Was it a war crime?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I'll just leave this here


This video does a pretty good job of explaining the thought process of the decision made to use atomic weapons.

You can call it a war crime if you want to. But I believe the war with Japan would have become far more bloody without it.


What I wonder is why does no one recount the war crimes of the Japanese? Or are the Western powers the only evil this world has ever known and everyone else was innocent? Was the real Axis powers the US, Britain, and Russia?

Every time I see stuff like this I see an attempt to subvert history in favor of the aggressors. Between the blame America folks, and the Hitler had the right idea folks, by this time next decade we'll be erecting statues of Emperor Hirohito, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini. Not directed at you personally OP. Just making an observation.
edit on 26-10-2012 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sugarcookie1
 


The United States of America, founding fathers of terrorism.

Both bombs, were intended to show both the power of the weapon, as well as the ruthlessness of American Strategists.

I think if a either, or both bombs were dropped on military targets alone, the world would be in awe yes, but it wouldn't have sent the same message. I often think, if someone were to attack my country and put my family at risk I would fight tooth and nail to save them. However, if the enemy were to dessemate everyone and thing I ever knew, what would I have to fight for. No home, no family... It's truly demoralizing. I mean, I would be angry but how can I fight that.

This is the reason I think the US used these weapons in the manner they did. As well, I'm sure as we know they needed to know what would happen if such a bomb were detonated in the proximity of so many individuals. What better way to find out the effects as awful as it sounds.

"Hiroshima, an embarkation port and industrial center that was the site of a major military headquarters"
"The target was larger than 3 miles (4.8 km) in diameter and was an important target in a large urban area.
The blast would create effective damage.
The target was unlikely to be attacked by August 1945. "Any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb."
"Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focusing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target."[46] The US had previously dropped leaflets warning civilians of air raids on 35 Japanese cities, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki"

This is from wiki en.wikipedia.org...

Here is the official explanation of the bombing.

"The goal of the weapon was to convince Japan to surrender unconditionally in accordance with the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released."

So how ever you want to look at it, at the time it was felt this was a necessary action. The targets were selected for military strategy. However you wish to look at it, in those times civilian loss of life, and homes was acceptable collateral. The allies tend to love to push historical instances of attempts to save civilians and paint the enemy as being ruthless and careless, but allied bombing carpet bombing, and shelling were just as responsible for civilian deaths as anyone else. When you are bombing with in a city, unintended casualties will occur. Even today.

How ever considering one of the main points of picking these atomic targets was Mass damage and casualties. Psychological effect. Sounds like terrorism.

ter·ror·ism/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun:
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

See, pure unabated terrorism.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I gave everyone a star weather i agree or not i feel that was fair we all have different views on this subject and i appreciate all your comments..

Japan had committed atrocious war crimes and were known to fight to the last man. However, by 1945 the Japanese were ready to surrender...

Their singular issue with the set of terms the Allies had sent them was that they were being forced to remove their emperor. I don't think they cared if their emperor had any power he was a symbol of Japan..

The Americans demonstrated their infamous inability to leave anyone to their own devices and decided that Japan should learn about democracy, like them, because clearly the US was the superior country..

So the Japanese said 'no' to the terms of surrender, and the US slaughtered over 200,000 innocent civilians. And the Japanese kept their emperor anyways..

There are those who claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were committed as revenge for the attack on Pearl Harbor..The only reason to drop the bomb not once, but twice was to show the Soviet Union that the United States was the most powerful nation in the world.

Instead, they killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children on that day. Even to this day, the survivors of these horrific events suffer from radiation and other irreversible damage to their bodies...

Even if dropping two atomic bombs on a couple of cities in Japan was in order to put an end to the war, it doesn't change the fact that millions of lives alone were affected by this event...

I feel that the situation could have been dealt with in a very different manner. Nothing justifies the mass deaths of innocent humans...It's good that we are able to acknowledge the atrocities committed in our past, but what disturbs me more than anything is our inability to learn from history look whats going on today in our world..peace,sugarcookie1


Thanks for all the information being shared on this thread...



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Hijinx
 


No the main points of attacking these targets was the fact that both cities were main manufacturing centers for the Japanese war effort. Everything from ships, to tanks and bullets.

Crippling these two cities was the only way to grind the Japanese war machine to a halt. And it did. The Japanese were NOT waning in their war effort. They were, in fact, becoming MORE fanatical. Something had to be done to not only cripple their ability to produce, but their resolve to keep fighting.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sugarcookie1
I feel that the situation could have been dealt with in a very different manner.


True, japan could have just surrendered.


Nothing justifies the mass deaths of innocent humans.


The Japanese were not innocent, who do you think were working in the factories etc to support the Japanese war effort?

This is just a case of historical revisionism, trying to blame the allies/hate the USA.
edit on 26-10-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Hijinx
 


No the main points of attacking these targets was the fact that both cities were main manufacturing centers for the Japanese war effort. Everything from ships, to tanks and bullets.

