It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 11
89
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
ok guys lets get the shovels & dig up truman




posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
This was over 90 years ago, and you still care about this? NO ONE CARES ANYMORE.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
All wars start because of someone else did something that was considered morally wrong by another people and needed to be rectified. We still see this happening everyday.

In Hitler's own demented mind, what he was doing was morally right, while others thought it wrong. It just goes to show you that reality is not fixed. Everyone has their own version of reality, that is shared in a collective of minds amoung people of like mind. Where you have divurging cultures, there will be friction because those cultures will likely not see eye to eye. This is seen all throughout human history.

Take the Crusades, it originally started back around 700 A.D. when the muslim went on a rampage conquering the M.E. and Northern Africa and penetrated into Spain. Pillaging, raping, enslaving, murdering their way across the old world. Charles Martel was forced to mobilize an army to stop them because they were destroying another people's way of life. Two cultures clashed and not for the last time, each one in their own minds believing they were in the right. That right there is 2 examples of shared collectives of like minded people, each believing their own ways were morally right.

Not everyone on the planet shares the same reality and thats why we have wars.
edit on 24-12-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by CAPT PROTON 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.


The mystic secret is that they dropped by radar, blind. Both the primary and secondary targets were socked in solid.

The official story is that they had a magic few-second opening in the cloud cover that allowed them to get just enough of a sighting to hit their target. But it's not true. They didn't want to drop the weapon in the ocean, and they couldn't land with it. They got orders to drop by radar. And it wasn't very accurate at that time. So they were off a bit.
edit on 24-12-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
There is no honor in defeating your opponent with unequal weapons. The word "honor" is abused too frequently by governments and their military. That's just my opinion.

The attack of the Japanese on Pearl Harbour was that of a coward.

The use of atomic weapons was a gruesome experiment and not less cowardly.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
People seem to forget that the USA was fire bombing the Japanese citys (mostly built of wood) and in some of those raids even more people were lost than in the bombing of the A-Bombs. Tokyo was bombed for 25% structural damage in a single night, 124,711 people dead/burnt (considered a low estimate by some) and 1 million people homeless. These raids lasted 6 months. This still wasnt surrendering them. In fact, they didnt even surrender until after the second A-Bomb.

Rules are useless if your opponent is willing to fight to the last man standing and employ harsh tactics themselves, like Kamakazi.

If I read the history, I think the A-bombs actually saved lives. I think the Japanese wouldnt have surrender if they only were being fire bombed. It took the A-Bombs to change a cultural mind set that they are no longer superior and its not worth fighting for. Even the emperor in his speech told his people "we have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is insufferable." Implying it was a very hard decision to surrender even after the A-bombs.
edit on 24-12-2012 by MrSmith because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-12-2012 by MrSmith because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhereIsTheBatman
There is no honor in defeating your opponent with unequal weapons. The word "honor" is abused too frequently by governments and their military. That's just my opinion.

The attack of the Japanese on Pearl Harbour was that of a coward.

The use of atomic weapons was a gruesome experiment and not less cowardly.


Honor is subjective in the minds of men. What is considered honorable for some men is cowardly to others. If dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima would spare millions more lives at the cost of a few hundred thousand, then the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and could be seen as honorable in the scale of preserving human life.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Excellent research! I have, for several years now, found the issue of the atomic bombings of Japan to be a very complex issue in my mind. I have been living in Japan for over 5 years now and I have heard just about every opinion of the atomic bombings one could think of. Yet, this is the first time I have heard anyone suggest it was a war crime. I looked up the laws of war, for that time in human history, that you cite and you are 100 percent correct. There is little doubt it was a war crime.

Considering that Japan was desperately attempting to surrender to almost anyone, except the Russians and the Americans, could the USA be guilty of more war crimes then just bombing hospitals and religious sites? I am not too sure about it but even then there might have been a rule about `beating a dead house.` If the enemy is unable to fight, and you keep attacking them while they are trying to surrender, would that not be genocide?



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 





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.


Tell me the where the moral high ground is calling those people who are dead "war criminals" or "terrorists".

They are all dead, those who flew the mission, those who built the bomb. and the guys whose call it was to drop those bomb.

But hey go on an vilify them as if it matters why does the world think "we are stupid" speak for yourself.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I wonder what would the general opinion of the usual anti western posters that went all "WAHHH US BAD THEY USE NUKES" in this thread, if the US would get nuked after conducting an air strike in... Iran.

You'd be spamming how the US "got what it deserved" and cheer.
Your "care" for human casualties of Hiroshima / Nagasaki is an obvious disguise for going out against the US, as usual.

Japan got nuked? It wasn't necessary you say? Well, they could've avoid it by not pulling off a pearl harbor/staying the hell out of it.

This thread summarized: Usual anti western children are butthurt over the allies' victory in ww2, thinking a world under Japanese/Nazi German rule would've been better, and also raging that the US turned into a superpower. Wipe your tears.
edit on 24-12-2012 by IsraeliGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 



Originally posted by daaskapital

If Japan or Germany had bombed your country with Atomic Bombs, you would be screaming "war crime."


Probably in German though. And think as it has been already stated, the victors don't get tried for war crimes. So if Germany and the Axis powers had used the Atomic Bombs who exactly would be left to scream war crimes?

Thanks for the OP, I've been really enjoying trying to follow and research all the quotes and debatable points.

edit on 24-12-2012 by psychre because: (no reason given)


+3 more 
posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Normally, I wouldnt waste my time replying to such an asinine thread, but the Op is purposely misleading you all by taking certain statements out of context and alluding that they mean anything.

