Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
88
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce
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.


Yes, but both military targets were in the presence of civilians, therefore the bombings were war crimes.

Again, i quote Article 24 from 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 were clear war crimes even though the cities were valid military targets.
edit on 23-12-2012 by daaskapital because: quote
edit on 23-12-2012 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
I quote Article 24 of the Hague Rules of Air Warfare:


You must have missed this bit

which are not situated in the immediate vicinity of the operations of the land forces, is forbidden


So not war crimes....


The bombings were clear war crimes even though the cities were valid military targets.


Wrong, they were not war crimes, they saved a lot of life.
edit on 23-12-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by daaskapital
I quote Article 24 of the Hague Rules of Air Warfare:


You must have missed this bit

which are not situated in the immediate vicinity of the operations of the land forces, is forbidden


So not war crimes....


The bombings were clear war crimes even though the cities were valid military targets.


Wrong, they were not war crimes, they saved a lot of life.
edit on 23-12-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)


In my opinion, this law pretty much proves that the bombings were war crimes. Even if you don't believe it, there are other laws i outlined in which the USA violated (therefore classing the WMD bombings as war crimes).



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
In my opinion,


however your opinion does not count in a international court of law...

The bombing was not a war crime, however much you want it to be.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by daaskapital
In my opinion,


however your opinion does not count in a international court of law...

The bombing was not a war crime, however much you want it to be.


I outlined it in the OP. The USA broke the International law as outlined by the Hague Conventions. Therefore, the bombings were war crimes.

Both the USA and Japan signed the treaties at the conventions, so both should be held liable for their crimes.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
The USA broke the International law as outlined by the Hague Conventions.


But you ignored the phrase that showed it was not a war crime..... Your hatred for the USA is showing!



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


there are not any rules in war.lol. i thought you would know that.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Completely random comment.....


I have never understood laws of war, you go to war, if you want to win it's not like you are going to follow the rules.

It's like me getting into a fight and agreeing to no headbutts, if you start winning, my head is a gonna start rocking.

That being said, dropping 2 atomic weapons on a populated city goes below the belt, especially when the enemy was going surrender after the first one, god bless Amerika. (intentional mis-spelling)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by daaskapital
The USA broke the International law as outlined by the Hague Conventions.


But you ignored the phrase that showed it was not a war crime..... Your hatred for the USA is showing!


For # sake.

If you ignore that one article, there are so many others which prove that the bombings were war crimes.

The USA detonated both bombs in the spheres, aiming for ultimate destruction. This correlates with the law:

Article 23 of the Hague Convention:


(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.


Considering the bombs were detonated before hitting the ground (to maximise the damage done), it can be said that the USA was aiming to cause the Japanese "unnecessary suffering." This is just another law in which the USA violated.

Just because someone has a different opinion to that of Americans does not make them Anti-American.
edit on 23-12-2012 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
especially when the enemy was going surrender after the first one,


They were not going to surrender after the first one, they refused to surrender. Even after the 2nd bomb the emperor had to intercede to get the military to surrender.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Well I would say that your argument is unfair.

The conventions you mention were put in place before air power had come of age and was really in it's infancy compared to 1945 when the atomic bombs were dropped.

I don't actually believe the dropping of the atomic bombs was necessary to make the Japanese surrender. Virtually all Japanese maritime shipping had been destroyed so they couldn't get any more oil. But personally I'm not sure I'd say it was a war crime.

The atomic bomb at the time was seen as just another weapon by many and they saw no reason not to use it. I've heard it said that the Manhattan Project cost about $2 billion so the U.S. military had to justify that expense by using the bomb. However the project to develop the B-29 actually cost more.

To be honest...I'm just not sure where I stand in this argument.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   


They were not going to surrender after the first one
reply to post by hellobruce
 


If I recall that's not true.

The Japanese were making intimations through the embassy in the Soviet Union that they'd be willing to surrender as long as the Emperor could remain on the throne.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
If you ignore that one article, there are so many others which prove that the bombings were war crimes.


no, it was not a war crime, despite what you claim.


Article 23 of the Hague Convention:


(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.


Considering the bomb was detonated before hitting the ground (to maximise the damage done),


Wrong again, in fact detonating the bombs at altitude reduced the fallout!.And just what unnecessary sufffering was caused?



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


What to my mind makes the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki so odious and criminal is that unlike conventional bombings, there is not the sound a of large number of incoming aircraft that give a warning to civilians to take cover. The B-29s that did these bombing runs came at the expected time of US weather planes, so no one took notice of them.

That said, the US incendiary bombings of cities in Japan and Germany were also warcrimes, as were the night-time raids by the British and the German Blitz and the V-1 and V-2 campaigns. The USSR committed a few warcrimes too, such as allowing its troops to rape and pillage Germany as it closed it on it.

