Was the use of atomic bombs on Japan by the US a war crime? [Azoth vs Halbard] Commentary Thread

[Vanoi]

The German Army didn't order the rape of Belgium, but it is still considered a German crime.
Personally I think a rap-off in the middle of the battle of Okinawa would've been awesome.
But, you're right, we are getting off topic.

forgot to fix that mistake. Can you source the rape of Belgium incident though, i am curious about it.

[The Stig]

forgot to fix that mistake. Can you source the rape of Belgium incident though, i am curious about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium The neutrality is disputed in favor of the Germans.

[Vanoi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium The neutrality is disputed in favor of the Germans.

No wonder i was confused. I thought you were talking about Germany in WWII not WWI. I did read it though and the German Army is clearly at fault here. You said the German Army didn't order this. Well thye kinda did since many German units purposley killed civilians and raped women. This was an act of a few soldiers. Officers themselves were ordering this kind of stuff. Thanks anyways though.

[The Stig]

No wonder i was confused. I thought you were talking about Germany in WWII not WWI. I did read it though and the German Army is clearly at fault here. You said the German Army didn't order this. Well thye kinda did since many German units purposley killed civilians and raped women. This was an act of a few soldiers. Officers themselves were ordering this kind of stuff. Thanks anyways though.

The attacks on Belgian civilians were not ordered by German commanders. Newly conscripted troops were fired upon by French troops on the other bank of the Meuse. They panicked and killed the Belgians.

[Vanoi]

The attacks on Belgian civilians were not ordered by German commanders. Newly conscripted troops were fired upon by French troops on the other bank of the Meuse. They panicked and killed the Belgians.

Not all of them were but seriously some of them were advocated by the officers. Just look at when they burnt that library down that killed over 200 people. Someone commanding must have told them to do that. We are getting off-topic again though.

[Visna]

Azoth, you missed the blockade option. Japan was, and still is, completely dependant on food imports. A blockade and continued conventional bombing was also on the table. The Navy was in favour of a blockade, the Army Air Force were into firebombing Japan into submission, and the Army believed only an invasion of Japan would secure victory. Rivalry between the branches of the armed forces, basically.

All the options would ensure victory, but at a terrible price in lives and time. The atomic bombs were seen as a potential warwinning tool, and it was in that hope they were used. Ultimately they saved many more lives than they claimed. The war had lost all amusementfactor, and to waste lives and time in an effort to defeat Japan while leaving this new superweapon unused was unthinkable. Huge ressources had been spent researching the atomic bombs, and now they finally worked. One bomb could do the job that had previously required hundreds, if not thousands, of bombers dropping their flammable payload on Japanese cities. If it became public knowledge that Truman had chosen to spend up to a million American lives to defeat Japan, because he had moral concerns about using a very large bomb and potentially end the war immidiately he could have kissed his political carreer goodbye.

[Admiral Piett]

I dunno guys, I've seen some pretty convincing logistical arguments that the atomic weapons weren't the main cause of the surrender because Tokyo didn't fully understand its effects or damage until weeks after. But rather, the surrender occurred not long after the Soviet Union declared war.

[Halbard]

Azoth, you missed the blockade option. Japan was, and still is, completely dependant on food imports. A blockade and continued conventional bombing was also on the table.

Thats what i said in my argumentation.

I dunno guys, I've seen some pretty convincing logistical arguments that the atomic weapons weren't the main cause of the surrender because Tokyo didn't fully understand its effects or damage until weeks after. But rather, the surrender occurred not long after the Soviet Union declared war.

Thats another point for me. The Japs were more afraid of the Ruskies at the time, since, as you wisely said, the nuke's effec was not fully understood at the time.

[Visna]

I dunno guys, I've seen some pretty convincing logistical arguments that the atomic weapons weren't the main cause of the surrender because Tokyo didn't fully understand its effects or damage until weeks after. But rather, the surrender occurred not long after the Soviet Union declared war.

The USSR didn't have the means to invade the Japanese mainland, and wouldn't for a while. Japan still hoped for the USSR to act as a mediator, but after the declaration of war that hope vanished. The military leadership had given ample indications that they had no intentions of surrendering, to the point where Hirohito feared for his life if he were to bring up the topic.

EDIT.

Thats what i said in my argumentation.

How is starving millions of people and/or firebombing cities made of wood and paper more humane than the atomic bombs? In the context of the time the atomic bombs were not a warcrime. All the major parties in the war bombed each other's cities as a matter of general policy.

[Vanoi]

Azoth, you missed the blockade option. Japan was, and still is, completely dependant on food imports. A blockade and continued conventional bombing was also on the table. The Navy was in favour of a blockade, the Army Air Force were into firebombing Japan into submission, and the Army believed only an invasion of Japan would secure victory. Rivalry between the branches of the armed forces, basically.

