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

true

OTHER OPTIONS.
This seems like the quick and easy way out of the war against Japan. There were so many other options instead of dropping the atomic bomb. One is that America could have naval blockaded major import sites for Japan and they would give up just as easy. Many people believed that Hiroshima and Nagasaki beared little of no military importance whatsoever, and that firebombing on the cities or known military bases would have done exactly the same job. Even if America had decided to drop the atomic bomb, they should have done it over Tokyo harbor, this would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people.

AMERICA UNJUSTIFED.
The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one. This means Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria. After the atomic bomb was dropped many people sustained immoral injuries like 90% burns and radiation sickness. American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance. The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.

TRUMAN WAR CRIMINAL?
Laws and Customs of War on Land made in the Hague on July 29, 1899 clearly states in article XXIII that it is especially prohibited to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army .

it was absolutley a war crime

00masmit
revisionist history. You would have not thought so if you were on the way to invade the Japanese Islands. Or had been involved in Island hopping and seen your buddies get blown to bits. Or were sitting at home wondering if your loved one would come home in one piece or at all. Or, or,or etc.
Safe behind a computer 60 years later it is easy for arm chair generals to make judgments and pronouncements on how things should have been done is of course easy.

This is of course only valid for the USA!

Walter
It is valid the world over. Even in Germany.

Yes, au, that's what I wnated to say: everywhere .... but of course not FOR Germany, Palestine, "Muslim States" etc etc etc

Walter
If your are alluding to Germany in the thirties and forties. What as happening there was daily and ongoing news of the time. I did not read articles about it years later. I knew people who fought the fight, saw the concentration camps, and lived throughout the horror of them. That is a lot different from reading about in a book years later. Regarding Japan and the bomb. Had they not dropped the bomb I might have been one who was fighting and dying in the battle for the Japanese Island since I was not far from draft age at the time. And even if I were not, my brother was in the Navy and most of my cousins were in service and in harms way. Was I glad they dropped the bomb that ended the war. You can bet your bottom dollar I was? And let's not forget they were the enemy who had committed atrocity after atrocity. Have you perhaps heard of the Bataan Death march or the rape of Nanking or possibly Pearl Harbor.

Ever heard of a thing called "draft resistance"?

Don't know much about the United States in 1945, do ya?

LOdp wrote



It is evident that you were just hatched. As Setanta said you do not know very much about the US in 1945.

Well, US-support for Bin-Laden-led groups in Afghanistan (terrorists were called freedom fighters in those days) doesn't seem so much of a secret to me. Same thing with the massive support for atrocities against the kurds in the 90s (us-arms flow peaked in 1997, exceeding the total of the entire cold war period in that one single year). What about the backing for 37 years Israeli occupation of foreign territory, constant terror and atrocities?

Of course, if the US does this kind of thing, people like you praise it for serving the just cause of counter-terror, territorial integrity of ally states etc.

I don't see any fundamental moral difference between supporting the families of suicide bombers and providing the IDF with Apache attack helicopters to be used in the territories.

" . . . people like you . . . "

Got us all figured out already, don't ya . . .

I know enough to tell you that by that time there were 350.000 cases of draft evasion and 43.000 who actually refused to fight. One of every six men in federal prison was a conscientious objector. But I guess you veterans know better...

lodp
The veterans who you denigrate made it possible for someone like you to get on the computer and write whatever you would like to. Freedom sonny does not come cheaply, and to think someome put his life on the line to preserve yours. What a waste.
.

Sure is. I don't think somebody's putting his life on the line for my right to , though. However there's plenty of people putting their life on the line for corporate interests all over the globe, thinking they're serving the freedom of their people. That's sad but not new.

Getting back to the issue, what's your comment on the total oil and scrap-metal embargo against the japanese, immediatly preceding the sudden, shocking, unprovoked attacks on Pearl Harbor?

Lodp,

Whoa, boss. By quoting me out of context, you make it appear that I've said that the United States is somehow culpable for supporting international terrorism. During the Cold War both the US and the Soviet Union had a policy of not directly engaging one another. Rather than risk escalation into a full-blown exchange of nuclear arsenals, both sides "sponsored" clients. In Vietnam the Soviets aided the North, but kept a low profile. In Afghanistan the reverse was true. Both sides knew and understood the necessity of deniability that comes from acting through clients. That policy kept the conflict from going Hot and nuclear, was that a bad thing? Both sides knew what the other was doing, and appreciated the relative freedom of operations that resulted.

Since the end of the Cold War, small States that were once constrained by the larger contest between the US and the USSR act on their own, and sometimes without much appreciation for the larger picture.

In States where poverty is widespread, productivity is low and there is a large conservative Muslim population, the radical Islamic movement is popular. Crowds cheer every report and rumor that those infidels in the West have been humbled. Even when those governments know better they cater to the popular sentiment. Those government, or factions within them, are more than sympathetic to international terrorism carried out by radical Muslims. They secretly encourage, plan, supply, train and pay radicals like Bin Ladin. Those government dare not openly support, or offend too much because they know that would be national suicide.

No State on Earth today is capable of meeting the U.S. military on the field of battle governed by traditional usages of war. US naval power has no rivals. US air superiority is overwhelming. US mastery of the technological implements and weapons of modern war dwarfs all others. American armor has no equal. No infantry is better equipped, or more lethal in combat, even though some armies are larger.

If you are an enemy of the United States and the values of Western Civilization, you can not openly go to war. The Taliban and Saddam made the mistake of believing that the United States did not have the Will to engage them in direct, open conflict. Others presumably are wiser, and more covert in their tactics. If you can't engage the US directly, then how can you achieve victory? The tactic currently popular is to support covertly international organizations of radical Muslims. Never, ever let your ties with Bin ladin and others become provable.

Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, and Palistine all have, or had governments, that covertly supported international radical terrorists. Elements, like ISI, in Pakistan and other regional governments strongly sympathize with the radical Islamic movement and support them in defiance of their government. The government of Saudi Arabia doesn't support Al Queda-like movements, but the conservative Islamic community of Saudi Arabia contribute blood and gold that keep such organizations going. The Saudi's are riding a tiger and just don't know how to get off. Recent attacks on Saudi citizens and government may stiffen the government's will to halt support for terrorists. BTW, this is somewhat similar to the support for the IRA generated in the Irish-American bars of Boston. Both are wrong, both are a problem and both are protected by governments that wished that they would stop.

Lopd wrote
And I am sure you think no one ever did. I guess the freedom you enjoy is your birthright. I sometime regret that they no longer have a draft. A stint in the service would do you a world of good.In fact I would hope you would have exercised your ""draft resistance". A stint at Levenworth would have been even more instructive.


As to Pearl Harbor. A sneak attack is never justified. In doing so the Japanese found out that they awoke the sleeping giant and paid for it.

So what about D-Day? Was that an openly declared stand-off? Seriously, you can't judge historic events on such simple-minded grounds.

lodp...um...why, exactly, are you here? This was an adult conversation, you know, about a very grown-up subject. Even the people with whom I disagreed made some intelligent and reasoned contributions to the thread. You're quite amusing, at times, for a tyke with little knowledge of the world beyond your front yard. But it does get a little tedious to have to explain that D-Day was, in no sense, a 'sneak attack,' that the Allies were formally engaged in a war with the Axis powers and to compare this to Pearl Harbor is, at best, just silly. We don't mind your being here, mind you. You might even learn something if you sat somewhat out of the way -- in that corner, say -- and paid close heed to what people who know whereof they speak are saying. That's a good lad.