The Atomic Bombings on Japan were war crimes and here is why!

Originally posted by CristobalColonic
If the atomic bombings were crimes, what does it make the fire bombings of Tōkyō? A felony?

No. The fire bombings of Tokyo were also war crimes...

reply to post by daaskapital


It was necessary to inflict damage on Japan with Atomic weapons. The damage was also unavoidable. So, there was no war crime committed. And besides, rules for war are stupid to say the least. The idea behind war is to destroy your enemy by whatever means possible in order to be the victor.

Originally posted by daaskapital
No. The fire bombings of Tokyo were also war crimes...

'Crimes against humanity' is the buzz term.

But, if you consider what crimes the Japanese committed, especially against the Chinese - something we may yet be fighting another war for in the future - maybe it was best to commit a 'white' crime to put a stop to a 'black' one... dunno.

Moving viewing - LINK

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by whywhynot
reply to post by daaskapital

 

OP guess the only real thing that you can take from this tread is that haters going to hate and rules in war don't exist.

Going by the general response to this thread, I'm going to have to agree with you!

Yeah...you gotta love how people are defending the murder of 356,000 innocent civilians including 23 US POW's in Hiroshima.

About 3 months ago I had a lengthy thread on this very topic too....but I tell you what. Watch Oliver Stones newest documentary series that's out entitled "Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States" on Showtime this month. Episode 1-3 covers the subject nicely and more thoroughly than I can realistically do on ATS w/ the character limit and all. Here is the link to the series website:
www.sho.com...

...or naturally you can also check it out on Netflix or the torrent tracker of your choice.

Indeed. I don't understand why people are still trying to defend the bombings even though they clearly violated international law at the time. It boggles my mind.

Thanks for the information! I'll be sure to watch it!

Thanks again

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

No worries....

They defend it because it frightens them more that they are not the least bit disturbed by it.

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by daaskapital

 

It was necessary to inflict damage on Japan with Atomic weapons.

Why? They already had lost the war and were BEGGING to surrender for almost a year already by the time we nuked them?

The damage was also unavoidable.

Really? The way I see it we could have avoided the damage simply by NOT nuking them. Seems pretty avoidable to me.

So, there was no war crime committed. And besides, rules for war are stupid to say the least. The idea behind war is to destroy your enemy by whatever means possible in order to be the victor.

Incorrect. Utter destruction of your enemy is great for winning battles...and even better for losing wars. The two are not necessarily related.

Read Sun-Tzu sometime and then get back to me when you understand military strategy.

Originally posted by CristobalColonic

Originally posted by daaskapital
No. The fire bombings of Tokyo were also war crimes...

'Crimes against humanity' is the buzz term.

But, if you consider what crimes the Japanese committed, especially against the Chinese - something we may yet be fighting another war for in the future - maybe it was best to commit a 'white' crime to put a stop to a 'black' one... dunno.

Moving viewing - LINK

And therein lies the hypocrisy. When WE do it...it's a "white crime" (pun intended???)...when somebody ELSE does it...it's "pure evil" or whatever.

America Is....

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by daaskapital
Words can't explain how retarded your comment is...

Right back atchya. :shk:

The Japanese attack against the USA did not give them the right to drop Atomic Bombs on them.

BULL. The Japanese attacked America. The Japanese were NOT going to surrender. The ENTIRE POPULATION was a war machine. America had every right to defend itself and to protect it's own people FIRST.

A lot of the civilians were a part of the Japanese war machine. It doesn't mean that they were voluntarily. .

1 - Yes they were voluntarily part of the war effort. I lived there .. I've been to Hiroshima .. I've been to the museum. Even the Japanese of that time tell you that they were all part of the war effort and that they wanted to WIN. Their 'god' (the Emperor) told them what to do, so they did it.

2 - Even if there were any that may not have been volunteering .. it's IRRELEVANT. They were part of a machine set to destroy America and kill Americans. It's the duty of the American government to protect Americans FIRST. It's NOT the duty of the American government to 'take it easy' on a war machine that aggressively attacked us.

Grow up. It was all out war against the USA. They started it. We finished it.
They shouldn't have started the fire if they couldn't handle the heat.

Originally posted by daaskapital
No. The fire bombings of Tokyo were also war crimes...

No. It was America defending itself against an aggressor who waged war against it. What part of the fact that the 'entire country of Japan was part of the war machine' don't you get??? Jeeeze .. take a lesson from Fromabove ..

