Is it possible that United States will officially apologize in future for atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Status
Closed
Apr 2018
608
India
Also note that, since the 1922 treaty was never enacted, both sides during WW2 stored enormous stockpiles of chemical agents, ready to be used in a moment's notice. The only thing that prevented either side from using it was the threat of massive retaliation coupled with the traumatic experience of WW1. There wasn't any humane motivation in a total war like WW2 against a foe like the Axis.

Furthermore the effects of Sulfur Mustard was well known well before WW1. Germany used it first in Ypres with full knowledge of its effects.

Sulfur mustard - Wikipedia - Development section

No weapon, no matter how dangerous is never discarded because of its destructive potential in absence of a legal prohibition. And such prohibitions had never been enacted in history until after they were used in warfare and their effects studies. If we take the basis of your accusation against United States at face value, no military power in human history can come out clean and that logic, by extension, makes the use of all weapons developed since the beginning of civilization a crime of which no one is innocent.
 
Likes: Iraq Bruin
Apr 2018
608
India
As for your constant accusations of Whataboutism -

You wish to discuss history without drawing parallels? You want to prove an act of war a crime without drawing parallels or without judging the past actions of the supposed victim?

That means all the court cases, both national and international, all over the world that has been fought throughout history and are still being fought, where multiple instances of precedence are mentioned, noted and documented are all fallacious arguments?
 
Apr 2018
608
India
Any heinous and evil act, whether its punishable by a law or not, is a crime.
Yes, this is you passing the judgment when you have no fact whatsoever to support your opinion that the US is guilty of an act UNPRECEDENTED in history. As @BuckBradley has already mentioned, you can go on blabbering this sort of pseudo-emotional nonsense but we will always be there to counter you with HARD FACTS.
 
Mar 2019
1,444
Kansas
View attachment 20580

where does it state here?

probably the elaborate definition was invented later to save uncle sam?

regards
Gas warfare was directly intended for chemicals and compounds designed and deployed to kill people as their primary purpose. This was not the intended use of agent orange. Many of the damaging health effects were not isolated until well after that war was finished. Even today the deployment of the chemical is not considered a breach of any protocols as long as it is used only in jungle environments and there is definitive evidence an enemy is using the foliage for cover
 
Apr 2018
608
India
why weren't they against the law, are they against the law today?

regards
No international law is bounding for a country unless it is ratified by the same. For example, India and Pakistan have not signed NPT and hence it does not apply to them. All those who have, it applies to them. However any misadventure in this regard can result in serious repercussions which prevents these countries from taking any radical steps towards stockpiling. Also India has a No First Use policy. A violation of the same can be legally challenged in both international as well as Indian courts, I believe. However Indian policy assures massive retaliation as a response, no matter how small the first attack be. Therefore if one Nasr rocket drops in Thar Desert without causing any significant damage, India will counterattack with an armageddon level barrage and no one will be able to challenge that anywhere in any tribunal without invoking other laws that might render the massive retaliation policy illegal. Even then India will ask - "If you knew so all along, why didn't you enact the law before?"

This hypothetical scenario was presented to explain the workings of laws related to arms control and use policies and not to provoke anyone. So no need to get all worked up.

There is no law, at least not one ratified by the nuclear powers against the use of nuclear weapons altogether. Some countries have No First Use policy like India and China, some countries have vaguely stated policies like Russia which states that its armed forces reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a "large scale" conventional aggression.

So why aren't they used? Simple, the threat of mutual assured destruction.
 
Jul 2016
9,489
USA
did people know about the test in the first place, secondly does it really matter that the test was conducted few days before nukes were launched on japan and japanese people used as guinea pigs?
Didn't matter if random people knew if the test happened in 1945. In 2019, if they are going to be ranting for a few dozen pages about WW2 atomic bombs, then make the ridiculous comment that the atomic bombs weren't even tested, all that does is reveal the individual who wrote that doesn't deserve to have a respected opinion. Because it proves they are ignorant, without knowledge, unlearned, etc.

Japanese people were absolutely test subjects, in the exact same way any brand new weapon system used for the time operationally against a live target is used for testing too. You think the US dropped $4 billion (in 1940s level of money) and wasn't going to bother to actually see the results of the bomb? But that wasn't the point in dropping them. The point was to do exactly what happened, force the Emperor and Big Six to unconditionally surrender. Mission accomplished!
 
Likes: andyferdinard
Jul 2016
9,489
USA
View attachment 20580

where does it state here?

probably the elaborate definition was invented later to save uncle sam?

regards
I don't have to do anything. A defense lawyer doesn't have to prove his client is innocent, the prosecutor (you) needs to prove he's guilty. You are the one trying to claim the use of defoliants against plants means breaching international law regarding chemical warfare. Which means YOU NEED TO PROVE IT.

Do your homework. Don't ask me to educate you while defending my side, it isn't going to happen. If you're so ignorant to not even know what Agent Orange was, then it means you don't have the credibility to be denouncing it as chemical warfare. Or biological warfare (LOLOLOL).
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions