Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Crimes or Reasonable Use of Force?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Not millions. I'm not talking about some sophisticated multi-megaton ICBM, talking about some makeshift nuclear bomb, probably similar in yield to little boy.

Except that American cities that might be targeted would not only have larger populations than Hiroshima but larger population densities as well. Manhattan, for example, has a population density of 69,771 people per mile squared. Little Boy caused severe damage in a one mile radius. I may have done the math wrong, but that comes out to roughly 140-50,000 dead and wounded, which according to some estimates is still more than the Iraq War.

Let's not have a 'math' and 'science' discussion on possible nuclear casualties from a weapon deployed in a US city.

It'll devolve into derp in like five posts.

[Jassysworth 1]

How about this?

It WAS a war crime (indiscriminate targeting of large numbers of civilians and non-military targets... hard to argue it doesn't fit this definition)

BUT... BUT!

It was justified because it saved American lives and war is war.

How's that? Both sides happy now?

Who said war crimes can never be justified; who said the two are mutually exclusive? It just so happens that sometimes committing crimes saves lives. In this case, America was acting in a way a rational, sound, and self-interested government was supposed to act. It intimidated the hell out of the Japanese and bombed a huge number of people to death because they knew it would speed up the end of the war and save the lives of their own soldiers.

So basically... America committed a justified war crime. Japan would have done nothing less if the tables were turned on American cities...

[Person012345]

Not millions. I'm not talking about some sophisticated multi-megaton ICBM, talking about some makeshift nuclear bomb, probably similar in yield to little boy.

Except that American cities that might be targeted would not only have larger populations than Hiroshima but larger population densities as well. Manhattan, for example, has a population density of 69,771 people per mile squared. Little Boy caused severe damage in a one mile radius. I may have done the math wrong, but that comes out to roughly 140-50,000 dead and wounded, which according to some estimates is still more than the Iraq War.

You mean a similar number to the higher estimate I posted?

Seriously, stop avoiding the question. First you post the "just over a million" figure, because you think that the attack will cause that many and that lets you neatly bring in some silly justification for a hypocritical stance, then when I clarify I'm talking similar casualties to the Hiroshima bombing (hell, I never mentioned Manhattan, choose a less densely populated area than that if you think that will cause too many) you revise the iraq casualty number your using down to a figure under 150,000. Stop avoiding the question. Lets take a number somewhere in between, 500,000 for the iraq war, 150,000 for a small nuclear attack on a US city (not necessarily a city or an area as densely packed as manhattan). Would you then agree that al-queda detonating a small nuclear device in a US city, killing 150,000 american civilians (through radiation poisoning to a certain period after), assuming said nuke forces the US to pull out of iraq, would be justified?

[Person012345]

So basically... America committed a justified war crime. Japan would have done nothing less if the tables were turned on American cities...

And yet Americans don't seem to find the tables being turned to be justified.

Note that I'm not saying it was unjustified, I don't really know about the ethics of the whole thing (although I think dropping 2 bombs was excessive) and I find the question to be fairly pointless, what's done is done and there's no chance of anyone facing further punishment anyway. What I don't like is this hypocrisy - I've only ever once seen someone reply "yes" to the question I pose above. And yet it's the same justification - lives would have been saved. But in this case, americans would be the victim of the bombing, therefore it seems morally unacceptable to many of them. It's hypocrisy.

[Risottia]

Yes, it was a war crime. Just like the bombing of Guernica, Coventry, Rotterdam, London, Rome, Milan, Köln, Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, etc etc etc.
Indiscriminate use of military force on mixed targets without a reasonable attempt at sparing civilian lives - when not direct, deliberate attacks on the civilian population.

So basically... America committed a justified war crime.

No. Crimes aren't justifiable.
Understandable within the context of that war, maybe.

[Eastern Char]

Your poll is inherently biased in its wording. You should make the wording a lot less specific, because I was looking for a "No, it saved American and Japanese lives" option and couldn't find one. Also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far from the "civilian targets" that you describe them as in your other option.

EDIT: Added some more stuff to my post, and a URL.

[Sdaeriji]

But in this case, americans would be the victim of the bombing, therefore it seems morally unacceptable to many of them. It's hypocrisy.

Name those people.

[Wisconsin9]

Except that American cities that might be targeted would not only have larger populations than Hiroshima but larger population densities as well. Manhattan, for example, has a population density of 69,771 people per mile squared. Little Boy caused severe damage in a one mile radius. I may have done the math wrong, but that comes out to roughly 140-50,000 dead and wounded, which according to some estimates is still more than the Iraq War.

You mean a similar number to the higher estimate I posted?

Seriously, stop avoiding the question. First you post the "just over a million" figure, because you think that the attack will cause that many and that lets you neatly bring in some silly justification for a hypocritical stance, then when I clarify I'm talking similar casualties to the Hiroshima bombing (hell, I never mentioned Manhattan, choose a less densely populated area than that if you think that will cause too many) you revise the iraq casualty number your using down to a figure under 150,000. Stop avoiding the question. Lets take a number somewhere in between, 500,000 for the iraq war, 150,000 for a small nuclear attack on a US city (not necessarily a city or an area as densely packed as manhattan). Would you then agree that al-queda detonating a small nuclear device in a US city, killing 150,000 american civilians (through radiation poisoning to a certain period after), assuming said nuke forces the US to pull out of iraq, would be justified?

No. If we were the aggressors, then yes, but considering the War on Terror was launched in response to an attack on America, it would be like Japan nuking us to stop our invasion.

