who thinks the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a war crime?

Question

Please could you explain your answer

my thoughts:
i believe the killing of 70,000 people in up to 60,000 were injured in Nagasaki and the killing of at least an estimated 90,000 people in Hiroshima was a war crime.
To get peace you dont go about it by killing 160,000 people

please no racial slurs, you're better off not putting your answer down if thats all you have.

PS Pearl harbour was a military target not a civilian one

Answer 1

it was the most disgusting, horrific thing ever. if the USA think they were clever by doing that, they are the sickest bastards ever. how anyonyone can think that its ok to do such a thing desesrve to be ******* blown apart .. a few japs bombed pearl harbour. a million plus are still suffering . those poor suffering victims bring tears to my eyes right now

Answer 2

The actual Hirsoshima and Nagasaki raids where nothing compared to the Fire Raids performed by the Americans on the Japanese homeland.
One thing it did not do was shorten the war. The Japs where ready to surrender and had already taken a vote and where just waiting for an Imperial Edict as it was a straight 50/50 divide. Considering that the news of the two cities, it did then cause the Emporer to side with the peace faction, however he would have more than likely gone that way as He knew from his own sources Japan could no longer defend itself any further, the fleet was all but destroyed, the airforce was mauled, the petrol had gone and the citizens had mainly fled from the cities.
However considering the three operations the allies had for the rest of 1945 and 1946, the Invasion of the Japanese Homeland would have cost the lives of the majority of the populace and the loss of up to 1 million service personnel. The southern Operation Zimmer was a proven failure when it was carried out (the liberation of Thailand and Malaysia) with poor planning and bad judgement and would not only have cost lives on the British and Commonwealth forces, but also the destruction of numerous POW's.
Then there was also the Soviet thrust to think about, which considering the speed of the advance in 1945 from Manchuria against a large force of troops, it would have meant the loss of Korea and Northern Japan more than likely. Truman was already aware of the problems the Soviets where causing in Europe and realized that this also could not be allowed to happen in the Eastern area.
So the use of the Atomic wepons, I think was not a war crime, it was a means to an end.

Answer 3

The Americans used the Atomic bombs because Japan was trying to cut a deal with the Soviets. Japan wanted to keep their Emperor and the States wanted unconditional surrender.

Other factors were the military cost of invading mainland Japan, which would certainly have cost thousands of American lives and the cost of continued bombing with conventional weapons.

The USAAF used incendiary bombs on Tokyo which caused firestorms that resulted in more civilian casualties that either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Also, no weapon has ever been invented that has not been used. There has been speculation that the atomic weapons could have been used against non military targets, but at the time at least there would have been little sympathy for the Japanese.

It could be argued that if their government had accepted unconditional surrender then the USA would not have used the bomb.

I think if you are going to accuse the USA of war crimes then you have to include every nation that has bombed civilians, in which case, Britain has to stand in line with Germany and many other nations.

Answer 4

I would call it a 'cold war crime'. Simply because, as I looked into de-clasified files of the period, the bombs were dropped in reaction to Russian initiatives at creating an union with Japan, a treaty had already been drafted, stipulating the creation of the largest Navy in the world. The diplomatic telegrams were intercepted by the Americans, I think it was 2 or 3 days before the first A-bomb was dropped. It was, in my view the begining of the Cold War, Truman being unlikely to accept that Japan would fall under Stalin's sphere of influence.

It was of course a 'quick' way to end the war... As a Japanese surrender was very unlikely as far as anyone was still alive, it is argued to have 'saved lives'... The US were hardly going to find enough troops to engage the Japanese over a long and very perilous war on Japanese ground.

Nevertheless, the use of an atomic bomb, is a crime, even if it is 'just' to blow up Mururoa (Hello Jacques...). there is no rationale behind its existence as it actually exists to end existance...

