Could the bombing of Hiroshima be considered a war crime?

Aug 2014
1,273
pakistan
Love how a few Japanese making apologies means Japan the nation did it. But some Americans, especially on an internet forum, aren't sufficiently apologetic for ending a rather nasty war with the least casualty producing way and in your mind that means they speak for America as a whole.

Do you represent Pakistan with your opinions, do you speak for all Pakistanis in that nation and abroad? Or just for yourself?
Read my post again. I am not talking about few forum members, i am talking about American nation.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
Read my post again. I am not talking about few forum members, i am talking about American nation.
No. You're talking about Americans, people. A few Japanese politicians made semi-endearing apologies for some aspects of their conduct in WW2. To you, that means JAPAN THE NATION has apologized.

No sane American is ever going to apologize for using atomic bombs. They ended the war. Some might apologize for the need to use them, or that it sucks that they had to be used, but to simply state, because they killed a lot of people, that they shouldn't have been used, especially in light of their importance in ending the war (which you and others ignore), I think its suffice to say that this American (ME) is absolutely thrilled they were used.
 
Aug 2014
1,273
pakistan
No sane American is ever going to apologize for using atomic bombs.
Thats very messed up line of thinking and morality. Genocides are justified like this. If tomorrow Taliban somehow detonate nukes in the cities of America to stop her from continuing with invasion of their country, then they will be very justified in doing that and will be exempted from condemnation using your reason and logic.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
"Least casualty producing" lands somewhere between a fervent hope and an article of faith. It's still effectively unknowable exactly what the Japanese would have done if the nukes had not been deployed. That is after all located in the realm of counterfactual history. Which ensures that the debate never goes away, because the moral ambiguity can never be fully dismissed.
We do know what they would have done. Not surrender. Because we know why they did surrender. Because they flat out said why. Because nukes. The reality is, as of August 9-10, 1945, it took five months of firebombing raids, mining of their harbors, destruction of their fishing fleet, famine at home, threat of US invasion of the Home Islands, Soviet declaration of war, and two atomic bombs laying waste to the better part of two cities before the men who ruled Japan were willing to quit on terms that weren't their own. That is the God's honest truth.

The debate never goes away because most involved in the debate know next to nothing about the war as a whole and the history of the surrender itself. They think the Japanese wanted to surrender, they hear claims that the Japanese were already trying to negotiate through the USSR and Swiss and don't bother to ask "Who was doing this and under what authority and what conditions were they asking for?" Most involved don't have a clue who the Big Six are. They talk about "Japan" wanting to do this and "Japan" wanting to do that, as if Japan is a single entity. Or as if the voice of the people mattered. Or as if the Emperor was the sole decision making. They have no clue at all about the internal politics of the govt of imperial Japan, who was involved at what times, how they felt about the war and continuing, what their motivations were, and who exactly were pro-war and who were pro-surrender, and what pro-surrender meant in their regards, and if that "surrender" they wanted. And yet they still have opinions and still feel theirs are valid.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
Thats very messed up line of thinking and morality. Genocides are justified like this. If tomorrow Taliban somehow detonate nukes in the cities of America to stop her from continuing with invasion of their country, then they will be very justified in doing that and will be exempted from condemnation using your reason and logic.
"Don't start nothing, there won't be nothing."

If the Taliban nuke the US, Pakistanis, whose govt and especially the ISI have supported and protected the Taliban and Al Qaeda, better break out their own radiation suits. :kiss:
 
Aug 2014
1,273
pakistan
"Don't start nothing, there won't be nothing."

If the Taliban nuke the US, Pakistanis, whose govt and especially the ISI have supported and protected the Taliban and Al Qaeda, better break out their own radiation suits. :kiss:
'Might is right'
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
'Might is right'
Go ask theTaliban after they kill a little girl for trying to learn to read. They'd agree.

And since you think they're justified to nuke the US for invading "their" country, I'm guessing you also believe the concept. Luckily you're not mighty, or we'd have to worry. :zzz:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spartakus X
Jun 2011
313
The Old Dominion
"Might is right" Damn straight, ace, you better believe it. Show us a nation or faction that does not follow that path when deemed necessary or merely slightly in their interest. Personally I think the idea of shooting little girls simply for going to school is a little over the top . . . is it okay for you?

While I am certain there are those Americans who love to cry over the use of two atomic bombs on the Japanese, they do so from a position of almost criminal ignorance of the facts of the times, just like so many others. Sad, really, considering the facts of the times are out there, easy to find. So sad, they, and others, can't be bothered to even attempt to delve into the truth, after all, why deflate a perfectly good conspiratorial anti-American whine. This you can see by the constant manufacturing of varied stories about the evil Americans' intent . . . all presented without a single shred of evidence.

