OK, what do you think is a justification for an atrocity? Also, I'm not clear on why a non-Japanese east Asian viewpoint is any more legitimate in this matter. And I'm clear that you don't agree with me. That's fine. Don't you think that the pro-bombing crowd is doing the armchair QB thing too? But that's OK by you. So it's not the armchair QB thing that you've got a problem with, it's the contrary opinion thing, isn't it?
Nuclear attacks in Japan justified - Agree or Disagree?
- Thread starter wet_suit_one
- Start date
In the nationalistic world of WWII (added to the pre-cold war political maneuvering) it made sense for the US to drop the bomb(s). In that context, the choice between the lives of your people vs. the lives of 'the enemy' is an easy one.
Was it a moral way to end the war is a much more debatable topic which I don't know if I have an answer to.
Could the war have been concluded in other ways? The bomb(s) were a tipping point in allowing the peace group within the Japanese government to overthrow the military crew which I don't know if that could have happened otherwise. I guess it would be possible that an extended embargo and blockade of Japan may have eventually had an effect but I have a feeling that the bombs killed less people than an WWII era blockade would have. Of course without proving they (US) had a bomb that powerful (which is one of the reasons they didn't just do a public mid-pacific explosion), it may have lead to a hot war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO which also would have cost many lives (though I'm extended the possibilities a bit beyond the original question).
Was it a moral way to end the war is a much more debatable topic which I don't know if I have an answer to.
Could the war have been concluded in other ways? The bomb(s) were a tipping point in allowing the peace group within the Japanese government to overthrow the military crew which I don't know if that could have happened otherwise. I guess it would be possible that an extended embargo and blockade of Japan may have eventually had an effect but I have a feeling that the bombs killed less people than an WWII era blockade would have. Of course without proving they (US) had a bomb that powerful (which is one of the reasons they didn't just do a public mid-pacific explosion), it may have lead to a hot war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO which also would have cost many lives (though I'm extended the possibilities a bit beyond the original question).
Of course, the argument goes both ways but the odds of your mother getting raped and killed by the WW II Japanese is 100 times greater than my mother getting killed by the USAF. In Asia, the WW II Japanese slaughtered over 30 million (more or less) civilians.
It was pretty illogical to attack the U.S. Did Imperial Japan think that the U.S. would cry "uncle" after Pearl Harbour?
Even in post-WW II Japan, I'm not convinced that the Japanese are all that logical. These are the same people who drove the Nikkei to almost 40,000 only to see it drop to 10,000 23 years later. They also built nuclear reactors on fault lines (not smart).
Since when do bad guys need to justify their evil deeds? That is why they are the "bad guys". They will do what they will do in any event.
Well the Brits used it to describe German bombing of their cities as did the Germans to describe Allied bombing of theirs. So did the Americans when the Japanese floated incendiary balloons over North America.
The only difference between bringing down the WTC towers and the WWII bombings of civilians is that the guys in WWII had government clothing allowances.
I am disappointed to see you think that we should adopt the language of wartime propaganda as our linguistic standard.
There are substantive qualitative and quantitative differences between any of the WWII bombings and 9/11 in the terms we use to understand both war and violence. But since you choose an undefined generality "bombings of civilians" it is hard to actually discuss what you are talking about without knowing which incidents you are referring to.
I read the material you provided that was accessible, and the claims you've made. This contradiction has not been resolved:
How is it the Japanese would have fought to the death, when they were willing to capitulate over the loss of two cities? That has not been answered. It puts the lie to the notion that they would have somehow suffered horrendous casualties in the defense of their homeland. Plainly, they were NOT prepared to suffer horrendous casualties, otherwise the atomic bombing of their cities would not have deterred them.
I take it then that you disagree with the point, as you are saying it is not yours.
I disagree that it was ex post facto. The Geneva Conventions, which prohibit attacks on civilians, were already in place, as were many other conventions prohibiting the attacks on civilians. It was in fact a crime at the time it was done. We have codified the law better since that time but the principles are unchanged--it is, was, and always has been illegal to attack civilians.
Oh, so if you are only following orders, it's OK to commit atrocities on civilians? Oh wait, it wasn't even an order. Just a request.
There are four Geneva conventions, the one providing protection for civilians was not written until 1949. Carry on.
And many thoughtful legal and military commentators have remarked that in hindsight the Nuremberg Prosecutions were a mistake.
A totally unrelated subject. Your failure to understand the basics of international law is demonstrated again.
People around here are not as stupid as you wish them to be.
Nice try liar.
The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials are unrelated to the fact that the Geneva conventions that protect civilians were not passed until 1949 and you claimed that they might apply to the nuclear attacks.
Or did you not know that the nuclear attacks took place before 1949?
I suggest that you might consider reading a book, and learning what laws governed war before 1949 and try again. You might stop embarassing yourself that way.
So this is not a crime?
"Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated."
It seems to me that the firebombing a city or the atomic bombing of a city with the goal of annihilating its civilian population certainly counts as murder and extermination.
"Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated."
It seems to me that the firebombing a city or the atomic bombing of a city with the goal of annihilating its civilian population certainly counts as murder and extermination.
You will I believe find this to be incorrect Japan still had troops in all those places in August 1945. For instance Hong Kong was not liberated and Japanese troops there surrender until September 16, 1945.