Answer 5

Which is the greater war crime: killing 160,000 in bombing these two cities, killing more by previously firebombing Tokyo or killing 500,000 on their side and a few hundred thousand on our side by invading without using the atomic bomb?
Whether we had to bomb both cities so quickly vs waiting longer for the second because of stuff we found later out was happening after the first might be a better question.
A war crime is something that, when the leaders discover or order it, has no military justification or is an excessive response to the situation (killing all the civilians of a given background to stop guerrilla fighting.)

Answer 6

It depends which way you look at it. If you believe (which I do) the the US wanted to finish the war as soon as possible with minimal casualties to themselves, then no I don't believe it was a war crime. I can't remember the figures now, but the estimates in the loss of life, if the US actually invaded Japan were horrendous.
Again if you look at the bombing of British and German cities in WW2 by both sides was technically a war crime, but it was a full scale war and in war rules can and often do go out of the window.
War is cruel and there's no getting away from it.
That's why the US and Britain were very foolish getting involved in Iraq, both Governments have unleashed a can of worms that won't be played out for generations to come. We may all come to regret it in time through a much more unstable world.

Answer 7

There were more civilians killed during WWII from carpet bombing and incendiary attacks against German and Japanese cities than were killed from the two nukes. Countries that attempt to humanize war will most likely be defeated. That to me is the lesson of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

An opinion was rendered in international courts to wit:

"in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war"

At the time, "total war" meant the civilians on both sides faced indiscriminate aerial bombing, including incendiary attacks, nuclear attacks, and assaults on centers of culture/churches/schools, etc.

A change in the Geneva Conventions, beginning in 1949 were the results from the uproar of the fire bombing of Dresden, nuclear attacks on Japan, and other indiscriminate carpet bombing during WW II.

Therefore, in answer to your question, there were no specific treaties or conventions broken AT THE TIME of the bombings and therefore it was not a war crime, these prohibitions all came after the war.

Answer 8

Most of the points i wanted to make have already been addressed.The only point I would like to make is that we really shouldn`t judge what happened in the past with the morality of today.If we did another Hiroshima then yes it could well be construde as a war crime, but at the time it was done for a reason however distastful.Would it be ok to judge the generals of 200 years ago for the slaughter of horses in battle?I think not

Answer 9

I find the Geneva Convention and the implication that some violence is more justifiable than other types to be ethically dubious in the very least (although I accept that it would be impossible to criminalise all military violence).

I believe the bombings were unjustified and and am not convinced that the Soviets could not have been encouraged to invade Japan earlier and end their resistance. I suspect the Americans were frightened by the prospect of Soviet influence in the Far East.

Answer 10

The dropping of the nukes in hiroshima and nagasaki should be considered war-crimes for many reasons. First, although the U.S. told the media that Japan's resistance in an invasion would cost a casualty of a million on both sides, the real truth was the Japanese empire was about to collapse. They lost about ever island and mainland extension they had, and only the mainland islands of japan were still in their control. they ran out of fuel, money, people, and motivation to fight the war. Because the Yalta conference, the big three decided that unconditional surrender of japan and germany was the only option, this forced the japanese to fight til their last breath. In the end, two cities were completely annihilated. It's interesting to note that Japan had already admitted defeat to the allies before the dropping of the nukes, but their only demand was their god-like emperor remain. The U.S. objected and nuked them anyway. After the war, the U.S. decided to let the emperor stay, and Japan is the only country with a constitutional monarchy; although he serves as basically a symbol as with the British monarchy

Answer 11

There is a lot to be said for these bombings to be seen as a war crme. However, I think it has to balanced out with the events of the time. The Japanese had commited many atrocities during the war - Pearl Harbour, Singapore etc and were known for their culture of never surrendering. Apparently, the reason why their prisoners of war were so horrifically treated was that the Japanese despised anyone who allowed himself to be captured. A Japanese would fall on his sword. With Germany defeated, the US were desperate to end the war with Japan and, at the time, it was thought that the only way was to use the new atomic bomb.
It was terrible, but I can understand the mindset of this last ditch action.