dare you win the war."

"How dare you try to beat the enemy that attacked you."

F*** That.

They started it. We finished it.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:40 PM
reply to post by Havick007

Weapons of Mass Destruction are only declared Weapons of Mass Destruction AFTER they have been used. Nerve Gas, Mustard Gas, Napalm, Daisy Cutters, Nukyellar Bombs, Depleted Uranium Bombs, Bunker Busters etc....

Apparently, just labeling something that kills thousands in one hit is not enough, and you have to label each one Individually. So the US Military keeps inventing new ways of destroying masses of People, uses them, then people realize it's a WMD and then Ban it. Basically, It's NOT a WMD until it gets used for the first time and the Media Finds out.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by Havick007

War crimes only exist for the defeated. And besides. mostly everyone who did them are dead.

War crimes do not exist. War is a crime. It's only justice is its end.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:11 PM
I have no doubt that many, many more American lives would have been lost had we not dropped the two A-Bombs.

However, I have always wondered whether it was necessary to bomb areas with heavy civilian populations off the get go. If I were Truman at the time, I would have ordered the initial bombing of less populated areas first, to give Japan the chance to save some of its civilians.

Millions of innocents undoubtedly met their gruesome end at the hand of the Japanese, but you cannot use this to justify the targeting of civilians.

Would Japan still have surrendered if we displayed our Atomic might somewhere with a less dense population? Nobody will ever know, but I would like to say we gave them the chance.
edit on 28-12-2010 by ddaniel because: typo

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:14 PM
We (the allies) killed thousands

The Axis killed thousands

You only hear about the Axis though. Very similiar to only hearing about the Japanese internment camps and not the German internment camps of WW2.

I was explaining to my daughter the other night about the holocaust. I told her that while many bad things happened, dont believe it all. In ww1, the common lie was that the German Landsers would pitch french babies into the air and catch them on their bayonettes.

War is about killing the most number of people and destroying more enemy assets in the shortest amount of time. Whom ever it is that wins, can tell the biggest lies with no one to challenge the lie.

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:22 PM

Originally posted by lewman
the saddest thing of all is that the japanese had agreed in principal to surrender before the bombs where dropped. this act in itself was one of the most evil act of all time.

Where are you getting your info?? How about Hitler, China, Russia, Africa and their mass genocides. Frankly you have no Idea what you are talking about!

There were no war crimes against anyone (when it came to bombs) because during WW2 countries dropped bombs in a hit and miss fashion and there was not any rules about nukes (because they did not exist publicly). This is just more anti American rhetoric and to me is disgusting to say the least. If you are an American then IMO you are the disgrace!

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in