[The IASM]

For me it was just a needlessly large bomb that was used in the name of American lives.

[Bafuria]

The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would undoubtedly be considered war crimes today.

The thing people have to consider though, is that strategic bombing of civilians was commonplace during WW2 and was considered a normal form of warfare.
Every major power that fought in WW2 bombed civilians from the air, America just discovered a way to do it more efficiently.

[Hasuut Inu Tlomaq]

Hard to say. It has been argued that the use of the bombs avoided an invasion which could have cost hundreds of thousands of lives both American and Japanese, but I had also heard it said that Japan kight have been ready to give up even without them.

Also one wonders if the Allies would have readily used such a weapon against a "white" enemy such as Germany.

[Des-Bal]

The firebombing campaigns that preceded the nukes killed far more people, had the United States carried out it's overland invasion few people even dare to hazard a guess at how many would die on both sides, in that era of warfare we gained the power to bomb civilian population centers and we jumped right on it, in fact that's the reason it's so taboo today, there weren't any special rules for nuclear weapons at that time because they were more of a rumor than anything else.

[The Mighty Warrior Horse]

Well lets think here.
The Japanese are very resilient people, and are known to fight to the last man and woman.
During world war 2, an American invasion into japan would have cost around a million American lives.
The Japanese were training there people to fight, including the women, thinking the Americans would invade. The atomic bomb was sciences answer to an invasion. Now, in answer to that question, was it necessary to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Well yes and no IMHO.
Yes, Hiroshima should have been bombed, it was a major industrial city. That city was s good target IMO. However, they could have spared Nagasaki, and even Hiroshima, if they had firebombed Nagasiki and Hiroshima( which if you research the numbers, the Mcdougal raids did kill more people) and used the A-Bomb on military targets, which would possibly cripple them more. On the other hand, a gigantic fireball a few miles wide would probably make anybody crap there pants, so maybe it was a "good" thing.
Overall, I'm netural to it, but I'm kind of leaning towards the yes it was good, but I'm not fully convinced.

[Person012345]

You mean a similar number to the higher estimate I posted?

Seriously, stop avoiding the question. First you post the "just over a million" figure, because you think that the attack will cause that many and that lets you neatly bring in some silly justification for a hypocritical stance, then when I clarify I'm talking similar casualties to the Hiroshima bombing (hell, I never mentioned Manhattan, choose a less densely populated area than that if you think that will cause too many) you revise the iraq casualty number your using down to a figure under 150,000. Stop avoiding the question. Lets take a number somewhere in between, 500,000 for the iraq war, 150,000 for a small nuclear attack on a US city (not necessarily a city or an area as densely packed as manhattan). Would you then agree that al-queda detonating a small nuclear device in a US city, killing 150,000 american civilians (through radiation poisoning to a certain period after), assuming said nuke forces the US to pull out of iraq, would be justified?

No. If we were the aggressors, then yes, but considering the War on Terror was launched in response to an attack on America, it would be like Japan nuking us to stop our invasion.

And that wouldn't be acceptable because..?

[Person012345]

But in this case, americans would be the victim of the bombing, therefore it seems morally unacceptable to many of them. It's hypocrisy.

Name those people.

You're reading the thread yes?

[Risottia]

The Japanese were training there people to fight, including the women, thinking the Americans would invade.

Okinawa disagrees.

[Len Hyet]

The Japanese were training there people to fight, including the women, thinking the Americans would invade.

Okinawa disagrees.

Okay, so the Japanese were brainwashing their people to commit mass suicide because the GIs would rape the women, mutilate the children, murder the babies, and torture the men.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

They ought to have expected some of that, given what they did it to the Chinese.

[The Mighty Warrior Horse]

The Japanese were training there people to fight, including the women, thinking the Americans would invade.

Okinawa disagrees.

Is that the only thing wrong with my statement?
I'm not trying to say that as a smug statement, I'm trying to see if anything else is wrong, so I can better my knowledge.
I also do not know what Okinawa did as a city, can you please elaberate?

[Person012345]

Okinawa disagrees.

Is that the only thing wrong with my statement?
I'm not trying to say that as a smug statement, I'm trying to see if anything else is wrong, so I can better my knowledge.
I also do not know what Okinawa did as a city, can you please elaberate?

Okinawa is a Japanese Island that we invaded.

[Mkuki]

Okinawa disagrees.

Is that the only thing wrong with my statement?
I'm not trying to say that as a smug statement, I'm trying to see if anything else is wrong, so I can better my knowledge.
I also do not know what Okinawa did as a city, can you please elaberate?

Okinawa is an island to the southwest of the Japanese Home Islands. It was the last major invasion by American forces in World War II as well as the first true piece of Japanese territory to be invaded and captured by any of the allied nations.

[The Mighty Warrior Horse]

Is that the only thing wrong with my statement?
I'm not trying to say that as a smug statement, I'm trying to see if anything else is wrong, so I can better my knowledge.
I also do not know what Okinawa did as a city, can you please elaberate?

Okinawa is a Japanese Island that we invaded.

Thank you very much.

[The Mighty Warrior Horse]

Is that the only thing wrong with my statement?
I'm not trying to say that as a smug statement, I'm trying to see if anything else is wrong, so I can better my knowledge.
I also do not know what Okinawa did as a city, can you please elaberate?

Okinawa is an island to the southwest of the Japanese Home Islands. It was the last major invasion by American forces in World War II as well as the first true piece of Japanese territory to be invaded and captured by any of the allied nations.

Thank you as well.

[Chinese Regions]

Crime

[The Mighty Warrior Horse]

Crime

Because............