Originally posted by Fromabove
The idea behind war is to destroy your enemy by whatever means possible in order to be the victor.

Exactly.

Originally posted by milominderbinder
They already had lost the war and were BEGGING to surrender for almost a year already by the time we nuked them?.

Not true. Go to the museum at Hiroshima sometime. You'll learn something.

reply to post by daaskapital

The Geneva convention article 26,is an ideal,completely unworkable in a combat scenario.I.m sure that many treasured buildings were destroyed by the Japanese during their destructive and barbaric invasion of China,now,would the Japanese have complied with the Geneva convention had they been the ones with the nuclear weaponry?,that I sincerely doubt as they showed a complete contempt for it in their treatment of both civilians and surrendering combatants.
I find your notion that the US were guilty of a war crime for dropping the nuclear weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima quite naive, in that the consequences of deploying a non nuclear response would have prolonged hostilities and cost hundreds of thousands of both Allied and Japanese casualties.
Regardless of the proposition that the nukes were partly deployed to make the USSR sit up and take notice,I firmly believe that Japan got exactly what it deserved.

reply to post by daaskapital

Words can't explain how retarded your comment is...

Believe it or not you actually get used to it after a while

Originally posted by sonnny1
WRONG.

Had Olympic come about, the Japanese civilian population, inflamed by a national slogan - "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation" - were prepared to fight to the death. Twenty Eight Million Japanese had become a part of the National Volunteer Combat Force. They were armed with ancient rifles, lunge mines, satchel charges, Molotov cocktails and one-shot black powder mortars. Others were armed with swords, long bows, axes and bamboo spears. The civilian units were to be used in nighttime attacks, hit and run maneuvers, delaying actions and massive suicide charges at the weaker American positions.

LINK


The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly. - Japanese slogan in the summer of 1945.

The production, movement and distribution of supplies was one of the most important aspects of the defense preparations on Kyushu.(20) Preparations included the storing of munitions in caves and other underground shelters to protect them from air raids and naval bombardment. The original Japanese plan called for the supplying of each division with one campaign unit of fire, and by July 1945 this quantity was actually in the possession of the area armies. One campaign unit of fire was sufficient ammunition for one campaign - generally understood to be a three month supply.(21) This called for the following rounds per weapon: 1,000 rounds per field piece, 25,000 rounds per machine gun, and 240 rounds per rifle.(22) However, by August 1945 with the greatly increased number of troops, it was necessary to reduce ammunition stocks to a one-half unit of fire for each unit (about 1 1/2 months). This reduction in ammunition supplies made it necessary to adjust supply plans for the high priority areas and to plan for the rapid transfer of ammunition from one area to another when the invasion was actually launched and the place and direction of attack had been determined.(23) The Japanese were preparing and may have been able to bring their ammunition supplies back up to the three month level given the amount of time between August and November.

Planes were to be released in waves of 300-400, at the rate of one wave per hour, against the invasion fleet. Sufficient fuel had been stored for this use, but only about 8,000 pilots were available.(24) Although the pilots were poorly trained and no match against experienced American pilots, they were capable enough to carry out suicide attacks against ships. At the end of the war, Japan had approximately 12,725 planes. The Army had 5,651 and the Navy had 7,074 aircraft of all types.(25) While many of these were not considered combat planes, almost all were converted into kamikaze planes. The Japanese were planning to train enough pilots to use all of the aircraft that were capable of flying.

OPERATION KETSU-GO

Naturally, the American plan considered Japanese resistance. It noted the possibility that the invasion "will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population", which would result in high casualties. In a study done by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff in Apr 1945, at least 456,000 casualties were to be expected for Operation Olympic alone. Some other evaluations were also done, and their casualty estimates ranged anywhere from 30,000 to 1,000,000. In preparation, the United States manufactured 500,000 Purple Heart medals to award to those injured in combat.

Operation Downfall was never carried out. With the use of the atomic bombs and Russia's sudden declaration of war on Japan, WW2 in Asia ended without the need for the potentially costly invasion. At the date of this writing, over 100,000 of the Purple Heart medals still sat in American government warehouses.

Preparations for Invasion of Japan 14 Jul 1945 - 9 Aug 1945

Theres a great timeline on what America did, to prepare for the actual invasion. Without the Atomic Bombs, This WAS the reality.