Crippling these two cities was the only way to grind the Japanese war machine to a halt. And it did. The Japanese were NOT waning in their war effort. They were, in fact, becoming MORE fanatical. Something had to be done to not only cripple their ability to produce, but their resolve to keep fighting.


Hey, if you noticed my full post I quoted the official statement from wiki as to why these targets were selected. It points out that the two cities were major industrial hubs. It also points out they were the most convenient targets to show off the effects of the weapons.

Just so happens, major civilian city center as well.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by sugarcookie1
I feel that the situation could have been dealt with in a very different manner.


True, japan could have just surrendered.


Nothing justifies the mass deaths of innocent humans.


The Japanese were not innocent, who do you think were working in the factories etc to support the Japanese war effort?

This is just a case of historical revisionism, trying to blame the allies/hate the USA.
edit on 26-10-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)


Okay, you've basically outlined the same efforts the rest of the world was doing at the time. Canada, USA, France, Germany, russia, poland, norway, etc. We were all building ammunition, ships, planes, bombs, and other weapons of war with the very intent of using them.

Yet, the USA cried and cried over the bombing of pearl harbour, a military installation, Germany over Berlin, Britain with England... These all happened in the war. Was any really any more atrocious?

Now when you bring an Atomic bomb into the picture, it get's a little bit different. Yeah, the initial blast is pretty much a instant kill, but the further you get from ground zero the more horrific and prolonged the suffering becomes.

As another posted earlier, there are still individuals alive in japan suffering because of these bombings. 1945 was a loooooooong time ago. I can't see anything justifying putting another human being through 67 years of suffering.

Keep in mind those Americans at Pearl Harbour were just doing their jobs too, along with their families.

The Damage however was not nearly the same.

I get that it was intended to crush Japan, and it most certainly did. How ever it does not make it right.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I think humans should simply embrace their naturally competitive nature.

Why fight it?

It's not like we're a race of ducks, bunnies or apples.
edit on 26-10-2012 by FlyingFox because: freedom



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyingFox
 


Sweet, alright here's the competition. We each swallow a capsule of uranium. At which point we fight to the death blindfolded. The survivor get's to suffer the effects of radiation poisoning.

Game?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragoon01
 


I agree. And we today have the luxury of viewing the question as simply a critique of historical events.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I like how questions like this get asked. Heres a war crime:
Nanking Massacre (so much for japan)

While the use of nuclear weapons now are a bad idea, at the time there weren't enough information out there to make these choices. A war was going on that wasn't going to stop anytime soon. It's because we learned from these two bombing that we choose not to use this type of weapon agian. Think how quickly this "War on Terror" would have been over with if we just dropped "A-Bomb".

It was the same with chemical weapons during the Great War (WW1 to most people). These weapons were used by all parties during the war, afterwards it was decided that the effects of these chemical weapons were too severe to be used in any future conficts.

So to say that the USA commited a war crime seems silly given all the events that were taking place at the time. While it may have had a negitive effect on suvivers, it did end a war that seemed like it could go on for many more years with thousands of more deaths. Which do you think is better?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by phroziac
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 would work.

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


I'm with this guy on this one.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FreebirdGirl
 


And you'd be wrong especially since this guy asserts that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not legitimate targets.

I guess industrial production centers aren't legitimate targets then?

Because that's what these cities were. They provided war materiel to the Japanese military. You and that poster need to spend a little more time doing research.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


That was an awesome post, I agree with you there.


Was it a warcrime? In my book it was. Any use of large scale bombs should be IMO. If it had been Japan, nuking say Detroit, and saying it is because there was lots of factories supplying weapons for the war effort, therefore it is military enough to strike....... I doubt we would condone it as a nation.... We would be crying foul for sure.


War is bullcrap, until people wise up, and stop joining the damned militaries altogether, there will always be war. As long as there is fodder to throw at the cannon, they will keep on keeping on.
edit on Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:45:10 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 

So I'm guessing you would have preferred the use of convetional weaponry?


How many bombing runs would have been necessary?

How many people would that have killed?

The conventional bombing of Japan over the course of the war killed far more people than both atom bombs combined. And it STILL did NOT achieve the goal of crippling the Japanese war machine.
edit on 27-10-2012 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by TKDRL
 

So I'm guessing you would have preferred the use of convetional weaponry?


How many bombing runs would have been necessary?

How many people would that have killed?

The conventional bombing of Japan over the course of the war killed far more people than both atom bombs combined. And it STILL did NOT achieve the goal of crippling the Japanese war machine.
edit on 27-10-2012 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)
Even the "Fire Balling" of Tokyo didn't have a war ending effect.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Guyfriday
 


That point seems to be lost on folks around here.

They don't bother with the history, and try to second guess strategy during a world freakin' war.






top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join