Was it a war crime when the US nuked Hiroshima & Nagasaki?
The Japanese were specifically warned of assured utter devastation. They made no effort to capitulate. The first Bomb was dropped. The Japanese did
not tender capitulation.
They were warned of more of the same to follow. They did not respond in a satisfactory manner. They continued to carry out preparations for Homeland
Defense while Japanese Naval, Air, and Land Asserts continued hostile action. The Second Bomb was dropped. The Japanese capitulated..
It is my belief that the main reason we dropped the second bomb was because we had two designs of bomb: fat man and little boy, and the military
wanted to test both to see which was the 'better' bomb...
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were highly populated cities,so were the surrounding areas plus they were full of of women, children and infants.. these were
not vital tactical target sites bombed by the USA there were no bases there for any for munitions..No enemy ships in the harbors or armed forces as
far as i know of..
I see no rationale reason for these 2 city's to be destroyed..But maybe it was a smart move on the part of the USA to strengthen the "position at
the bargaining table" The Soviet Union didn't have any such bomb yet, so it looks like we had the upper hand at the time so we could have everything
Ive had people say the reason that these bombs were justified, was based on the fact that Truman was forced into a corner that could have led to more
deaths for all the countries. He ended the entire war with two bombs and Japan didn't think twice with Pearl Harbor, there were innocent family
members there too. The Atomic Bombs wasn't just merely to end the war, it was an American payback...
Did we do this to show the Soviet Union that the United States was the most powerful nation in the world i would think Japan would have known this
already...Did the USA do this to prove it to themselves? Then the USSR quickly became a superpower with atomic weapons by the end of the 1940s that
brought in the cold war..They didn't want to be under the thumb of the US, anymore than they wanted to be ruled by the Nazis...
I just cant see what we did to the two Japanese cities worth it..all the after effects of radiation poisoning,all the human deformity's,some of them
lived suffering,for hours maybe weeks or months before dying being burned alive all over there body's that had to be a horrific site,sure the war
ended but at the cost of the destruction of the nation and its people as a whole...I hope we never have another nuclear war.
Do you think Truman made the right decision? Or do you think it could have been handled differently?
Thanks for flying,sugarcookie1
Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Real Footage)
I hate the answer. It is because those cities were manufacturing what was used in the war. The military are taught to take out the supply lines, it is
the quickest way and best way to take out the military. General Douglas MacArthur was the best at it. His whole plan for the war was to cut the supply
lines of the Japanese, they called it island hopping. If you cannot get reinforcements or supplies, then you cease to matter and we go around you
thereby conserving our supplies. Manufacturing is much more complicated than is shooting a gun and it takes a lot more to replace your manufacturing
I am not sure if the force that was used in the bombings of these two cities and the complete devastation caused by it was completely necessary. Yes,
they killed many Americans with the surprise bombing of Pearl Harbor, which was completely uncalled for. But what we responded with was many steps
beyond what they did to us, taking many more lives. They did deserve retribution, but we responded in a much more devastating way. Very nice post
Sugarcookie. Well thought out and poignant.
edit on 26-10-2012 by Rubicant13 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-10-2012 by Rubicant13 because: (no reason
edit on 26-10-2012 by Rubicant13 because: (no reason given)
I dont think it did either. But you have to remember that some of those in the US financed both sides and imported their top scientists to the US
after the war. I agree it was not justified and sadly some people live their whole lives without ever being brought to justice.
Mabey the way to answer the question is to ask the reverse question. What would of happened if the bombs werent dropped. How would the war of ended,
and how many lives would be lost in the process of a conventional war to bring Japan to surrender.
What would they have called it if we went in and pulled a Darfur on Japan? Pride alone would have propelled every man woman and child into ANY
invading force attacking them.It would have been their GIRI to die that way if their leadership had not surrendered.
Did you forget about what we did to Dresden? No nukes but we carpet bombed a (mostly) civilian population into oblivion?
More here from Wikipedia:
he Bombing of Dresden was a military attack on the city of Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, that took place in the final months
of the Second World War. In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United
States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city. The resulting firestorm
destroyed fifteen square miles (39 square kilometres) of the city centre and caused tens of thousands of civilian casualties.
In times of war things happen that are horrific. We learn nothing as a species except how to be better at killing. YEah medicine and whatnot but
face it, we are all about the killing each other.
Hiroshima was chosen because of its large size, its being "an important army depot"... (a description which nowadays seems to have been exaggerated)
and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction because the city was surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing
Only the uranium gun type bomb was a test. The plutonium implosion bomb was a proven design from the trinity test. But they "knew" the gun bomb
Also Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not reasonable military targets.
So yes, its a war crime. By the way, why did the little boy bomb do more damage?
Furthermore, a nuclear bomb is a device specifically intended to commit war crimes, therefore shouldnt be allowed. Atleast with a gun or a
(conventional) missile, it usually hits what you intended and nothing else....and if it doesnt, its not the guns fault...could be a missiles fault.
Nukes are intended to kill civilians, who most likely dont even want the war. And if the district of columbia ever nukes another country again, its
time to end dcs ecistance
This is from Wikipedia, not absolute but of interest.
During World War II, the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina
port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.[
It was a key for shipping, the supply chain. If we truly just wanted to kill people, Tokyo would have made much more sense and we had bombed it during
the war. I understand war and am a pacifist; but, trained. My first degree was in History and I studied under the editor for the most famous military
history periodical. I am opposed to war and a pacifist. They bombed the cities that they did because they wanted to destroy the supply chain, not
people, quantities of people did not matter.
As for the second bomb, they did that because the first did not get the desired effect. The Japanese did not ask to end the war even after the first.
We did not have to or want to use both bombs, think about it. Russia would have much more concerned knowing that we still had another that was already
made. Using the second did not prove anything other than that we could do it again, even the Japanese did not believe we had more than one, that is
why they did not immediately quit the war, they didn't think we could do it twice.
I have always considered the term "War Crime" the most ridiculous term ever. Always used by the aggressor to justify and by the aggressor as
It's War. How can there be any crime involved many ask? Just the very act of war is a crime in and of itself. But then some tribunal goes and states
that War must be fought HUMANELY? Such hypocrisy.
I hate war, I despise it in all its forms. Only those that are ok with it will lay out terms such War Crimes, Rules of Engagement, Acceptable Loss of
Life etc. Only to justify the initial atrocity of War itself.
War is War. Innocent people die but the majority are not even recognized as having died as the result of War Crimes but rather "Collateral
Damage"...Another polite term to justify murder in order for the murderers to have a clean conscience and a good night's sleep.
In other words, the very act of War IS a War Crime...against Humanity.
edit on 26-10-2012 by jude11 because: (no reason given)
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.