Yeah...you just validated my statement that it was both unnecessary and totally counterproductive to have invaded mainland Japan. The Japanese had something like 7 ships left in their Navy...all of them without fuel, and no air force, iron, steel, oil, or aluminum to speak of left on mainland Japan along with a 1 million man army without bullets waiting to be crushed by the Russians. Japan wasn't going anywhere or doing ANYTHING. They were no longer a threat. We could have just waited them out....OR ACCEPTED THEIR SURRENDER ALMOST A YEAR EARLIER.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by daaskapital

 

Words can't explain how retarded your comment is...

Believe it or not you actually get used to it after a while

I personally expect nothing less.

Originally posted by neo96

There was roughly 0.0% chance that we would have invaded Japan anyways. It was completely unnecessary and totally counterproductive to American interests.

Then why did the plan Operation Downfall?

Hmmm.

Tell ya what is a crime the Bataan death march, the rape of Nan King, and other well known atrocities.

Simple fact chemical weapons during the first world war killed more people than those 2 nukes.

So...our claim to fame is that we terrorists...just not as good of terrorists as the Japanese were.

Fantastic. Nothing like shooting for the moral high ground.

...and we wonder why the lion's share of the global population thinks we are stupid.

reply to post by daaskapital


Excellent post comrade.

Some men aren't looking for anything logical, Some Men Just Want to Watch the World Burn. - TD

Phil Strongman: Hiroshima is a war crime that haunts my family, 67 years on

reply to post by daaskapital


Well let's dig up those corpses and put those suckers on trial.
Hang em hi is what I say!

At this point there's not much of a point to this thread.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by jhn7537
Well what happens when a country mixes civilian populations with their military, should you just leave it alone? Military s should separate the two if they TRULY care about their own people...

That has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard

How would you feel if San Diego or any other city that has mixed military/civilian populations got nuked? Would you say it served them right?

So basically the only thing USA will ever need to do is to mix civilian and military populations together, right? And by doing so NO ONE would ever be allowed to attack US soil, right? Many countries over time have mixed the two for that exact reason, if we have civilians here no one will ever attack us. Well... In Japan's case that isn't always true and they paid the ultimate price by picking a fight with a country they couldn't handle... Everyone wants to blame USA for what was done, maybe you should blame Japan for picking a fight with the wrong country and picking the WRONG side to fight on back in WWII...

reply to post by daaskapital


There are many things still classified from that time and I believe these two targets were probably involved in some sort of secret weapons development programs, and namely Japan's own atomic bomb program. Take Nagasaki for instance. The bomb missed its target and mostly hit in an industrial area. Really? With an experienced bombadier and a Norton target acquisition computer, the most advanced of its time? Not likely. They hit that part of town because they new there was something being developed there. Remember, they're still selling us the romantic story of how we got it and the Germans couldn't solve the problem and the Japanese weren't smart enough to even think about it. The Japanese detonated their own shortly after the war in what is now known as North Korea, because at the time, that was the only place Japan controlled that had the electrical capacity to help develop the bomb.

And with that in mind, now you know why we really went to war in Korea. We had to get our hands on those materials before the russians. But they already beat us to it. And they probably won't tell us any of that until the last Korean War vet dies.

WWII was total war.
As well as the men out fighting, the factories producing munitions, clothes, food were targets as were the people that worked in them, their homes, the transport links.
Bombers took out whole city areas to destroy particular factories, whole estates of houses.
I fail to see the distinction between, say Coventry, Dresden, Tokyo or the two nuked cities.

Civilians were targeted because that's all that could be done back then.
I don't feel too upset about the Japanese that died, I've seen enough about what the IJA did in Manchuria and all the other conquered territories to figure that what goes round, comes round.
Same as the people of Dresden.

I reserve my sympathy for Coventry, London and all the victims of the truly monstrous actions of these two, most evil axis powers.

Originally posted by repeatoffender
But at the end of the day is this any worse than when the allies bombed 250,000 people to death in Dresden over 4 days so much so that the Germans had to pile the body's onto mountainous funeral pyres.

There are disputes on the numbers of civillians killed in the Dresden raids...

"Large variations in the claimed death toll have fuelled the controversy. In March 1945, the Nazi regime ordered its press to publish a falsified casualty figure of 200,000 for the Dresden raids, and death toll estimates as high as 500,000 have been given.[7] However the city authorities at the time estimated around 25,000 victims; a figure which subsequent investigations, including one commissioned by the city council in 2010, support."

reply to post by daaskapital


Just a question but was the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. a 'war crime' in your eyes? Then I'll offer an opinion on the subject.