Alas, the victor never gets tried for war crimes.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by daaskapital
If you ignore that one article, there are so many others which prove that the bombings were war crimes.


no, it was not a war crime, despite what you claim.


Article 23 of the Hague Convention:


(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.


Considering the bomb was detonated before hitting the ground (to maximise the damage done),


Wrong again, in fact detonating the bombs at altitude reduced the fallout!.And just what unnecessary sufffering was caused?


Yes it is! Your ability to ignore the facts is astounding.

It may have reduced the fallout, but Atomic Bombs are detonated at an altitude in order to increase the damage done.


The principal military advantage of an air burst over a ground burst is that the energy from the explosion (as well as any shell fragments) is distributed more evenly over a wider area; however, the peak energy is lower at ground zero.


If the damage is distributed more evenly over an area, then everything is going to get nailed.


The air burst (in regards to Nuclear Weapons) is usually several hundred to a few thousand feet (100 to 1000m) above the hypocenter to allow the shockwave of the fission or fusion driven explosion to bounce off of the ground and back into itself, creating a shockwave that is more forceful than one from a detonation at ground level.


Therefore it is apparent that the USA detonated the WMD's above ground level in order to maximise damage.

What was the unnecessary suffering? Um, how about all of the poor people who had to live with radiation poisoning. What about the people who died a slow and painful death?

The bombings were war crimes.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
The B-29s that did these bombing runs came at the expected time of US weather planes, so no one took notice of them.


The residents had been warned by leaflet drop that they were going to be attacked


Front side of OWI notice #2106, dubbed the “LeMay bombing leaflet,” which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following warning:


“Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”



(See Richard S. R. Hubert, “The OWI Saipan Operation,” Official Report to US Information Service, Washington, DC 1946.)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
Yes it is! Your ability to ignore the facts is astounding.


You are the one ignoring the facts, the bombings were not a war crime. Funny how a armchair apologist 67 years after the bombings want to just attack the USA!



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


That was one of the few laws in which the USA abided by during the bombings.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Not attacking the USA in general, but how is killing thousands of innocent civilians not a crime? Collateral damage only goes so far.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   
If your going to accuse the US of war crimes in dropping the bombs, you better point your finger at not only the government but the vast majority of the people. Land invasion was estimated at a 1:1 casuality ratio and was unacceptable after so many had already lost children in both theatres. Air detonation also prevented more serious fallout, which would have rendered both sites as radioactive wastelands had they been detonated on the ground. Hiroshima was selected above all because it was the most intact military target that could be used to gauge the destructive potential of the bullet-type bomb, were as Nagasaki was confined within a vally to prevent widespread fallout and destruction to urban populated areas. To be honest, this war was unbound by the confines of war laws from the start. Neither Japan or Germany was going to play fair and would have used nuclear weapons if they were available. Bombing Japan did exactly what the military expected it to do. Crush the unbreakable loyalty of the Japanese to save American foot soldiers from invading an island that they would have fought for years. It saved money, lives, and ended the hostilities. If they didnt drop the bomb, Invading Japan would make this whole war on terror seem laughable in ease. I would be willing to bet that if no bombs were dropped, loss of life would have been 5-6x higher for both japanese and americans.

The Japanese seem to be very underestimate by our lens of history, with Germany being the primary threat. Often Japan and Italy are passed over as insignifigant threats compared to the German war machine. While it is very true that the Germans had a signifigant advantage in technology and building quality, the Japanese had an entire mantra guiding them. Soldiers were expected to perform duties and tasks never expected from most western war machines. The spirit was unbreakable, and often soldiers would fight to the last man, in hand to hand combat. Surrender did not exists. Judging by what the US had seen in the previous engagements, they had no expectations of surrender in conventional warfare. I agree, killing civilians was a terrible thing to do, and the US should have spent more time considering alternate sites to attack. However, they did not, and as expected they saved more life than if they didnt drop the bomb. It would have been a political nightmare to have to tell the people that they were invading Japan, and i could not expect the government to comply to war laws over there duty to the American people.

I will add that while i stated that surrender did not exists, there are events in which some soldiers did infact surrender, valuing life over loyalty. However this the exception and not the status quo. Very few japanese surrendered and would kill other soldiers that even mentioned the thought. They killed civilians to protect them from the evil americans. When faced with such an unbreakable spirit, theres no doubt in my mind that the atomic bomb needed to be demonstrated. They warned Japan that they had a weapon capable of unmatched destruction and it would be used if no surrender was declared. The bluff was called. (i think it would have been a better decision to detonate little boy 15 miles off the coast near toyko, as a warnin shot so to speak, however givin the vast amount of funding there was no way they would let all that money burn without testing the true destructive force of the atomic bomb)






top topics



 
88
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join