Was it a war crime?

Originally posted by jude11
I have always considered the term "War Crime" the most ridiculous term ever. Always used by the aggressor.

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.

Peace

edit on 26-10-2012 by jude11 because: (no reason given)

Dear Jude11,

I will agree and disagree with you. I agree all war is a crime. I disagree that we should not hope to limit the extent of the crime. I would rather be robbed than tortured. The purpose of rules of engagement is to limit the wrong, if you no rules then there is no limit to wrong.

reply to post by AQuestion


Hiroshima was a very industrial city, had a military base, and had not yet been bombed, making it a good target to display the destructive power of the US's new super bomb..I'm also a pacifist and in my eyes its a war crime it should never have happened but it did..peace,sugarcookie1

if carpet bombing of cities is not a war crime then neither is dropping "the bomb". both caused massive civilian deaths. the only difference was the amount of bombs dropped. if you compare pictures of both the atomic bombs and the incendiary bombs, it is notable that the damage is rather similar. but then when most buildings are constructed out of wood and paper what do we expect. i have actually often wondered if those devices were "fizzles" in other words didn't work properly. Americans were able to visit the sites (my grandfather was one), yet suffered NO ILL EFFECTS that we are told to expect from such devices. especially cancer.

people also seem to forget some major things when they try to vilify using the bombs. number one is that the "civilian population" would have joined in the all out defense of the "home islands", thereby negating the call of killing "innocent civilians". even babies were to be used as bombs. if you don't believe that then look at Okinawa.

The Japanese land campaign (mainly defensive) was conducted by the 67,000-strong (77,000 according to some sources) regular 32nd Army and some 9,000 Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) troops at Oroku naval base (only a few hundred of whom had been trained and equipped for ground combat), supported by 39,000 drafted local Ryukyuan people (including 24,000 hastily drafted rear militia called Boeitai and 15,000 non-uniformed laborers). In addition, 1,500 middle school senior boys organized into front-line-service "Iron and Blood Volunteer Units", while 600 Himeyuri Students were organized into a nursing unit.[15] The 32nd Army initially consisted of the 9th, 24th, and 62nd Divisions, and the 44th Independent Mixed Brigade. The 9th Division was moved to Taiwan prior to the invasion, resulting in shuffling of Japanese defensive plans. Primary resistance was to be led in the south by Lt. General Mitsuru Ushijima, his chief of staff, Lieutenant General Isamu Chō and his chief of operations, Colonel Hiromichi Yahara. Yahara advocated a defensive strategy, whilst Chō advocated an offensive one. In the north, Colonel Takehido Udo was in command. The IJN troops were led by Rear Admiral Minoru Ota. They expected the Americans to land 6–10 divisions against the Japanese garrison of two and a half divisions. The staff calculated that superior quality and numbers of weapons gave each U.S. division five or six times the firepower of a Japanese division; to this would be added the Americans' abundant naval and air firepower. The Japanese had used kamikaze tactics since the Battle of Leyte Gulf, but for the first time, they became a major part of the defense. Between the American landing on 1 April and 25 May, seven major kamikaze attacks were attempted, involving more than 1,500 planes.

Mass suicides With the impending victory of American troops, civilians often committed mass suicide, urged on by the Japanese soldiers who told locals that victorious American soldiers would go on a rampage of killing and raping. Ryukyu Shimpo, one of the two major Okinawan newspapers, wrote in 2007: "There are many Okinawans who have testified that the Japanese Army directed them to commit suicide. There are also people who have testified that they were handed grenades by Japanese soldiers" to blow themselves up.[38] Some of the civilians, having been induced by Japanese propaganda to believe that U.S. soldiers were barbarians who committed horrible atrocities, killed their families and themselves to avoid capture. Some of them threw themselves and their family members from the cliffs where the Peace Museum now resides. However, despite being told by the Japanese military that they would suffer rape, torture and murder at the hands of the Americans, Okinawans "were often surprised at the comparatively humane treatment they received from the American enemy."[39][40] According to Islands of Discontent: Okinawan Responses to Japanese and American Power by Mark Selden, the Americans "did not pursue a policy of torture, rape, and murder of civilians as Japanese military officials had warned."[41] Military Intelligence[42] combat translator Teruto Tsubota—a U.S. Marine born in Hawaii—convinced hundreds of civilians not to kill themselves and thus saved their lives.[43]

en.wikipedia.org...