Here is the truth as I know it, and please OP, feel free to argue these in-arguable points:

First, try reading the Potsdam Declaration. The US told both the emperor and the people," they would face prompt and utter destruction" if they didnt surrender immediately. It was the day after the first test of the A-bomb.
The US dropped leaflets for days and radio broadcasts of the same were on every station available.

The Japanese refused to heed these warnings. Why? Well because the year before, the Emperor made the National Mobilization Law. What was that you ask? It was a law demanding that EVERY man and woman get military training who were between the ages of 15 to 60 for men and 17 to 50 for women. ALL OF THEM WERE THEN ARMED. Some with munitions, some with pitchforks, but ALL were now soldiers.

The ones that didnt make the cut, were used as slave labor to produce munitions for the war effort.

Every single man, woman, and child in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in the army. Does not matter that most were forced to be. Once "full war" is declared by a country making such a law, symantics of slave or soldier means zero to the opposing force.

So first, your "argument" that bombing those cities is a violation of the Hague Convention, specifically...targeting civvies, is a deflection from the truth, if not an outright lie.

So lets move on to your whole basis of this thread...the Hague Convention.

First let me mention the startingly obvious point that no convention, treaty, or handshake between the US and any other entity DOES NOT SUPERCEDE THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THIS LAND. A treaty or the punishments it claims to offer for offenses, means jack squat to a sovereign nation.
It is not open for interperetation because that treaty has never been ratified by the Legislative Branch of the US.

A treaty is a contract of sorts. Meaning that in order to have a redress of grievences, you must also follow the rules of the contract as well. Japan violated that treaty long before the US even entered the war so they have no possible redress to any court anywhere. Which means that the rules of war outlined in the original contract DO NOT apply to the entity who violated it.
The Hague Convention merely states that it prohibits the targeting of,"undefended populations" that is it.

Was either of those two cities undefended?? Not even close. Besides my mentioning of the National Mobilization Law making ALL citizens of age into soldiers, may I add Operation Downfall into the mix?

The Japanese were fully aware of Operation Downfall, which was the plan for a ground invasion of Japan itself by the US and allies. It was the purpose for the Emperor making the NML in the first place. He knew an invasion was inevitable and armed/trained civilians to expect it.

The estimated US casualties of the operation was expected to be over 1 million US soldiers. While Japan wanted a ground invasion to happen so they coyld negotiate surrender in a better position, the US had a choice:

Lose a million more citizens, or end the damned thing once and for all. They made the correct choice and didnt violate the Hague Convention because neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki were considered,"undefended civilian positions" as every citizen residing in thise cities fell under the National Mobilization act and were for all intents and purposes....soldiers defending against a ground attack.

The International Red Cross put in their two cents regarding this issue shortly after had this to say," In examining these events in light of international Humanitarian Law, it should be bourne in mind that during the second world war, there was NO AGREEMENT, TREATY, OR OTHER INSTRUMENT governing the protection of civilian populations."

Not good enough? Well heres what the damned Emperor himself said regarding it," While it is regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped, it couldnt be helped...it was wartime."

Listen, I could pick apart your thread all damned day, but theres really no need as anyone with a fifty IQ and an internet connection knows you may not be outright lying, but definitely distorting the truth.
edit on 24-12-2012 by MisterMaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
This just sounds like leftover leftist indoctrination from the old Nuclear Freeze movement, and even they have moved on to the more powerful UN Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development.
Why are you even fussing about with this?



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedomwv

Considering that Japan was desperately attempting to surrender to almost anyone, except the Russians and the Americans,





ANYWAY

OP

Looking forward to your next thread about Cain killing Abel.

edit on 24-12-2012 by Lifespan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Looks like I was right, this IS leftover stuff from the Nuclear Freeze movement
en.wikipedia.org...


The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation was founded in 1982, and is composed of individuals and organizations worldwide who support worldwide efforts to abolish nuclear weapons.[1] The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-profit, non-partisan international education and advocacy organization. It has consultative status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council and is recognized by the UN as a Peace Messenger Organization.[1]



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 





You are the one who implied that the death of civilians in Japan was justified due to their use of mixing civilian and military infrastructure...so I mentioned the fact that this happens modern day, including in the USA, so let's say the USA attacked some one first (which they have done a lot of lately) and the attacked country decided to strike back, it would be justified, your logic says so so do not try and twist my words.


Yeah let's talk bout countries that attacked first like Japan attack Mainland China first,the Philipines first, then Pearl Harbor.

Then Germany attack first, then Iraq attacked first and then we have the even that trigger the last decade 9-11 but of course 9-11 was not the fist attack it was the attack that woke up the world for decades of hatred.

Then we all know Iraq attacked kuwait before the Arab world cried they were hurting Saddam too badly which also led to the second go round of the Gulf war which everyone knew was coming.

The bombings justified? Yeah they were.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


To be more exact, the supporting evidence seems to be derived from the 1963 case of Shimoda vs. The State.

Shimoda et al. v. The State, Tokyo District Court, 7 December 1963



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
The goals of the bombings of the 2 Jap cities.

1) To win the war at the earliest possible moment.
2) To justify the huge cost of the Manhatten Project.
3) To show the Russians how mighty and powerful the USA is.
4) A revenge strike for pearl harbor.

Bombing civillians was a moot point because the fire storms created by allied bombings had
already killed many civillians 2 nukes did not really matter..Killing civillians is irrelevant.

Limbo



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Limbo
 


Exactly we saved more Japanese then we killed. It might be insane to think about it that way but it's the truth.



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join