19
   

Was it a war crime when US nuked Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

 
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 10:22 pm
Ah, s't, ci, now we intersect. My dad was head of photo at Bikini. Thus my intense interest. He also was in the plane that shot into Baker from above, as he went with the men. (I'm not kidding, he was the c.o.)
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 07:55 am
Re: Was it a war crime when US nuked Hiroshima & Nagasak
babsatamelia wrote:
Was it a war crime when US nuked Hiroshima & Nagasaki?


So, the war crime is the war. Just simple... .Or all is fair in love and war.

and innocent people died.

Now we live in a relative peaceful time and that should be keep it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 09:56 am
Thok's quote, "Now we live in a relative peaceful time and that should be keep it." Gee, Thok, what planet do you live on? LOL
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 09:59 am
;-) I wrote relative.......
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 11:37 am
"all is fair in love and war." you have to draw a line somewhere!



-Hans
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 11:42 am
It's not easy to compare what happened in the forties during WWII to the current situations in Iraq or Afghanistan and elsewhere. Ideas about war and morality were much different. We still hear that WWII was the "good war." Most people today would never say any war is good.
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 11:48 am
Hans_Goring wrote:
"all is fair in love and war." you have to draw a line somewhere!


I don't see your point.
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 11:52 am
Did the iraqi's attack more than one nation and have the capabilities of conquering the world no! the world is a different place you are right but if another scenario occurs and someone like hitler comes to power and does the same provocations trust me a war would be backed by most people. The reason the war is not backed now these days is because we are the agrssors and not the victims.




-Hans
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 12:31 pm
Signin off for a bit be on later.





-Hans
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 02:25 pm
I love 65 to 70ish kind of weather. I feel more energy. Wink
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 08:16 pm
Just rain for two days here, grrr.







-Hans
0 Replies
 
Paaskynen
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 02:59 am
In order to get back to the subject
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki qualified as war crimes under the Hague convention (in force at the time) as they involved wilful killing of civilians, wanton destruction of cities, and use of poisonous weapons (due to the effects of the radiation). There is no question about the fact that the US intended to terrorise the Japanese into unconditional surrender.

Just as in other wars too little effort was put into diplomacy. Japan was ready to capitulate as soon as it became clear that no army would be coming to the rescue from Korea. The only obstacle to unconditional capitulation was the position of the emperor (which was not changed even after the bombs were dropped!). Therefore one could argue that the atomic bombings were totally unnecessary and did not achieve one iota more than what could have been achieved through negotiation and a little more cross-cultural awareness (if we limit ourselves to the capitulation of Japan, making an impression on the soviets is another matter).

Incidentally, all bombing of civilian targets (or "collateral damage" as the euphemism goes nowadays) qualifies as war crimes. I do not intend to trivialize the criminality of conventional destruction of cities. I have family members who lived and suffered through that. But comparison of one crime with another does not make it less of a crime.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 06:38 am
Paaskyman
Quote:
Japan was ready to capitulate as soon as it became clear that no army would be coming to the rescue from Korea.


And you know this how? In addition the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no more or less a war crime than any of the other bombing of cities during WW2. It was introduced by the Japanese and Germans and the favor was returned by the Allies.
0 Replies
 
Paaskynen
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 09:04 am
au1929 wrote:
Paaskyman
Quote:
Japan was ready to capitulate as soon as it became clear that no army would be coming to the rescue from Korea.


And you know this how? In addition the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no more or less a war crime than any of the other bombing of cities during WW2. It was introduced by the Japanese and Germans and the favor was returned by the Allies.


I did state that all bombing of civilian targets qualifies as war crimes.

Information about Japanese overtures for peace can be found among others at http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/reviews/2943hiroshima.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 10:18 am
Paask, Thank you for the link. As I've said previously, I think the mind-set of people during WWII and now is much different. "Crimes against humanity" were unknown terms to the majority of people. It was easy to sway the minds of people to believe what the government told its people. It was a different time and place.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 10:26 am
Paaskynen wrote:
Information about Japanese overtures for peace can be found among others at http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/reviews/2943hiroshima.html


A word of advice, Paaskynen: you will help your credibility immensely if you don't cite publications issued by Lyndon Larouche.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 10:44 am
Well, there is the consideration that LaRouchie arguments present as powerful a case against the decision to employ the nuclear option against Japan as any other arguments against ... feathers in the wind.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 11:13 am
Most of the stuff quote from the LaRouche site is lifted from "The making of the Atomic bomb" by Richard Rhodes which I read some while ago but there is other commentary as well.

One might expect the military people to be in favour of dropping the bomb on Japan but this is what Eisenhower writes in his autobiography

Quote:
I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... The Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent. During the 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 secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment, 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.'


General MacArthur, until his death, insisted that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki had
Quote:

no military value whatsoever.


And Adm. William Leahy
Quote:

"Truman told me it was agreed they would use it, after military men's statements that it would save many, many American lives, by shortening the war, only to hit military objectives. Of course, then they went ahead and killed as many women and children as they could, which was just what they wanted all the time."



After the war the Strategic Bombing Survey (1946) examined the destruction caused in Japan by a combination of the blockade and the incessant conventional bombing and concluded that

Quote:
Japan would likely have surrendered in 1945 without atomic bombing, a Soviet declaration of war, or an American invasion.


From Henry Stimson's diary
Quote:
I was a little fearful that before we could get ready, the Air Force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon would not have a fair background to show its strength.


And so began the cover up and the mythology

Quote:
At the time Stimson was working on his memoirs, being assisted by Harvey Bundy's son, McGeorge Bundy. The two now readily undertook the task of providing the "cover-up" for the atom bomb decision.

Harvey Bundy himself had drafted a number of "pointers" that he felt should be included : namely, that the bomb decision was primarily ordered with the thought that it would save American lives; that no major person in authority thought that Japan would surrender on terms acceptable to the Allies; that the Interim Committee had rejected targets "where the destruction of life and property would be the very greatest"; that the committee had discussed "intensively" whether the bomb should be used at all; and that the committee had also considered the possibility of a demonstration prior to its use in war. In particular he wanted to downplay any inference that the bomb played any role in U.S. relations with the Soviet Union.


Groves underlined the basic lie :

Quote:
that the dropping of the bomb shortened the war by months and saved many human lives.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 01:50 pm
General Mac was one of the smart guys during WWII, but most of the adult population didn't think like he did - even other generals.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 01:52 pm
However, if I remember correctly, many of the scientists that worked on the bomb didn't think it was a good idea to use it on Japan.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/06/2024 at 01:32:36