Were the uses of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki war crimes?

[Lord Flashheart]

This again.

No.

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

Yes it was a war crime, both of them but particularly Nagasaki, even if someone can justify Hiroshima (though I don't agree, and it's still a war crime), Nagasaki was certainly overkill. Also why did they use a plutonium bomb on one and a uranium bomb on the other? To experiment?

Hindsight shows that almost all governments, big or small, inevitably experiment on and torture people at some point, or acquire the results of said tests out of curiosity.

[Shryke]

Yes it was a war crime, both of them but particularly Nagasaki, even if someone can justify Hiroshima (though I don't agree, and it's still a war crime), Nagasaki was certainly overkill. Also why did they use a plutonium bomb on one and a uranium bomb on the other? To experiment?

Given the difficulty in even assembling the two used, I image it was cause it was the one they had ready. They were trying different designs over the course of the atom-bomb's development.

And given that Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima, the charge of overkill seems unfounded.

[Free Northman Reborn]

In short, I think the "rules of war" are a luxury that goes out the window the moment the stakes become high enough.

I'm not saying that is right but that's reality. If you look at the war against terror and the human rights violations it involved and still involves this fact becomes quite clear.

This is not because the US is evil, but because as the stakes go up it is the natural path that humans will take. Do whatever is necessary to protect OUR people.

Afterwards the recriminations will flow in, but just wait until a nuclear device is detonated in some US city and you will see retaliation and anti terror methods that will make water boarding and drone strikes look like child's play.

And should a foreign power ever invade and occupy the US, I would not be surprised to see Taliban-like assimetric warfare being waged by the resistance to the occupiers with all the indiscriminate targeting of enemy civilians that we see in other parts of the world today.

It is all about the strategic imperatives, and the sensibilities of the modern age will fly out the window the moment the stakes become high enough. As we see in almost every conflict that reaches a certain intensity all over the world.

Humans will be humans. Yes, the "Appeal to Nature" so called fallacy, which is no fallacy in truth.

[Suttree]

Those actions decisively won the war, and established a firm 'don't fuck with America' policy the world tends to follow.

I'm cool with that.

Ah thanks for clearing that up bro. Def not war crimes then.

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

Ah thanks for clearing that up bro. Def not war crimes then.

Lol. True statement, but I feel inclined to partially support peterbound. I guess hell has frozen over, jesus was real and sank to the bottom of the ocean, and capitalism was deemed humane...

[Arakan]

A honest question to our allied friends in this thread: why do so many, especially Americans, often have such a big problem to acknowledge that even when the cause of war was just, war crimes were committed on the path to victory?

It seems that the British and even the Russians are much more self-reflective and critical (by the way I can only recommend Anthony Beevor).

Regarding Hiroshima I would even give the US a "free pass" as I really believe that many, especially civilians like Truman, had no idea about how powerful this new weapon is...but Nagasaki? No way...

I know that the issue of Allied war crimes has been very sensitive for many decades. I can understand that. But we are living in the year 2014. In this regard the Americans can learn a lot from the British, e.g. the massive support of the Queen for the reconstruction of the Dresden Frauenkirche was a great symbol and earned her massive respect in Germany.

[Gears of the Beast]

Regarding Hiroshima I would even give the US a "free pass" as I really believe that many, especially civilians like Truman, had no idea about how powerful this new weapon is...but Nagasaki? No way...

What do mean "civilians like Truman"? The guy was the fucking president was he not? He was one of the only people in the world who truly knew about the power of the weapon.

This is from his journal

We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.

Anyway we "think" we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling - to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.

[Disturber of Peace]

War crimes are for losers and/or countries of currently weak geopolitical standing.

So all discussion is irrelevant.

[baxus]

when a bully attacks you, it's hard to have much sympathy when the bully gets beaten back much harder

we did what we thought was necessary to affect a surrender from the bully that attacked us first

and it's not as if they weren't warned

I know it's not the legal definition, but IMO "war crime" implies "unnecessary".

It is clear from this post that in your opinion "war crime" implies "someone else, not my army/government" as a criminal.

[sologdin]

QALC--

where in the law of war does a belligerent find a right to demand unconditional surrender? the law of war crimes is not about saving millions of lives when those lives are soldiers killing each other in an invasion--those million are irrelevant to the legal argument. if the nuclear bombs are defended on this kind of strategic or convenience basis, it's basically an admission of guilt.

[Talleyrand]

No.

Those actions decisively won the war, and established a firm 'don't fuck with America' policy the world tends to follow.

I'm cool with that.

Which explains the absences of wars involving the USA following ww2

[peterbound]

Which explains the absences of wars involving the USA following ww2

Self involvement.

Quite a bit different.

[Arakan]

No.

Those actions decisively won the war, and established a firm 'don't fuck with America' policy the world tends to follow.

I'm cool with that.

First part is wrong, Japan was strategically finished, the same way as Germany was finished after Operation Bagration. No one questioned that and the Japanese military command lost all hope after the Red Army war machine entered the fight. The battle of Manchuria shocked the Japanese because of the way the Red Army annihilated the Kwantung Army as a fighting force (similar how the Germans were shocked after the annihilation of Army Group Centre).