so MIDDLE school children were already used as front line units in THAT battle. and other civilians committed MASS SUICIDE rather than to be captured by the "evil" american forces. then on top of that the mass use of suicide aircraft against the american forces. that is just a SAMPLE of what was awaiting on the main home islands. in terms of "civilian casualties" the use of the bombs actually SAVED many more civilian lives then they took. not to mention american lives. so how is "saving" those "civilians" a war crime?

reply to post by jude11


jude11
Thank you for posting that..Thats how i feel the act of War IS a War Crime...against Humanity.It just makes me sick..peace,sugarcookie1

reply to post by sugarcookie1


Peace Dear Sugarcookie1

reply to post by AQuestion


Peace to you also , AQuestion

What the nuclear bombs that were dropped were, was a statement.

It took many lives, civilian lives.

It wasn't an act of defending. It was an act of determination, an act of showmanship. It was saying "We are in control. We are #1."

Terrible, yes. Tragic, of course. It was a strategic move that, singlehandedly, changed the entire face of history, in "our" favor, at least temporarily. We are now seeing the downfall of a superpower. This superpower was founded much earlier, but cemented with the dropping of those bombs.

Originally posted by sugarcookie1
reply to post by jude11

 

jude11
Thank you for posting that..Thats how i feel the act of War IS a War Crime...against Humanity.It just makes me sick..peace,sugarcookie1

Thank you,

BTW, How are the biscuits coming along?

Peace

reply to post by jude11


Jude
I made 6 dozen of those biscuits they were simply yummy plus i froze allot of them for family gatherings that was a easy recipe when there gone i will be sure to make more..thanks for the recipe..sugarcookie1

Originally posted by sugarcookie1
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

Hiroshima:

Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan.[54] His command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly expected.[55] Also present in Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Fifty-Ninth Army, and most of the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit.[56] The city's air defenses comprised five batteries of 7-and-8-centimetre (2.8 and 3.1 in) anti-aircraft guns.[57] Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops

Nagasaki:

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials

en.wikipedia.org...

So both were valid military targets.

Do you think Truman made the right decision?

yes he did.

Or do you think it could have been handled differently?

Yes, Japan could have surrendered before the 1st bomb, or surrendered after the first bomb, but they refused. It took 2 bombs and the intervention of the Japanese emperor for them to surrender.

The revisionists/American haters tend to ignore that.

Originally posted by sugarcookie1
reply to post by phroziac

 

phroziac
thank you for posting.."Little Boy" happened to weigh 8,000 pounds and contained destructive power equal to 12.5 kilotons of TNT.

Wonder how much of that 8000lb was shielding

Originally posted by sugarcookie1
reply to post by jude11

 

Jude
I made 6 dozen of those biscuits they were simply yummy plus i froze allot of them for family gatherings that was a easy recipe when there gone i will be sure to make more..thanks for the recipe..sugarcookie1

Oh Yeah!

Who's the Master Baker???

I am!

Glad it worked for you,

Peace

Originally posted by sugarcookie1
reply to post by Mamatus

 

Mamatus
I agree we as humans love to kill it seems.. and war is horrific lets hope it never happens again..peace,sugarcookie1

War is human nature. It might not seem like it, and as individuals we can argue this is not the case. But nothing will prevent it happening again, greed, prejudice, hate, indifference... human traits that will ensure that the human species will either wipe itself out, or fragment itself over and over, never leaving the technological age where we learn how to destroy society.

We're a thermometer. We hit 100c and we pop. Right now, we're at 98c.

reply to post by generik

Carpet bombing cities is a crime too.

Personally I would have taken it as a sign of weakness if I was an enemy of America.

It shows the potential they have sure, but it doesn't show that they are actually capable of using it to wipe out as many lives as possible to prove a point.

By dropping it in a major city it shows that they clearly have no concerns over destroying any of the smaller cities as well, the proof is in the fact that they just went after the big ones.

WHere as if they had attacked a small place(Or a military base for example) it could be taken as them not having the guts(I use that word lightly cause its not exactly brave per-say) to use that same level of force in a situation where more people are going to die.

In a time of war you have to show your enemy you are willing to win at all costs. Which is exactly what bombing Hiroshima did.