Japanese troops on Iwo Jima were short of food, and vitally short of water, but that didn't stop Iwo Jima being on the only battle were US suffered more casualties than the Japanese. The blockade would have taken longer to work and besides the war needed to be ended quickly. Everday the war went by, more US POWs and soldiers died. Everday the war passed more and more Chinese civilians and soldiers died. Every dya that passed mroe British, Australian and New Zeland troops would die. I wouldn't want to wait 6 months to a year for the war to end while all these people were still dieing.

All the options would ensure victory, but at a terrible price in lives and time. The atomic bombs were seen as a potential warwinning tool, and it was in that hope they were used. Ultimately they saved many more lives than they claimed. The war had lost all amusementfactor, and to waste lives and time in an effort to defeat Japan while leaving this new superweapon unused was unthinkable. Huge ressources had been spent researching the atomic bombs, and now they finally worked. One bomb could do the job that had previously required hundreds, if not thousands, of bombers dropping their flammable payload on Japanese cities. If it became public knowledge that Truman had chosen to spend up to a million American lives to defeat Japan, because he had moral concerns about using a very large bomb and potentially end the war immidiately he could have kissed his political carreer goodbye

Yes, and thats why i supported the use of the atomic bombs. They saved more lives than they killed and brought the war to a quicker end.

Thats another point for me. The Japs were more afraid of the Ruskies at the time, since, as you wisely said, the nuke's effec was not fully understood at the time

The Soviets only invaded Manchuria and attacked Japan after the bombs were dropped. The Japanese realized after the bombs were dropped that the war was over and were really considering accepting the surrender terms. The Russians invading only helped convince them even more that the war was lost.

[Halbard]

Japanese troops on Iwo Jima were short of food, and vitally short of water, but that didn't stop Iwo Jima being on the only battle were US suffered more casualties than the Japanese. The blockade would have taken longer to work and besides the war needed to be ended quickly. Everday the war went by, more US POWs and soldiers died. Everday the war passed more and more Chinese civilians and soldiers died. Every dya that passed mroe British, Australian and New Zeland troops would die. I wouldn't want to wait 6 months to a year for the war to end while all these people were still dieing.

The underlined part made me chuckle a bit. "Alright, lets drop a nuke over a couple of cities to spare us some time"

I'll have 2 dead soldiers over 1 dead civilian.

Whatever you say, the US dropped an atomic bomb over a city full of INNOCENT and DEFENCELESS women and children. That's a fact. The high ranks knew what these bombs would do.

And i still fail to see the point of this, as i reckon that neither of us will change his opinion. So, enlighten me: why are we doing this, since we will not be able to decide who wins?

The Soviets only invaded Manchuria and attacked Japan after the bombs were dropped. The Japanese realized after the bombs were dropped that the war was over and were really considering accepting the surrender terms. The Russians invading only helped convince them even more that the war was lost.

The Ivans would always declare war on Japan. Even if the bombs hadnt been dropped

[Kabeloko]

japan was already incapacitated from other attacks and invasions, and was surrendered, in the point of view of many people, japan were a testing area, away from allied territory, nobody knew the power and effects of the bomb in that time, so they bombed it in the other side of the world...

[Vanoi]

The underlined part made me chuckle a bit. "Alright, lets drop a nuke over a couple of cities to spare us some time"

I'll have 2 dead soldiers over 1 dead civilian.

Really? Then you would want the war to end quickly considering how many Chinese Ccivlians war dieing in china because of the Japanese. Lets nto forgot the number of POWS dieing due to mal-nutrition and mis-treatment by the Japanese. Is all that worth 1 dead Japanese civilian?

Whatever you say, the US dropped an atomic bomb over a city full of INNOCENT and DEFENCELESS women and children. That's a fact. The high ranks knew what these bombs would do.

I explained this to you i think three times now. This will be my fourth and hopefully last time. World War II was a total war. Total war means a nations no longer limit the war to just killing each other's soldiers and now involve the enemies' cities, civilians and industry. For some reason to you dieing from an atomic bomb is worse than dieing from a regular bomb. I don't know why you think like that but both are equally terrible to me. Yet i don't see you complainaing about all the cities Germany bombed, or the towns in China Japan bombed. For some reason your just fixated on the US's use of atomic weapons instead of all the other cities it bombed conventionally.

And i still fail to see the point of this, as i reckon that neither of us will change his opinion. So, enlighten me: why are we doing this, since we will not be able to decide who wins?

You accepted the challenge. If you don't want to debate anymore thats fine with me, just stop posting and i will have nothing to reply to.

[Halbard]

What is it you do for a living? I study Law. And based on the Hague conventions, general principles of international law, jus cogens etc..., i can safely say that the indescriminate bombing of the city was a war crime. But that doesnt seem to get through.
And dont come to me with that total war crap. Thats . Everyone knows that in a war, you dont attack civilians on purpose.

You tell me that THIS isn't a war crime?


Or this?


Imagine Germany dropped one of these over New Jersey, or Columbia SC? And the US still won the war? Wouldnt the german high ranks be charged with this?