Regarding the second part, oh I love this arrogance...be careful that it doesnt come back and bite you in the ass :)

[Fez]

I don't know if there are conflicting reports from historians/tribunal observers on the matter but the sources I have read completely disagree with you. Only 28 out of 250 Japanese officials who held high positions were charged at the end. 19 class A war criminals received no punishment, MacArthur made sure of that.

Wei, G. (2008). “Politicization and De-Politicization of History: The evolution of international studies of the Nanjing Massacre”. Chinese Historical Review, Vol.15(2):242-295

And not to mention that among the ones who were released included scum like general Ishii Shiro who got away by handing over results of his inhumane experiments to the U.S.

Not everyone in the government was a war criminal, particularly on the civilian side, its not like every single Nazi official was a war criminal either. I agree that there's no defending the immunity granted to the unit 731 personnel, but that's just the way the US rolled back then when it came to obtaining intelligence. And also, its not like the US was the sole prosecuting country here, the other countries could've stepped up their activities as well; hell, the Indian jurist wanted to just acquit everybody. Yes, more could've been done, particularly a de-nationalism campaign like in Germany, but a lot of very guilty people still ended up answering for their crimes.

And people can't have it both ways here. It can't be that the US should've accepted Japan's delusional conditional surrender and also should've been much more forceful once the unconditional surrender occurred.

A honest question to our allied friends in this thread: why do so many, especially Americans, often have such a big problem to acknowledge that even when the cause of war was just, war crimes were committed on the path to victory?

It seems that the British and even the Russians are much more self-reflective and critical (by the way I can only recommend Anthony Beevor).

Regarding Hiroshima I would even give the US a "free pass" as I really believe that many, especially civilians like Truman, had no idea about how powerful this new weapon is...but Nagasaki? No way...

I know that the issue of Allied war crimes has been very sensitive for many decades. I can understand that. But we are living in the year 2014. In this regard the Americans can learn a lot from the British, e.g. the massive support of the Queen for the reconstruction of the Dresden Frauenkirche was a great symbol and earned her massive respect in Germany.

Americans are perfectly fine admitting to war crime when they happen, or at least, as much as any country. Look at how we view Vietnam for instance. But joining the allies in WWII is probably the US' greatest contribution in its history to humanity, and there's a reason we continue to depict it in our culture. It was total war against legitimately evil people, and everything done that supported winning that was valid and necessary (so, not the Japanese internment camps for instance, those didn't support the effort at all).

And if anyone in Japan and Germany doesn't like it, fuck 'em. Not only were they on the losing side of a just war, but the US spent billions helping them rebuild afterwards. That's nice that the Queen supported the rebuilding of Dresden, ever heard of a little thing called the Marshall Plan?

Which explains the absences of wars involving the USA following ww2

With the possible exception of Afghanistan, depending on how you define the relationship between the Taliban and al-queda, none of those wars started because the US was attacked. They were all voluntary wars, where the US chose to get involved. Extremists have attacked the US, and will likely do so again if they have the opportunity, but the idea of a foreign country attacking is beyond insane. One would thing that would hold try for every industrialized country, but as we're seeing in the Ukraine right now, that's not the case.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I would actually argue that this is a topical thread. The last surviving crew member of the Enola Gay died last week.

I think, technically, the answer is yes, at least as far as Nagasaki is concerned (given the nature of the weaponry, the real question is whether Japanese surrender could have been achieved without dropping the bombs on civilians). However, the other thing to remember is that out of the bombings came a realisation of how horrible these weapons were. Without Hiroshima, would we have seen nuclear weapons used during the Cold War? Perhaps. Thank goodness we'll never know.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Those actions decisively won the war, and established a firm 'don't fuck with America' policy the world tends to follow.

Just remind me again, how long did that Don't Fuck With America policy actually last? Because I recall a pesky bunch called the Viet Cong...

[Gears of the Beast]

However, the other thing to remember is that out of the bombings came a realisation of how horrible these weapons were. Without Hiroshima, would we have seen nuclear weapons used during the Cold War? Perhaps. Thank goodness we'll never know.

I'm pretty sure you can figure how horrible they are without dropping them on actual cities, they were being detonated in tests and shit. They knew what they were capable of, just look at that Truman diary entry I quoted a few posts back.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I'm pretty sure you can figure how horrible they are without dropping them on actual cities, they were being detonated in tests and shit. They knew what they were capable of, just look at that Truman diary entry I quoted a few posts back.

Seeing the test data is one thing (IIRC, there were some fears as to whether the bomb would ignite the atmosphere). Seeing children dying of radiation sickness is quite another.

[aceluby]

IMO WW2 never really ended, after we dropped the bombs you had the Russian conquest, then you had Korea, then you had Vietnam and Cuba, then Afghanistan and South America, to the fall of the USSR which brings us to our 25 year engagement in the middle east. And really, WW2 was just a continuation of WW1, so I'd say that not only was dropping the bomb unsuccessful at 'ending' WW2, the world has been in a state of constant war for almost 100 years, something the bombs did nothing to prevent except possibly bombs being dropped on US cities (which everyone would easily agree would be a 'war crime').