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

surprised there hasn't been more posts on this thread recently.

Lets see if I can start the ball rolling again with this quote from

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080505E.shtml

"The bomb was dropped, as J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, said in November 1945, on "an essentially defeated enemy." President Truman and his closest advisor, Secretary of State James Byrnes, quite plainly used it primarily to prevent the Soviets from sharing in the occupation of Japan. And they used it on Aug. 6 even though they had agreed among themselves as they returned home from the Potsdam Conference on Aug. 3 that the Japanese were looking for peace.

These unpleasant historical facts were censored from the 1995 Smithsonian exhibit, an action that should trouble every American. When a government substitutes an officially sanctioned view for publicly debated history, democracy is diminished. "

I just think it very strange that the actual terms forced upon Japan AFTER the a bombs as part of "unconditional surrender", would have secured a surrender and a cessation of hostilities BEFORE the use of the atomic bombs, had they been offered.

Thats an interesting link oralloy thanks

If I understand it correctly I think the Japanese said they would surrender providing the prerogatives of the emperor were not compromised

and the Americans replied by saying the Emperor must direct his govt to effect the surrender as they demanded.

but implicit in this is the acknowledgement of Hirohito as the legitimate and continuing supreme ruler of Japan

ie the Japanese got what they wanted, that the Emperor could remain as Emperor. (Provided of course that he directed his govt. to co operate with the Allied Command in supervising surrender).

I still think that this central point, that the honour of the Emperor was not at risk, that his liberty and dignity were to be maintained- could have secured a peace, had it been offered- without dropping atomic bombs on Japan.

British pilots were ordered to shoot down ejecting German pilots, and that's a war crime.

**The war was over. We knew it.
Europe knew it. Hitler knew it.
Japan knew it. In fact, many
of the remaining Japanese soldiers
were busy committing suicide, for
they had disgraced their ancestors
by their failure
**Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
highly populated cities as were
the surrounding areas; chock
full of women, children, infants
**These were not vital tactical target
sites bombed by the US. The war
was over. There were no bases
here for munitions, no harbors full
of enemy ships and armed forces.
**There was no rationale as to
why these two cities must be
destroyed.
**On the other hand, there may
have been ... a very smart move
on the part of the US to strengthen
our "position at the bargaining table"
as the Allied Forces began to divide
the spoils of WWII.
**The Soviet Union did not possess
such a bomb. Nor did any other of
the Allied Forces. The USA were the
strongest, we had the "upper
hand" - we could have things
"our way"
**Was that worth what was done
to those two Japanese cities?? Was
it worth the after effects, and the
after, after effects of the radiation,
the poisoning, the burning, the
deformities. Many people were
literally atomized, blessedly blown
into oblivion... these were the lucky
ones. Scores of others lived,
suffering, dying, burning, surviving
for hours,days,weeks,months.What a
ghastly sight that must have been.[/b][/i][/color]

Japan deserved to taste even bigger and even more savage atomic bomb.
Look at the current situation in Japan.
Look at the Yaskuni stuff in Japan.
Really foolish, absurd, and ridiculous.
Japan deserved to be nuked even more.

babsatamelia wrote:

**The war was over. We knew it.
Europe knew it. Hitler knew it.
Japan knew it. In fact, many
of the remaining Japanese soldiers
were busy committing suicide, for
they had disgraced their ancestors
by their failure
**Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
highly populated cities as were
the surrounding areas; chock
full of women, children, infants
**These were not vital tactical target
sites bombed by the US. The war
was over. There were no bases
here for munitions, no harbors full
of enemy ships and armed forces.
**There was no rationale as to
why these two cities must be
destroyed.
**On the other hand, there may
have been ... a very smart move
on the part of the US to strengthen
our "position at the bargaining table"
as the Allied Forces began to divide
the spoils of WWII.
**The Soviet Union did not possess
such a bomb. Nor did any other of
the Allied Forces. The USA were the
strongest, we had the "upper
hand" - we could have things
"our way"
**Was that worth what was done
to those two Japanese cities?? Was
it worth the after effects, and the
after, after effects of the radiation,
the poisoning, the burning, the
deformities. Many people were
literally atomized, blessedly blown
into oblivion... these were the lucky
ones. Scores of others lived,
suffering, dying, burning, surviving
for hours,days,weeks,months.What a
ghastly sight that must have been.[/b][/i][/color]

>But again the document says quite clearly that so long as Hirohito gives his authority to Japanese forces laying down their arms, the Americans will allow him to remain as Emperor.

>I've never said the a bombs were a crime (except in the sense that all warfare is criminal) but I do think it had an undeniable political element which transcended the immediate need of forcing Japans capitulation.

I thought at first you were being ironic. But after re-reading your contribution, I dont think you are capable of it. Normally I would welcome people to a2k. In your case I make an exception.

No one can argue the fact that, in war, the winner's have
the luxury of declaring who has committed war crimes, when ALL
are murderers and in that sense all are equal..... equal in evil.