How much fear would you have towards America as a Soviet if they just blew up an army based compared to the results of Hiroshima, the damage to the soviet morale alone would be enough to give you an advantage cause it shows America is not screwing around.

To put a needed disclaimer in place right off the bat:
1) I am not a lawyer, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. Any legal musings in this post should be considered the opinion of the author, nothing more and nothing less.

In my opinion (see disclaimer above), the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not constitute a war crime. In support of that opinion, let me direct your attention to the Hague Conventions and the first three Geneva Conventions (The fourth Geneva Convention, and the two Protocols added later aren't really germane to this discussion, since they did not exist at the time). It's common to cite the Hague and Geneva Conventions to support the claim that the US actions were war crimes, but if you read the Conventions that were in effect in 1945, there is very little dealing with civilians.

The only sections that might even peripherally apply would be from the Hague Convention of 1899, in the Annex to the Convention, "Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land".

Section II, Chapter 1, Article 25 states that "The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited." Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were covered by air-search radar, within the range of defensive fighter aircraft, and protected by anti-aircraft artillery. Whether the defensive measures were effective or not isn't relevant. The cities were defended, just not sufficiently defended.

Section II, Chapter 1, Article 27 states that "In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.

The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailant". Once again, while this might seem to be grounds to indict the US for a war crime, careful examination shows a different story. Yes, there were buildings of the sort addressed in the article in both cities, and they were heavily damaged or destroyed. However, since, in both cities, the hospitals treated both military and civilian wounded, they became valid targets. There's also the hair-splitting fact that neither device was aimed at "edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected". The fact that such structures were within the blast radius doesn't constitute a war crime.

The simplest argument to be made is that a war crime is a matter of intent, not effect. If an enemy (to use one example) puts a SAM emplacement on the roof of a hospital, and the hospital gets heavily damaged by bombing, the nation that did the bombing isn't guilty of a war crime. On the other hand, sending soldiers into a city and ordering them to selectively execute all redheads / left handed people / Jews / Christians / Whatever would be a war crime...not because people died (that's an unfortunate consequence of war) or because civilians died (also an unfortunate consequence of war), but because the entire intent of the orders given was to target civilians as opposed to military personnel.

We can argue until Doomsday about whether the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military necessities or moral outrages...but by the standards in place at the time (the only valid way to judge the action from a legal standpoint), they were not war crimes.

A war crime is only meant to label those that are not hand in hand with the USA. We have been bombing the middle east since the gulf war, killing thousands of women and children in the process. If that was to ever happen to us and we finally put an end to it, those that did the bombing would be held up to the WAR CRIME treatment, just as Saddam was. Not saying Saddam didn't deserve it. What we do and what other countries do are totally different things. We hold other countries to higher disciplinary standards than we do our own country. When we do it, it had to be done and if someone else does it, it was uncalled for and we need to step in and bring them to justice. Just my opinion.

Much love
RangerClark29.

reply to post by sugarcookie1


As a constitutional monarchy, the decision to end the war would have had to be a unanimous decision by the Japanese cabinet. The cabinet was comprised of both civilian and military representatives. The civilians wanted a negotiate cease fire, the military wanted to fight until the bitter ends. Even after Hiroshima was bombed Admiral Soemu Toyoda Chief of the Navy General Staff and General Korechika Anami, both cabinet members argued that the bombing was meaningless because the US didn’t have any more and refused to entertain a surrender.

As far as casualty estimates of a mainland invasion goes, thankfully we will never know if the estimates were accurate or not. Regardless, not included in any of the estimates were the 200,000 allied POW’s held by the Japanese who were to be executed at the commencement of the invasion of the mainland.

This is a very thought provoking thread. And depressing.

I tend to agree that because of the number of civilians involved it might very well be defined as a war crime.

War is indeed hell. Whether the use of those weapons shortened the war or not will never be actually known, but it is a safe assumption, even in retrospect.

Were some casualties avoided by killing so many? Not pleasant to contemplate.

My grandfather was sitting in the Pacific in the invasion fleet for Japan, so yes the bombing potentially saved his life and thus mine.
War is hell and inspite of how you emotionally feel about it and the emotional outcome of situations logic must rule. If you can force the other guy to stop and save more of your guys lives by melting some of his people to mush. Rock on. If he does not want his people melted down he can always stop fighting.