As I have noted, I don't regret for a moment that these weapons were used. What I regret is that the Japanese intransigence made their use necessary.

My father was on an aircraft carrier off the coast of Japan that entire last summer . . . he got to come home, unlike so many of his friends, his best friend was killed on 15 July 1945, less than a month to go . . . so, yeah, the bombs were necessary. I have his letters from those times (actually I have almost all of them from his various deployments which began in mid-December 1941 to the end of the war), someday, if someone were to ask nicely, I might even post what he had to say on the subject of the bombs, written at the time of their use.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
"Might is right" Damn straight, ace, you better believe it. Show us a nation or faction that does not follow that path when deemed necessary or merely slightly in their interest. Personally I think the idea of shooting little girls simply for going to school is a little over the top . . . is it okay for you?

While I am certain there are those Americans who love to cry over the use of two atomic bombs on the Japanese, they do so from a position of almost criminal ignorance of the facts of the times, just like so many others. Sad, really, considering the facts of the times are out there, easy to find. So sad, they, and others, can't be bothered to even attempt to delve into the truth, after all, why deflate a perfectly good conspiratorial anti-American whine. This you can see by the constant manufacturing of varied stories about the evil Americans' intent . . . all presented without a single shred of evidence.

As I have noted, I don't regret for a moment that these weapons were used. What I regret is that the Japanese intransigence made their use necessary.

My father was on an aircraft carrier off the coast of Japan that entire last summer . . . he got to come home, unlike so many of his friends, his best friend was killed on 15 July 1945, less than a month to go . . . so, yeah, the bombs were necessary. I have his letters from those times (actually I have almost all of them from his various deployments which began in mid-December 1941 to the end of the war), someday, if someone were to ask nicely, I might even post what he had to say on the subject of the bombs, written at the time of their use.
As far as I can tell, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military/ political decisions ,with as much to do about blocking the Soviet Union from gaining a larger foothold than about saving US lives. Moral niceties tend to be largely ignored by all sides during wars. THE guiding principle remains the same as in peace time; "The ends justify the means'. In war, the ends tend to be a bit less ambiguous.

War Crimes? Arguably. Who exactly would be prosecuting the US?

In terms of the way power works, I think realpolitik is pretty accurate. I also accept Mao's adage "power grows from the barrel of a gun:" This approach is called "the conflict theory of power"as opposed to "the consensus theory of power" .

Deliberately killing children is an obscenity to me , as is terrorism . Both happen in war, an even greater obscenity. Terrorism is common especially when a weaker side fights a stronger side; it's relatively cheap, can be very low tech, and it always works on at least one level; it creates terror.-----9/11 was perhaps the most successful terrorist attack in recorded history, on every level.

Realpolitik (from German: real; "realistic", "practical", or "actual"; and Politik; "politics", German pronunciation: [ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtiːk]) is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as "pragmatism" in politics, e.g. "pursuing pragmatic policies". The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are perceived as coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.[1]

Realpolitik - Wikipedia
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
Thats very messed up line of thinking and morality. Genocides are justified like this. If tomorrow Taliban somehow detonate nukes in the cities of America to stop her from continuing with invasion of their country, then they will be very justified in doing that and will be exempted from condemnation using your reason and logic.
Every time the Japanese rewrite their history books, and try to revise the history of their role in WW2, in my view it is like taking back the apology and saying you did not really mean it. And electinf someone like Abe as your country's leader also says you don't really mean you apology, at least among the majority of the population. The fact the Japanese won't acknowledge the Korean comfort women shows the Japanese are not tell sorry at all. The Japanese were sorry they lost the war, that is all.

The Americans haven't apologized because they have nothing to apologise for. The Americans did not start the war, and they used the most efficient means to end it. Millions, both the Japanese victims and the Japanese themselves, were suffering each day the war went on. Japanese prisoners of war were skin and bones and looked like concentration camp.survivors.

Dropping the atomic bomb was no different than the convention bombing of cities lime Tokyo and Dresden, where as many people died , but the war did not end. If you argue that these arial bombings of cities were I'm oral, I would say you had a case, but all sides were guilty of it, and the Allied were better at it simply because they had bigger bombers than the Axis powers.

Japan didn't have to start the war, it didn't have to plan and launch attack during peace negotiations, but it did. You start a war, you take the consequences . Perhaps their was another way, but it is unfair to second guess the descissions made by those who actually we're fighting it.

Taliban, ISIS, the Boston Marathon bomber don:t attack their victims because of anything their victims have, they don't need any justification to kill innocent victims and will do so when they get a chance, as they clearly demonstrate.