Could the bombing of Hiroshima be considered a war crime?

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,830
Of course,but the problem is that they wanted to fight not until the last soldier, but until the last civil....
If they wanted to, why didn't they?

Nukes would just speed the process, make the pain shorter and sharper, if national suicide was what they were after. Seems a perfectly good match in that case, and no reason at all for the Japanese to hold back on the dying.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,240
Italy, Lago Maggiore
If they wanted to, why didn't they?

Nukes would just speed the process, make the pain shorter and sharper, if national suicide was what they were after. Seems a perfectly good match in that case, and no reason at all for the Japanese to hold back on the dying.
Nukes pose a not irrelevant problem to the leadership of a country ... the difference with conventional weapons is that against conventional attacks a leadership can not only survive, but it can keep its chain of command [Hitler still gave order from his bunker and someone received them, even if not far from Berlin].

Against a nuclear attack it's already extremely difficult for the leadership to survive, but it's impossible [sure it was impossible in the 40's] for it to keep a working command chain.

After Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... the next target could have been Tokyo: some nukes on Tokyo and the country would have been beheaded without hopes. To keep on fighting would have been a useless attempt to survive for the Japanese system of power.
 
May 2017
1,192
France
It is allways surprising to constat that the dictators speak all the time at the place of the people but never organized elections....
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,864
Stockport Cheshire UK
Due to the fact that Japan was willing to fight to the last person and our casualties being so great the decision to bomb them the way that we did proved to be effective. It was not a War Crime.
The reason why the US used the Atom bomb is totally irrelevant to the question of whether it was a war crime or not.
Bombardment of enemy cities in wartime was not an act that broke the existing rules of war, thus not a war crime.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,240
Italy, Lago Maggiore
It is allways surprising to constat that the dictators speak all the time at the place of the people but never organized elections....
It depends ... there are dictatorial regimes with general elections ... but they manage not to have opponents ... think to Iran, Russia ....
 
Aug 2014
1,273
pakistan
Due to the fact that Japan was willing to fight to the last person and our casualties being so great the decision to bomb them the way that we did proved to be effective. It was not a War Crime.
Thats very messed up line of thinking. Using your logic, it will be not morally wrong for Taliban to detonate nukes in the cities of America to dissuade her from continuing on with invasion of Afghanistan.

And Japan was already willing to surrender before the Atom bombs. The bombs were dropped to see its scale of its destruction and see its effects on humans.
 
Jun 2011
312
The Old Dominion
And if they were so damned willing to surrender why did they not mention that willingness to the people who counted, you know, the people with whom they were at war, the US and its Commonwealth allies already beating on the front door, the ones shooting at them, sinking their merchant shipping, leveling their cities one by one, ranging freely up and down their coast line in carrier task forces striking at will and finishing off their once vaunted navy.

Not like they had no idea how to make such contact, they did it quickly enough when the Emperor decided enough was enough . . . not fiddling around with the Soviets until the Soviets told them to go away. And one should remember that the US was reading their diplomatic mail, just as it had since 1941, so the Allies knew the Japanese approaches to the Soviets was just so much smoke and mirrors.

" . . . And And Japan was already willing to surrender before the Atom bombs."

Really? and all they had to do was say so . . . plain language broadcast would have done the trick, easily.

But, no, they did not, never even cast out hint . . . so after a warning . . .

Hiroshima

And then, alas, they still made no effort what-so-ever to surrender or even indicate a willingness to do so. Still, STILL ! !

Evidently the US did not have their complete attention . . .

Nagasaki

Now the US had their attention.

And the Emperor stepped in.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Why is it necessary to create false scenarios?

Ever hear of Occam's Razor?
 
Last edited: