It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 02:38 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

It was neccesary actually...

Actually, no it wasn't... Even Eisenhower said so.

"In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions."

But we can let you continue to live in your blissful ignorance since you clearly choose to do so regardless of the facts you are presented with.

Do you always make a beeping sound when you back up like that?

What are you 12 years old?

Clearly you are the one backing up and spiraling into a complete meltdown.

Beep beep!

Or how the Japanese treated POW's during the war? How about the number of POWs the germans executed?

I already admitted Japan's guilt, yet you are not capable of admitting the United State's guilt.

You are as blind as Stevie Wonder, at least he wants peace, while you cheer for war.

I can accept it and I have.. What you are not accepting is the fact Japan started the war, not the US. Japan and Germany BOTH had nuclear weapons programs and would have used them if they got them first.

In this case, the US got to them first.. Japan refused to surrender, so we dropped ONE bomb. They refused to surrender and we dropped a SECOND bomb. They surrendered.

As I stated and you ignored, Japan should not have started a fiught they were not prepared to finish.

What if's and could haves don't justify squat in the real world my deluded friend. Get back to me once Germany or Japan drop nukes on a two different civilian populations, until then you need to "check your ignorance at the door" as you love to say so much.

No I stand by that comment.. You have actually proven my point in your response by trying to rationalize / justify the actions of all other players while somehoe making the US to be the bad person. Let me remind you that in WWI and WWII the US wanted to remain neutral and to stay out of them.

Of course you stand by your point because you are blind and irrational and let your nationalistic pride allow you to justify evil deeds. And no, I have not proven your you even have one

Stop bitching because the US used a weapon the other nations were trying to get to first... Had they gotten them, they would have used them on the US.. Interestingly enough if that happened I doubt you would be complaining.

Calm down TURBO

No one is "bitching" except for you and a few others in this thread.

Once again you go back to "Had they..."

And I am not complaining, just pointing out your ignorance for everyone to see


I love your posts, they are so entertaining.
edit on 12/24/2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 03:05 AM
My grandmother built parts that went on the bombs that were dropped on Japan. The parts were made at the Warren tank assembly plant in Michigan. My grandfather was Omaha Beach Normandy. My grandfathers brother was at Pearl Harbor when it was bombed.

The Japanese attacked us first. We lost 10's of 1000's of men fighting them in the Pacific. Some of the battles in the Pacific were the bloodiest of WW2. Iwo Jima and Okinawa were bloodbaths. The US lost more men in Iwo Jima than any other battle in our history. The Japanese would not surrender. The soviets were closing in on Japan also. The US wanted Japan to surrender to the US not the soviets. That's why Japan was bombed.

I love Japan I envy their culture and I respect their courage. What is done is done and it's in the history books. If Japan had the bomb they would have used it on us.

There is a reason Atomic weapons haven't been used since WW2. It might have been the first time but it won't be the last. I just hope I'm not around to see it.

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 03:56 AM
It's not like we warned Japan over and over and over and over. We even dropped leaflets to the citizens telling them to take shelter as far as possible, because the Japanase regime disregarded the warnings and PERPETRATED the war. So I don't want to #ing hear it...

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 04:10 AM
reply to post by Agit8dChop

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I think the US had no choice, also, it deserved to give Japan a punch in the mouth after Pearl Harbor.

That is an insane mentality. Dropping the atomic bombs didn't give the decision makers behind Pearl Harbor a "punch in the mouth", but the Japanese civilians, non-combatant men, women and children. Who had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Your illogic and ignorance sickens me.

edit on 2012/12/24 by SteveR because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 04:24 AM
I'm still conflicted by it.
On one hand, they could have been beaten by conventional means, on the other, doing it this way saved a lot of allied lives.

I think that back then, the nature of the war was such that destroying the enemy in the most efficient way possible was really the best way forward. How many POWs would have been killed following an invasion of the home islands? How many combat troops?

There is also the advance of the USSR to consider, a conventional invasion may have taken so long that the Russians would have swept down and much Japan would have been like East Germany. I think, by then, there was already a concern about the expansionist agenda of Stalin.

