I believe that the bombings shortened the war in the pacific and probably saved countless lives. I am not an expert on this subject but given the times it was probably the correct and moral thing to do.
What say you all?
Do you think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime or a terrible act of war ?
by truthseeker100 20 Replies latest social current
-
-
millie210
Very interesting question truthseeker.
I would first have to familiarize myself with the definition of a war crime vs an act of war.
I come from a background of 4 generations of military men ending with my father so I know very little that I would consider "ogjective".
-
John Aquila
the correct and moral thing to do.
Not sure!
But the bigger question is, Will it happen again within our life time? The probability is very high that it will.
Nine countries together possess more than 15,000 nuclear weapons. The United States and Russia maintain roughly 1,800 of their nuclear weapons on high-alert status – ready to be launched within minutes of a warning. Most are many times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945.
-
Village Idiot
Prior to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings, Tokyo had been napalm bombed with 100,000 people burning to death.
Would that be considered a war crime?
Nuclear bombs have an advantage over conventional bombs of course since they are more concentrated in mass compared to an equivalent firepower of conventional explosives. That makes them easier to use which is where their danger lies.
-
Saintbertholdt
Originally there was some talk by the Allies of first demonstrating the A-bomb.
But then the argument was: What if it doesn't work or doesn't work well?
So then there was talk of Warning the Japanese.
Well again what if it doesn't work or doesn't work well?
So the final idea was drop it without warning. However the Allies did send a cable a couple of days before the first detonation demanding the unconditional surrender of Japan without any new reasons being given except the apparent fact that Japan would eventually lose the war.
Dropping the A-bomb a second time without warning also did two things:
1. It maximized shock value
2. It left the question open whether the US still had more A-bombs in their arsenal just waiting to be dropped
Well it certainly shocked Japan but that was not the reason they actually surrendered. They were still adamant to keep on fighting unless they could retain the Emperor as a true monarch. Turns out the primary reason for Japan's surrender was that Communist Russia attacked Japan in China and so doing declared war on Japan. So with that Japan was truly finished.
So to answer the question with my 2 cents: No it was not a war crime. Japan would have fought to the last man, women and child if Russia had not entered the war against Japan. The Allies had to minimize their casualties while still gaining victory. If Japan had continued the War as they were aiming to do, the US would have systemically nuclear carpet bombed them until the Japanese realized the truth of their situation.
-
truthseeker100
Nuclear weapons do kill enemy people and destroy the enemy's things better than anything else in man's arsenal after all that is the objective to winning any war.
We now have nuclear weapons many times more powerful I hope that it will never be necessary to use them again. We all know how the fourth world war will be fought don't we. Lets hope that as a species were not consigned to be victims of our success in this area.
As for a war crime ? All war is a crime of sorts. I think given the same scenario the US would be justified in doing it again. A true war crime would have been dropping atomic weapons unprovoked.
-
Finkelstein
It was a terrible act of war justifiable based from the aggressive over taking of countries by Japan all throughout Asia. It was a moral thing to do based upon the fact that it was done so intensionally to stop the war in Asia, which would otherwise have continued on putting more American lives at risk and perhaps Japan's population as well.
The Nuclear booms dropped on those two cities resulted in stopping the war and making Japan surrender.
Japan otherwise would have likely fallen over time but at more cost in lives to the American forces.
It was known as well that Japan's military was not attuned to surrender easily, noting their dieing allegiance to their emperor.
The ending decision was finally made by Truman by accumulative circumstances.
-
prologos
Saintbertholdt
systemically nuclear carpet bombed them until the Japanese realized the truth of their situation.
The US had only two bombs, one Uranium, the other used on Nagasaki, Plutonium, a different design. During the Berlin blockade the US sent Nuclear bombers to England, but Stalin knew they were flying empty. America could have continued carpet bombing with incindenaries, as before.
I am with Truthseeker As for a war crime ? All war is a crime of sorts. even theocratic warfare.
The prospect of the battle hardened European theater russian army rampaging through Japan too, surely gave pause to think.
-
LoveUniHateExams
It was a terrible thing the Americans did, and it was disgusting and morally wrong that Japanese civilians died but I agree with Fink.
America did it to stop WW2. Japan was an aggressive, imperial nation that had to be stopped.
Let's suppose that in the 1940s, the reverse was true - Japanese had nuclear technology, not USA. Would Japan have used it sparingly, in an effort to stop the war or would it have been used it to further its expansion?
Someone who knows modern history better than I do, tell me what you think.
-
Village Idiot
Saintbertholdt:
"Originally there was some talk by the Allies of first demonstrating the A-bomb.
"But then the argument was: What if it doesn't work or doesn't work well?"
The weakness for that argument is that if an unannounced bomb failed over a city the same thing would have happened giving the same impression. The Japanese would have realized what it was.