Hiroshima — war crime or not?

[gambit]

Are you saying US had only two options after the bombing of the Pearl habour, either nuking japan or surrendering? US had already struck at military bases in japan.

The US did not know it would be able to develop nuclear weapons. What kind of thinking is this?

 

[gambit]

Its not about something being new and / or shocking.

Sentiments apart , there appears to be some merit in the argument that using nukes was a war crime.

Had it been used on troops and civilinas were collateral damage one could have understood. Targetting civilians of a nation whose war time production was tottering with a weapon like a nuke I think is a crime.

War is fraught with moral ambiguities at best and moral expediencies at worst.

In the strict legal sense, if there is no law, there can be no crime. If there is no way to enforce compliance with a proposed law, then the idea that formed the foundation of the proposed law would be in limbo. In other words, in order to have a law, there must be an authority with the necessary physical coercive power than anyone to exact punishment in the violation of the law.

What we now have as codified 'international law' did not exist in WW II, and even though what we have is codified, it is actually an agreement among 'civilized' nations that certain conducts in war should not be trespassed. The reason it is an agreement rather than a set of laws is because we do not have an extra-national authority figure powerful enough to override any country's ability to resist enforcement. If God is willing to act, then we would not have that problem. But since God have yet to reveal Himself, let alone act, we have only the threat of an alliance of like minded nations that will enforce this set of laws. An alliance is not an assured thing. We have seen its capriciousness recently with the issue of Iraq and Afghanistan. Right now, if the US decide to set up our version of Unit 731 and commit personal atrocities upon captured enemies, like how Imperial Japan did on Chinese citizens, who other than God can exact punishment upon US?

 

[elis]

What japanese did was wrong, but the war was WON by the allied forces by the time US nuked Japan.

USA hadn't warned the japanese that they gonna nuke them, but i won't cry muh for the japanese

 

[jhungary]

Are you saying US had only two options after the bombing of the Pearl habour, either nuking japan or surrendering? US had already struck at military bases in japan.

But the commander of the allied forces Eisenhower disagrees with you. They say japan was already defeated. I guess they were more knowledgeable on it.
GENERAL DWIGHT EISENHOWER
(Supreme Commander of Allies Forces in Europe)
". . . the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63.
There is no question that Russians, Japanese and all the forces did war crimes. But the notion that nuking japan was not a war crime is wrong. Because US nuked japan as a power projection. The war WAS already WON when US nuked japan.



You have swallowed the propaganda, the truth is Japan offered to surrender of course with conditions. And the atomic bombs was US's idea. By the time US nuked Japan, they were ready to surrender.

The real truth is US was driven by vengence after the Pearl habour attack. They wanted to show Japan who the real boss is. It was simply power projection.

And nuking a country for such a trivial thing, is a war crime that too after the enemy was defeated.



It will be shocking as long as people blindly belive in others' propaganda. The reality is such a war crime the biggest mankind has ever seen is justified by Americans. That is wrong. This is not supporting imperial japan, but at least the world needs to understand what US did was wrong and not needed. and hence a war crime.



Also Japan was ready to surrender before US nuked japan

Dude, are you really that thick?

When US was attacked by the Japanese, we were damaged so bad that we cannot even launch a proper attack until August 1942 in Guadalcanal.

That's 9 months after the attack, that raid you refer to is not a proper sustainable strike and no we cannot keep on sending B-25 at a one way attack from our carrier

The prospect of Japanese attack Pearl Harbour is to destroy as many as our ship to so we will not seek a confrontation with japan

So yes, basically there are two choice, fight that will eventually lead to the nuke or surrender

About General Eisenhower view, that would just be his view, he was not in PTO at that time, so his view does not reflect much

The truth is, even a conditional surrender is offered by the Japanese (Where you provide no proof that ever had one) the surrender would not accept any form of conditional surrender, the Japanese still have considerable amount of man power and equipment in Manchuria and Formosa, they still have 3000-5000 fighter planes for preparation of invasion of home island

The core power of Japanese force were not destroyed, but yes, we do we're winning the war, but war would not stop for waiting a surrender, so we should give Japanese 4 month to think about should they surrender or not? And meanwhile we just sit on our *** and do nothing?

Dude, it's not important that the "Offer" to surrender, that does not mean anything, the "acceptance" of surrender is the important parts, not what they offered

 

[Panther 57]

Dude, are you really that thick?

When US was attacked by the Japanese, we were damaged so bad that we cannot even launch a proper attack until August 1942 in Guadalcanal.

That's 9 months after the attack, that raid you refer to is not a proper sustainable strike and no we cannot keep on sending B-25 at a one way attack from our carrier

The prospect of Japanese attack Pearl Harbour is to destroy as many as our ship to so we will not seek a confrontation with japan

So yes, basically there are two choice, fight that will eventually lead to the nuke or surrender

About General Eisenhower view, that would just be his view, he was not in PTO at that time, so his view does not reflect much

The truth is, even a conditional surrender is offered by the Japanese (Where you provide no proof that ever had one) the surrender would not accept any form of conditional surrender, the Japanese still have considerable amount of man power and equipment in Manchuria and Formosa, they still have 3000-5000 fighter planes for preparation of invasion of home island

The core power of Japanese force were not destroyed, but yes, we do we're winning the war, but war would not stop for waiting a surrender, so we should give Japanese 4 month to think about should they surrender or not? And meanwhile we just sit on our *** and do nothing?

Dude, it's not important that the "Offer" to surrender, that does not mean anything, the "acceptance" of surrender is the important parts, not what they offered

Recommend seeing "Emperor" 2013 movie.