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

imperial, Please also remember that no country's soldiers are all good nor all bad. Being a good soldier requires good leadership and control. Iraq is a different kind of war where you can't distinguish between the good and the bad, and the insurgents do not wear uniforms. A bomb planted in the street can kill Iraqis or American soldiers, and it has, and continue to do so. It's an almost impossible war to fight fairly, but Americans do their best. They're in a catch-22 position; either fight the insurgents house to house or expose themselves to more surprise attacks. It's no no-win situation no matter how you look at it. I'd hate to be in their shoes.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

What legal issue are you raving about.

The customary rules of warfare.

au1929 wrote:

When locked in a do or die war legalities hardly matter all that does is winning.

I agree. I am not criticizing us for committing war crimes, just noting that we committed them.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

oralloy, Even legal issues change over time.

Yes, but as far as I know, customary rules prohibiting indiscriminate use of weapons were already in place at the time.

0 Replies

imperialracing wrote:

And I loved the typical catholic response! What god really meant, hee hee, you crack me up every time!

This bigoted stereotype, flattering as it is to think that Catholics have traditionally been interested in accurate translation, is incorrect (as most bigoted stereotypes are). Catholic interest in accurate translation is a modern phenomenon.

imperialracing wrote:

but killing civilians is one of the things that since the second world war has been accepted as justifiable collateral damage and that is wrong.

I see nothing wrong with justifiable collateral damage.

imperialracing wrote:

There was no clear target other than a city of people destroyed like a pawn in a game of chess.

Not all those people were civilians. 20,000 fresh soldiers were killed at Hiroshima.

And there was more then people in those cities. There were arms-production factories at Nagasaki (and Kokura Arsenal was one giant arms-production complex).

imperialracing wrote:

Anyway, was it a war crime? I think the best people to ask would be one of todays Japanese youth.

If I could ask the person of my choice, I'd ask a lawyer who was expert in international law.

0 Replies

Quote:

Oralloy
au1929 wrote:

Quote:
What legal issue are you raving about.

Oralloy
The customary rules of warfare.

What customary rules of warfare are you referring to. The only agreement I know of was the treaty not to use poison gas. And no one did at least not in battle. the Germans had no such restrictions however, when dealing with the murder of innocents.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

What customary rules of warfare are you referring to.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/customary-law.html

au1929 wrote:

The only agreement I know of was the treaty not to use poison gas.

There were the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and the Geneva Conventions of 1864, 1906 and 1929.

au1929 wrote:

The only agreement I know of was the treaty not to use poison gas. And no one did at least not in battle. the Germans had no such restrictions however, when dealing with the murder of innocents.

That's not what the judges in the Nuremberg Trials said.

0 Replies

Quote, "There were the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and the Geneva Conventions of 1864, 1906 and 1929." Conventions only seek to limit certain kinds of warfare, but in actual wars, depending on the environment and who's fighting the war, it means very little. The proof is in the history of warfare; I would say unequivocally that most wars did not follow the conventions - whether it was a few fighting men or many on both sides at varying degrees.

0 Replies

oralloy
In reading the link you provided I see nothing that defines the rules of war. Where are the specific prohibitions that were in effect prior to WW2

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Iraq [...] They're in a catch-22 position; either fight the insurgents house to house or expose themselves to more surprise attacks. It's no no-win situation no matter how you look at it.

Well, how about going along with the will of the Iraqi people and get the hell out of the country? Sounds like a win-win situation.

0 Replies

lodp
What makes you think the Iraqi people presently want the US presence out of their country?

0 Replies

Quote:

What makes you think the Iraqi people presently want the US presence out of their country?

Are you serious? Does this fact really need to be established here?

0 Replies

lodp

You are damned right I am serious. The Iraqi people know that if the US were to abruptly leave now that upheaval and civil war world follow. Like it or not they need the protection that the US affords them until a stable government is formed a constitution written and they are able to protect themselves.

0 Replies

I would also add it seems that no matter the subject all roads lead back to Iraq. It would be a welcome change if people would stay on subject. Shocked

0 Replies

There was a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll last year on this topic, quoting http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

Quote:

The growing negative attitude toward the Americans is also reflected in two related survey questions: 53% say they would feel less secure without the coalition in Iraq, but 57% say the foreign troops should leave anyway. Those answers were given before the current showdowns in Fallujah and Najaf between U.S. troops and guerrilla fighters.

Do you think the attitude has shifted since then? Why should it? Because freedom is on the march, in, say, Fallujah (warning, very graphic)?

But you're right, that's off-topic. What was the topic again? Ah, right - why mass slaughter has always been for the common good, if it's been commited by the US.

0 Replies

Mass slaughter did you say. Were I a European from Austria I would be talking very gingerly about mass slaughter.

0 Replies

au, That was a 50 pound punch on the chin.

0 Replies

C.I.
I know and I probably should not have posted it. However, I get so damned tired of the European pots calling the kettle black. One need only look at what the colonial powers did in their heyday. Many if not all of today's problems can be traced back to the atrocities they committed. It would be helpful if they would help clean up the mess they created instead of throwing stones.

0 Replies

Most of the posters are too young or didn't study their history very well. On my recent visit to Vietnam, we learned that most Vietnamese do not know about the war, because the majority age in Vietnam is now under 40. However, we learned from one of our local guides that the US not only used Agent Orange, but also Agent Blue and Agent Green - all toxic and poisonous to plants and animals. It's really disturbing what our government did in Vietnam; we never seem to learn from history either.

0 Replies

C.I.
Agreed we should never been engaged in Viet Nam nor for that matter in Iraq. However, as to the use of the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki . It was justified and the right thing to do. It saved far more lives both American and Japanese that it took.

That is the subject of the thread is it not.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Mass slaughter did you say. Were I a European from Austria I would be talking very gingerly about mass slaughter.

You're perfectly right when you say that the Austrian people were substantially involved in in those hideous crimes. The difference is, I, as an Austrian citizen acknowledge that, and I'm not proud of it. In fact, if I conceived of myself as a representative of my country (which I don't, I don't identify in any way with it), I would feel ashamed of my country.

Given that, why should I now be talking gingerly mass slaughter committed by others?

au1929 wrote:

[...] European pots calling the kettle black. One need only look at what the colonial powers did in their heyday. Many if not all of today's problems can be traced back to the atrocities they committed. It would be helpful if they would help clean up the mess they created instead of throwing stones.

Another very reasonable statement. Now why don't you apply it to the US? Austria didn't have any colonies btw.

au1929 wrote:

However, as to the use of the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki . It was justified and the right thing to do. It saved far more lives both American and Japanese that it took

I don't think we should narrow the question down to whether, at that given stage of the war, one or the other option would have yielded less corpses and was therefore the right choice. It's always about a process, a whole series of events that ultimately culminated in the bombing, starting back before Pearl Harbor.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know