[Visna]

What is it you do for a living? I study Law. And based on the Hague conventions, general principles of international law, jus cogens etc..., i can safely say that the indescriminate bombing of the city was a war crime. But that doesnt seem to get through.
And dont come to me with that total war crap. Thats . Everyone knows that in a war, you dont attack civilians on purpose.

But that's the point. In a total war, the concept of civilians becomes meaningless.
And actually, the deliberate attacks on civilians in order to send a message or whatever was fairly rare. Massed bombing was usually done to pave the way for advancing ground forces, like when the Germans bombed Stalingrad, or to attack specific structures or neighborhoods, factories, ports, transportation networks etc. As the war progressed, the indifference grew, to the point where even a vague hint that an attack would save lives and speed up the end of the war was more than enough justification

Imagine Germany dropped one of these over New Jersey, or Columbia SC? And the US still won the war? Wouldnt the german high ranks be charged with this?

The only reason the Germans didn't do something like that was because they lacked the means to do so. No German was charged with warcrimes in relation to strategic bombing, it was part of standard procudure, all those who could do it, did it. I don't understand the obsessing over the atomic bombs, and why their use was somehow dramatically different than for example firebombing. The attacks on Tokyo most likely killed more people than the atomic bombs combined, but those are rarely the topic for debate when it comes to warcrime or not.

[Fenwayb]

And dont try to me. The casualties of the bombings of Tokyo were not even half of the casualitis of the nukes.

...is wrong. The firebombings of Tokyo did cause more casualties than both the nukes combined.

[Cougar109]

Again what the US doing wasn't war crimes. You can't compare what the Japanese did to the US. Seriously do you know of all the war crimes they commited? How about chemical and biological warfare on China? Ever heard of the Rape of Nanking? The US never did anything like that.

So using Chemical warfare on civilians in wrong, firebombing civilians isn't?

[The Holy Pilgrim]

Not really an eye for an eye since Germany did not bomb American cities. Also The US wasn't bombing German cities to get back at them for the Blitz, they were bombing them to bring down German morale and they bombed things like birdges, factories, and communication centers to damage the German war effort. I guess you could say the morale thing was the same as what Germany was trying to achieve but the point is this isn't eye for an eye.

He's talking about your topic "Was the use of atomic bombs on JAPAN!!! by the US a war crime"

Let's see-

Pearl Harbor killed many Americans -> America prepared for war

America has weapon to strike back -> Bomb Japan (we all know that Japan wasn't going to surrender)

Sounds like a drawn-out plan of revenge, don't you think?

Plus, what you fail to mention is how those nukes left Hiroshima and Nagasaki un-inhabitable for hundreds of years to come and that there are still undesirable effects on the population of said areas.

Sure, Germany bombed London and America/England bombed back, but none were as devastating in terms of a long-term effect on said areas. Granted, the US military most likely didn't know what the effects of the atomic bomb would be, but they knew damn well it was much more powerful than any other bomb and the fact that it was radioactive.

[Poach]

It being the lesser evil isn't an argument against it being a warcrime though. The debate isn't what was the best solution, it's whether the bombing was a warcrime.

Should be a good discussion, at the very least it's a debate where there isn't an obvious answer.

I hold that it can't be morally justified as a war crime if carrying it out saved millions more than the only alternative.

[Vanoi]

He's talking about your topic "Was the use of atomic bombs on JAPAN!!! by the US a war crime".

Are you not paying attention at all to this thread? I was replying to Stig's comment on this quote:

You cannot say that the US commited a war crime by dropping a bomb on a city of innocent people when all sides did it during the war.

I was telling him that no side was different during the war, and that all sides bombed each other's cities. it was a total war.

Let's see-

Pearl Harbor killed many Americans -> America prepared for war

America has weapon to strike back -> Bomb Japan (we all know that Japan wasn't going to surrender)

Sounds like a drawn-out plan of revenge, don't you think?

I am assuming your are referring to the atomic bomb. You would be wrong on the revenge part and the surrendering part. since you don't want to both to read my arguments, ill say them again. There were 2 options to ending the war with Japan. We could invade them which would cost millions of lives, or we could use the atomic bombs to end the war that would cost less lives. The US chose to use the a-bombs instead of a bloody invasion of Japan. This was no "revenge" If anything the doolittle Raid on Japan was the US's revenge for bombing Peral Harbor, not the atomic bombings.

Plus, what you fail to mention is how those nukes left Hiroshima and Nagasaki un-inhabitable for hundreds of years to come and that there are still undesirable effects on the population of said areas.

tell me this. Would you rather have 400,000 Japanese civilians die, or 5 to 10 million Japanese die? Would you want Japan to become a war-torn landscape that would take many years to recover from? The atomic bombs saved more lives than they ended.

Sure, Germany bombed London and America/England bombed back, but none were as devastating in terms of a long-term effect on said areas. Granted, the US military most likely didn't know what the effects of the atomic bomb would be, but they knew damn well it was much more powerful than any other bomb and the fact that it was radioactive.

Yep, but they knew the invasion was the more bloody choice here, and they chose to use the atomic bombs and only kill 400,000 people instead of killing up to 10 million people with an invasion.