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 04:28 AM
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

Tight lipped on the subject huh? Then ask your wife point blank: Honey, do you think the U.S. was right dropping those two bombs on your cities to stop Hitlers charge?

Ya know..If I went into a country that had bombed two of my home countries cities to utter Oblivion - I would not speak of it either but only have "nice" things to say about that country. Anything less would be foolish - they could do it again!

I apologize for such a delayed response. I just noticed your post. I believe you are misguided by a few assumptions.

First, my wife and I have spent more than half of our time together in Japan. She's a very independent thinking woman, who is quite capable of telling me what her own thoughts are. Aside from that, she's mean and wouldn't hesitate at beating the crap out of me, if I step out of line.

I honestly believe that she has no real opinions about how my country defeated hers, tested two atomic weapons there, occupied and still continue to occupy parts of her homeland. Her only thoughts about Hiroshima or Nagasaki, seem to be deep sadness for those who suffered through these horrific events. However, she has this same type of sentiment towards any victim of violence. She doesn't hate the U.S. for any of it's actions against Japan. She even believes that we did what we had to, in order to end the war faster.

I'm usually very good at stifling my emotions, but she brings a tear to my eye every veterans day, by thanking me for my service. See, she associates a positive value to the U.S. military stationed throughout her country.

Please do not assume that I believe her opinions to be the same for all Japanese. There are Japanese members here, and they may have differing opinions to share. There are also plenty of other expats here who live in Japan.

Personally, I don't even like most Americans that much. I agree with my wife when she says that her city is the best in the world. I'm not simply taking the side of the United States, because I am an American. My main theme for this thread has been that the atomic bombings cannot be judged on their own. To make a fair assessment, they need to be placed back into the big picture. Yes, a case can be made that the atomic bombings were indeed war crimes, but for me they are not as heavy as the actions of imperial Japan.

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 04:58 AM

Originally posted by SprocketUK
doing it this way saved a lot of allied lives.

If they had not dropped the bombs I wonder how many posters would not exist today, as their fathers/grandfathers would have been killed during the war....

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 05:05 AM
reply to post by daaskapital

Your arguments are too long, the short version is: The US ignored the resolution that THEY came up with stating that NOBODY should attack civilians, civilian infrastructure or anything belonging to civilians for that matter but the US and the UK waited for Hitler to attack civilians before they could do the same thing without any criticism.

There, the short version.

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 05:17 AM
reply to post by AlexIR

The United States would have resorted to killing even more Japanese, if they hadn't agreed to the allied terms of surrender, before the next atomic bomb was assembled and carried into the theater. I have no doubt about that.

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 05:44 AM
reply to post by tamusan


Also you can lookup that Japan was willing to surrender even before the Enola Gay took to the sky. This makes it an even bigger war crime but oh well, you can't prosecute the winners, only the losers get punished.

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 05:50 AM
I slightly disagree with your point, despite the fact that I agree with some of your statements, and also agree that the bombings were horrible. However, I think the military and government of the US did not really realize what they had on their hands. An atomic bomb had never been dropped on a city before, so there had been zero opportunity to research the effects on human beings in nearby areas.

Regarding the targeting of cultural structures, one must think about 'why' this clause was included in this document. War during that particular time did not involve the precision that is achieved today, or even the precision that was present during WWII, which was roughly two decades later. Anyway, this clause was included to prevent the 'targeting, ie done on purpose, of these particular structures.

I think an argument could be made for either side regarding the dropping of the bombs on Japan. The US was considering the thousands of lives that they would save by ending the war sooner. I think that was the deciding factor that really sealed the decision. I do not think the US had as many reservations since they were dragged into the war, and were not the aggressors. Whether you agree with it or not, I believe this was part of the decision making process.

It is also important to remember that there were more cities on the "list" than the two that were ultimately bombed. And these cities were not chosen because they contained a certain amount of civilians, but because of their military value. These were large centers of Japanese production for military hardware and related goods, and that is the main reason they were chosen.

