Was using an atomic bomb on japan a war crime?

Question

is the intentional bombing of civilians a war crime?

Answer 1

I am sure there was a military target in there somewhere

but these were the criteria for city selection:

A. Since the atomic bomb was expected to produce its greatest amount of damage by primary blast effect, and next greatest by fires, the targets should contain a large percentage of closely-built frame buildings and other construction that would be most susceptible to damage by blast and fire.

B. The maximum blast effect of the bomb was calculated to extend over an area of approximately 1 mile in radius; therefore the selected targets should contain a densely built-up area of at least this size.

C. The selected targets should have a high military strategic value.

D. The first target should be relatively untouched by previous bombing, in order that the effect of a single atomic bomb could be determined.

The cities were also considered to have the greatest impact on the military to end the war.

The US had already bombed the crap out of japan prior to dropping of the nukes we would have been hard pressed to find a site that would not have been decimated already.

The Idea was ultimately to end the war that the Japanese were committed to fight to the last man.

Answer 2

According to the Geneva convention combatants have to responsibility not to place military facilities in areas populated by civilians. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Japanese Western Army and thus a legitimate target. The Kure shipyard is in Nagasaki to this day and thus it was a legitimate target.

It's much easier to make the case that Dresden and the fire-bombing of Tokyo were war crimes. The Tokyo bombing actually killed more people than either of the Atomic bombs, but Atom bombs make for better hype.

Answer 3

I think the fire bombings of Dresden in Germany and Tokyo actually killed more people than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

The Japanese used distributed manufacturing to produce war goods, thousands of little one and two man operations scattered all over the place so it could be explained away. But I think we used the bombs on Japan for the wrong reasons.

I think we used the Japanese to throttle the Soviets who had also just declared war on Japan and had already occupied North Korea. Turman feared a north and south Japan.

As I understand the situation the Japanese signed a surrender with the same terms they had agreed to before the bomb was dropped.

Answer 4

This question is asked quite often. And it was not considered a crime for a couple of different reasons.
We won the war and so wrote the history rationalizing it.
Our founding fathers of this country are most likely thought of as criminals in Briton to this day.

The Japanese mind set called "Bushido" was a concern to the leadership as to how we would ultimately conquer an enemy that was brainwashed. The cost of American lives was estimated to be close to 1 million.

We showed Russia we had the bomb and a way of delivering it.

It instilled fear in the minds of everyone and fear is a powerful mind control weapon.

atomic weapons really are meant for civilian targets. It is a neat and fast way of defeating an enemy. Vaporizing the families back home will demoralize the best of any enemy. Check mate

Answer 5

We no, but it was completely unessescary, japan was on the brink of surrneder anyway, they had very little fight left in them, an american invasion of japan wouldn't have been as bad as predicted, if needed at all.

Japan was no where near the U.S mainland, america was hardly defending itself but rather being really offensive. The president at the time had small mans syndrome and so probably wanted to drop the bomb to feel powerful. But probably the bomb was totally about american -russian relations. the bomb dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki in worn out japan had nothing to do with the japanese but was probably a demonstration to the russians of americas might and power.

However this failed as well really as it started the cold war and the russians quests for nuclear arms and global domination.

Answer 6

No. The Geneva Convention wasn't until the late 40's. In a utilitarian sense, the bombs saved more lives than they took. Though those lives may have consisted of women and children, in the end, does it really matter. Is one life more valuable than the next? I just don't believe that the life of a combatant is of lesser value than that of a civilian.

Answer 7

I don't think Eisenhower fully understood the effects of the bomb. I consider it a war crime. So were the internment camps. What can we do though?

Answer 8

There were no smart bombs at that time.....killing civilians was a part of war....everyone did it.....sad but true......and no, it was a passionate thing to have done.....if we went into Japan on foot.....there would have been twice as many deaths in WW2 than there was......again, sad but true

Answer 9

I am sure that there are plenty of folks with opinions on both sides.
At the time, the US anticipated a million casualties would result from an invasion of Japan. I do not think anyone knew of the terrible long-lasting problems of radiation poisoning.

Answer 10

Yes , the stronger Germany was defeated without atomic bomb.