Serious question about war!!!?

Question

Ok recently both israel and hezbollah have been accused of war crimes of purposely targeting innocent citizens. I understand and admit it was a bad thing my country done to the southern lebanon infastructure and targetting citizens that are not soldiers was terrible. Ok i wanted to know if the US dropping 2 nuclear bombs on japan is also considered war crime? israel must have killed 300-400 civilians but the us killed over 200,000 japanese civilians. Why was that never considered a war crime? Do the US seriously think that they can lecture countries like india and pakistan for developing nuclear weapons when the US is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in war. Also is the US seat on the security council justified when they have actually caused more destruction and hatred then any other country? Im not anti american or anything i just want to know people opinions.

Answer 1

The war ended much sooner and with less casualties by dropping the two atomic bombs on Japan, than if the US had tried to conquer Japan through standard military force.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets, supplying the Japanese empire with military hardware.

Back then, they didn't have the technology, or the luxury of precision guided weapons. Now that we have them, people are less inclined to support carpet bombing, which does kill innocent lives.

The main thing to remember is this: If you don't want war casualties, don't start a war. Hezbollah doesn't get this. Israel only responded after being provoked. I say they used a lot of restraint prior to the war.

Answer 2

You bring up a good point. However there are several differences between the two situations.

The first is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cities with large industrial complexes designed to produce war material. This makes the cities viable military targets. It was these industrail areas that were the targets, not the civilians themselves. Had the US military been seeking a large civilian death toll, there were other cities that provided higher, more densly packed populations. This differs from what happened in Isreal and Lebanon as civilians were being specifically targeted.

Second, the bombs were dropped as an alternative to other means of forcing surrender. There were other options under consideration at the time. The first of those was a conventional invasion of the islands. An invasion on that scale would have killed more Japanese (civilan and military) than the bombings. The other choices were to employee the use of chemical weapons or simply to beseige the island. The latter of which would have killed move civilians than any of the others combined.

Thirdly; it seems rarely mentioned that the Japanese were working on their own atomic weapon project. Japan had also shown the willingness to use chemical and biological weapons with their campagne in China. There is little doubt that had the war not ended when it did, the Japanese would have been able to employ their own nuclear weapon against Allied powers.

Answer 3

Didn't you get the memo? We (U.S.) just wanted to try out our new weapon on real people. We got tired of killing manikins, we actually wanted to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Japanese. Sick joke, I know, but really everything is in debate still about what happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I did not live during that time, it was not a war I started, and I'm focused on the here and the now. Don't get me wrong, I'm deeply sorry to those Japanese who had to endure the pain and torture our bombs created, but you have to realize also that they killed a number of our troops and civilians as well. War is ugly, but unfortunately it is sometimes necessary. Our administration knows a lot about what it is like to kill thousands of people, what the effects of a nuclear bomb can be, and what must be done in the future to help alleviate the possibility of another Hiroshima or Nagasaki happening again, so, my answer is Yes, I think we should be able to lecture anyone about the consequences of their actions, because we've been there. Whether we have caused more destruction or not shouldn't matter about our seat on the security council, it is about security and who better to be on the council, than the most powerful country this world has ever seen.

Answer 4

I don't think dropping the atom bombs in Japan was a war crime. What was done was a necessary action. Also, in my mind i find it extremely hard to believe that Israel specifically targeted civilians. I believe that Israel targeted Hezbollah who hid behind civilians(this is a war crime).

Answer 5

Probably now in our times using the atom bombs would be considered a very serious war crime. At that time in the USA,s war with Japan was almost over. Japan was just about out of any of their resources that would let them continue and they knew it.Truman said that dropping the atom bombs would shorten the war and save American soldiers lives. Japan was no longer a threat to the American citizens.Yes I feel it was one of the biggest mistakes made on the world society.This society is now suffering dearly for It.Who are we{the USA} and the rest of, I guess you call it,the western "society" to tell anyone who can have what sort of weapons to have to protect themselves or use as leverage.Why cant we make it even all the way around? We{USA} started it with"I got a big horrible weapon that can kill millions at a time and I'm usin' it "code of morals.GOD HELP US.

Answer 6

Well Mr. Israeli, ONE reason the US is hated especially in the Middle East, is it's unilateral support of your friggin country. If your country were removed, much like Ahmedinnejad suggests, than the Middle East would be stable.
Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, were both targetted because they were the centers of the Japanese military-industrial complex. Not quite the same as downtown Beirut is it? And it could be argued it was an APPROPRIATE response to attacking the US. Unlike kidnapping a few soldiers........

Answer 7

No they weren't war crimes, they were attention getters. The Japanese high command was commited to fighting to the death of the last man woman and child. They were training pesants to attack with sticks saying that if they could take one GI with them before they were killied it would be a good death(sound familiar). Civilian Japanese on Okinawa threw themselves and their children off of cliffs rather than submit to the evil Americans (though they started the war)
The US killed more civilians during the firebombings of Tokyo and other major cities before we dropped the bomb. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were chosen as much because the rest of the country had been flattened as for any other reason.
I hope you hear what I am saying and don't keep you ears as closed as your mind appears to be.

Answer 8

hmm :) am lebanese i kinda agree with ur opinion bout usa..

obviously theyre the biggest hypocrits around... they never act wht they preach

anyway since ur from israel and am from lebanon i wont comment the war tht happened earlier in between our 2 countries... cos we wouldnt b as objective as we would like to...

but ill say one thing! u said israel killed 300 or 400 civilian!
well actualy therye 1239 CIVILIAN and that number is provided by the un officials in the south of lebanon :)

besides if usa or any other country bombed japan or anything like tht would tht give u the right to do as well in lebanon?

or its just SIMPLY wrong if you did it.. or usa or hizbollah or whtever..

Answer 9

your 2 examples dont work that well. you must rember that back in the 40s people were not as weak as they are today. also the abomb actualy saved lives in th end. if we had not droped thoes bombs then we would have invaded japan and the US UK and russia would have went through hell in Japan. also takes note of how much technology has changed. what the A bomb did was the same thing as carpetbombing just with a lot of head and just 1 bomb, so with that you just have to deal with the deaths, but with todays technology there almost excuse sense we have guided bombs that can hit with in a yard or 2.

ilso i dont see kinning civilenas as campleetly bad. civilens die in war plane and simple but when one or more sides focuses on just the civilens then its a problem.

Answer 10

hi there, i know that we must be enemies like most people are saying , but i don't want that thing, i think that u have a point there, all the time the un is talking about israel, plaestine, lebanon,iraq and the war crimes but even what is hapening in iraq nothing serious is accused to america, i think she is always getting out of the problem, and that's not fair