The results, especially in the years after the war, were extremely horrible for those around the affected cities. There is no denying that fact. Some may condemn the actions of the US, but I think it is important to remember the reasoning behind the use of these weapons, and that the main intention was to save US lives. Why would the US choose to risk more American lives, when they could force the surrender of Japan at the cost of only Japanese lives? This is quite cold, but this was war...And remember that Japan is the nation that attacked the US. Was the attack on Pearl Harbor any different? If Japan had a nuclear weapon, they too likely would have used it. Probably much earlier.

The only reason the US dropped the bomb first was because they had finished developing it first. I think that it was going to take some nation dropping a bomb on some other nation to awaken everyone else to the horrors of these weapons. And the lessons learned from the bombings in Japan are the only reason that another nuke hasn't been dropped somewhere else. Think of how many nations have nuclear capabilities now...

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 06:06 AM

Originally posted by SpearMint

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?

In short, yes.
Do you really think the alternative(invading Japan) would of been the better option?

edit on 24/12/12 by Gazmeister because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 06:08 AM

Originally posted by daaskapital
The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes and should have been considered as such.

:shk: Don't be absurd. Japan attacked America. America defended itself. If Japan couldn't take the heat, it shouldn't have attacked America. It's just that simple. Don't go whack a bee's nest with a stick .. the bee's will swarm and sting you HARD.

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

WRONG. Hiroshima .. and all of Japan .. was one big war machine. Even the 6 year old children were going to school half a day and then working the other half in bullet and arms factories. Hiroshima, and all of Japan, was a legitimate military target.

I lived in Japan for three years. I visited Hiroshima and spent a week or so there. The city was one big war factory. We dropped information to the japanese telling them to surrender or we would destroy the city. They kept up the war of aggression against the USA .. so we ended their war against us. It's just that simple.

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 06:10 AM

Originally posted by AlexIR
Also you can lookup that Japan was willing to surrender even before the Enola Gay took to the sky.

Why didnt they then? They refused to surrender before the first bomb, they refused to surrender after the first bomb, they were going to refuse to surrender after the second bomb but the emperor intervened. there was even a attempt at a military coup to stop the emporer surrendering.

but of course the Japanese apologists/USA haters ignore this fact!

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 06:19 AM

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
The term "war crime" makes me laugh. It's war. People die. Get over it. If Japan had the bomb, they would have used it. The Nazis would have as well. Opposing sides will always look for some type of combat multiplier...and will use it if necessary.

and war crime is the correct term, get over it, laughing man

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 06:20 AM

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by AlexIR
Also you can lookup that Japan was willing to surrender even before the Enola Gay took to the sky.

Why didnt they then? They refused to surrender before the first bomb, they refused to surrender after the first bomb, they were going to refuse to surrender after the second bomb but the emperor intervened. there was even a attempt at a military coup to stop the emporer surrendering.

but of course the Japanese apologists/USA haters ignore this fact!

I don't hate the USA and realise that deliberately incinerating thousands of men women kids and babies is a war crime- stop pretending the two must go together

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 06:23 AM
reply to post by hellobruce

actually they didnt want to surrender. There were elements that wanted to, but there was never an official attempt to surrender by the actual leadership that had the authority to do so. It is the same way that Germany had officers that wanted to surrender and negotiate peace since early on in the war. The leadership that mattered didnt.

All sides actually had people who wanted peace, even by surrender. They were usually tried as traitors and sentenced to death by their own forces.

People mistaken these people as the voices of the official governments they did not represent.

Japan had plans for continuing the war effort already laid out for several years after the, no.
edit on 24-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:27 AM

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:58 AM
reply to post by FlyersFan

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

The Japanese attack against the USA did not give them the right to drop Atomic Bombs on them. The bombings were war crimes under international law, regardless of the excuses portrayed.

A lot of the civilians were a part of the Japanese war machine. It doesn't mean that they were voluntarily. They were still civilians ffs. Going by your logic, if your government forced you into working for the war machine, you wouldn't have a problem with another country incinerating you with Atomic weapons.

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 08:05 AM
If the atomic bombings were war crimes then the fire bombings of Tōkyō must have been crimes against humanity.

At any rate, MacArthur was dismissed for wanting to do the same to China in '51.

Moral: The yan'kee loves to make things go BOOM!

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

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in