Very well researched. I was a History Major at School. There is little doubt that the US did not technically need to use the bombs. I am sure people would argue that by dropping the Bombs the US saved Money and Lives by ending the war quicker. I promise if the US had invaded Japan there would have been a much larger loss of life to Civilians and damage done to the infrastructure.

There is no doubt your right that it was indeed a War Crime technically. I bet if you researched every Country in WW2 that they would all have been guilty of war crimes of one kind or another. The fact is the winning side is very seldom held accountable. It might be argued that Charges of War Crimes were initially thought of as a way to humiliate the losing side even further. Lets be clear the US has been guilty of horrendous War Crimes since 9/11. I very much doubt anyone will ever be brought to justice.

The general perspective from the UK is that they certainly were war crimes, but at the same time, the firebombing of Dresden and of Japan likely falls under the same category.

Lets not rush to judgement too much or we may find ourselves condemning every element of the war.

Any dropping of atomic weapons on our planet is a war crime against every living thing on this planet.

Originally posted by GArnold
Very well researched. I was a History Major at School. There is little doubt that the US did not technically need to use the bombs. I am sure people would argue that by dropping the Bombs the US saved Money and Lives by ending the war quicker. I promise if the US had invaded Japan there would have been a much larger loss of life to Civilians and damage done to the infrastructure.

I do agree. However we don't really know what the extent of the damage would have been if the WMD's were not dropped. What we do know is that the Japanese would have continued fighting the allies as they advanced...

There is no doubt your right that it was indeed a War Crime technically. I bet if you researched every Country in WW2 that they would all have been guilty of war crimes of one kind or another. The fact is the winning side is very seldom held accountable. It might be argued that Charges of War Crimes were initially thought of as a way to humiliate the losing side even further. Lets be clear the US has been guilty of horrendous War Crimes since 9/11. I very much doubt anyone will ever be brought to justice.

Agreed.

I don't think anyone today disputes the fact that they were war crimes.

What puzzles me, however, is how the US, the only country that has ever nuked a civilian population, can justify dictating what nations should and shouldn't be developing nuclear weapons (or power).

Originally posted by tamusan

First. The desctruction of these types of buildings were not unique to the atomic bombings. The U.S. had been firebombing Japan, for months prior to the atomic bombings, causing vast portions of Japan to be burned to the ground.

I know. Those attacks should also be classed as War Crimes.

Also, nearly all capable citizens and inftrastructure of Japan were mobilized in support of their war effort, and were no longer considered civilian. Before the first atomic bomb was dropped, the U.S. dropped leaflets over 35 cities, which described the coming horror.

Indeed. It still doesn't stop the fact that the USA violated numerous International laws, which would still make the bombings a war crime.

Second. Spend some time researching the atrocities commited by the Japanese war machine.

Who's to say i haven't?

This thread is focused on the WMD bombing of Japan. So i do not need to raise the topic of Japanese war crimes here.

Third. My Japanese wife, her family, nor any other Japanese I've met has said anything negative about the U.S. using the atomic weapons on Japan. Instead, they speak of peace and nuclear disarmament.

I imagine they would. Japanese people are generally peaceful and very respectful.

I think you're just trying to stir up some more anti-American sentiment.

Sigh...

I knew someone would raise that word in this thread. Just because i am talking about an American war crime does not make me anti-American. Nor does it mean i am anti-American. Grow up.

This has been discussed several times before, once again the Japanese apologists/USA haters are attacking the USA.

It was not a war crime, they saved a lot of lives. Also Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both valid military targets.

Originally posted by hellobruce
This has been discussed several times before, once again the Japanese apologists/USA haters are attacking the USA.

It was not a war crime, they saved a lot of lives. Also Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both valid military targets.

edit on 23-12-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

You have to be a "USA hater" to think nuking Japan was wrong?

Originally posted by hellobruce
This has been discussed several times before, once again the Japanese apologists/USA haters are attacking the USA.

It was not a war crime, they saved a lot of lives. Also Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both valid military targets.

edit on 23-12-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

I'm not attacking the USA.

Why do you's have to take offense over everything?

No, they were war crimes. Read the OP.

I quote Article 24 of the Hague Rules of Air Warfare:

3. Any bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations and building which are not situated in the immediate vicinity of the operations of the land forces, is forbidden. Should the objectives specified in paragraph 2 be so situated that they could not be bombed but that an undiscriminating bombardment of the civil population would result therefrom, the aircraft must abstain from bombing;

The bombings should have been called of, simply because they were bombing a place with civilians.

Originally posted by daaskapital
No, they were war crimes. Read the OP.

You are wrong again there.

I quote Article 24 of the Hague Rules of Air Warfare:

3. Any bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations and building which are not situated in the immediate vicinity of the operations of the land forces, is forbidden.....

Oh dear, there goes your "war crime"....

At the time of its bombing, 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 which commanded the defense of all southern Japan.[59] Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army was headquartered in the Hiroshima Castle and his command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly expected.[60] Also present in Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 5th Division, 59th Army, and most of the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit.[61] The city's air defenses comprised five batteries of 7-and-8-centimetre (2.8 and 3.1 in) anti-aircraft guns. In total, 40,000 military personnel were stationed inside the city.[62]

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. The four largest companies in the city were Mitsubishi Shipyards, Electrical Shipyards, Arms Plant, and Steel and Arms Works, which employed almost as 90% of the city's labor force.

So both were valid military targets.