Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Crimes or Reasonable Use of Force?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Yeah, your bizarre preoccupation with revenge.

[Mkuki]

How is it symbolism if you just blow up an already blown up city? Dropping a nuke on Tokyo wouldn't have shown the full power of the atom bomb to either Japan or the USSR.

because they'd have to start rebuilding from scratch (literally ).

It still wouldn't show the true power of the atom bomb.

Sooooo,new capital (or death by radiation albeit they didn't know it then )

Yes, they did. Both sides knew that radiation would be a side effect of detonating an atom bomb. The extent was what wasn't fully known.

+ they could always return and bomb them again each time they built a new nuke so they could pretty much obliterate half of japan this way if they didn't think that sent the right message yet

what about bigotry ? How is that bigotry ? Also letting the USSR rule a country is getting revenge on that country in my book

You don't understand geopolitics, do you?

[Octogots]

because they'd have to start rebuilding from scratch (literally ).

It still wouldn't show the true power of the atom bomb.

Sooooo,new capital (or death by radiation albeit they didn't know it then )

Yes, they did. Both sides knew that radiation would be a side effect of detonating an atom bomb. The extent was what wasn't fully known.

+ they could always return and bomb them again each time they built a new nuke so they could pretty much obliterate half of japan this way if they didn't think that sent the right message yet

what about bigotry ? How is that bigotry ? Also letting the USSR rule a country is getting revenge on that country in my book

You don't understand geopolitics, do you?

why don't you just tell me how that was bigotry ?

Yeah, your bizarre preoccupation with revenge.

for me revenge=justice

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Yeah, that's not how the civilised part of the world works.

And I believe in nuclear armament.

[Mkuki]

It still wouldn't show the true power of the atom bomb.


Yes, they did. Both sides knew that radiation would be a side effect of detonating an atom bomb. The extent was what wasn't fully known.




You don't understand geopolitics, do you?

why don't you just tell me how that was bigotry ?

I didn't comment on whether your statements were bigoted. Just that you do not understand the nature of geopolitics.

[Octogots]

Yeah, that's not how the civilised part of the world works.

And I believe in nuclear armament.

only the americans had nukes back then so the rest of the world could suck it
Also,I may not get geopolitics but meh, I like to think the japs deserved worse than two nukes dropped on them for what they did to the chinese

[Mkuki]

Also,I may not get geopolitics but meh, I like to think the japs deserved worse than two nukes dropped on them for what they did to the chinese

Obliterating Japan and/or allowing Japan to be invaded by the Soviet Union would have worked directly against US interests in the Pacific. While nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not a war crime, in my book, obliterating Japan most definitely is. Just destroying a country for what they did is the type of shit Japan or Germany would have pulled. The US should be above that.

[Octogots]

Also,I may not get geopolitics but meh, I like to think the japs deserved worse than two nukes dropped on them for what they did to the chinese

Obliterating Japan and/or allowing Japan to be invaded by the Soviet Union would have worked directly against US interests in the Pacific. While nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not a war crime, in my book, obliterating Japan most definitely is. Just destroying a country for what they did is the type of shit Japan or Germany would have pulled. The US should be above that.

fair enough by me,as long as it served their best interest they acted right but what I say is that any action would've been justified since they were the ones attacked first

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Obliterating Japan and/or allowing Japan to be invaded by the Soviet Union would have worked directly against US interests in the Pacific. While nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not a war crime, in my book, obliterating Japan most definitely is. Just destroying a country for what they did is the type of shit Japan or Germany would have pulled. The US should be above that.

fair enough by me,as long as it served their best interest they acted right but what I say is that any action would've been justified since they were the ones attacked first

The various laws of war disagree.

[Octogots]

fair enough by me,as long as it served their best interest they acted right but what I say is that any action would've been justified since they were the ones attacked first

The various laws of war disagree.

I think those laws are unjust

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The various laws of war disagree.

I think those laws are unjust

NS doesn't have a smilie for this moment.

[New England and The Maritimes]

if u ask me if they wanted to make an impression they should have bombed Tokyo before Nagasaki to affect the government more
look back on the firebombing on Tokyo in early 1945 6 months before atom bombs.

OVER 20,000 PEOPLE DIED FROM IT IN ONLY A HALF AN HOUR

THINK WHAT AN ATOM BOMB COULD DO THERE!

YEAH, KILL WAY MORE PEOPLE! ERMAHGERD IM GONNA CREAM MY JEANS AT THE THOUGHT OF MORE CHILDREN BURNING TO DEATH IN THEIR OWN HOMES!

[The Zombay]

It certainly was a war crime no matter what the Americans like to believe.

The main argument for dropping a bomb that killed between 150 000 and 250 000 people is that a lot of Americans would have died if it was a ground invasion? That is not an argument, you are simply stating that your lives are more important then the Japanese...
It's a war crime no matter if it was to prevent something bigger or not, you can justify killing people by presuming even more (of your own, i doubt any American cared if Japanese civilian would die) would die...

There is absolutely no way to justify killing of civilians even for the US...

[Esternial]

if u ask me if they wanted to make an impression they should have bombed Tokyo before Nagasaki to affect the government more
look back on the firebombing on Tokyo in early 1945 6 months before atom bombs.

OVER 20,000 PEOPLE DIED FROM IT IN ONLY A HALF AN HOUR

THINK WHAT AN ATOM BOMB COULD DO THERE!

YEAH, KILL WAY MORE PEOPLE! ERMAHGERD IM GONNA CREAM MY JEANS AT THE THOUGHT OF MORE CHILDREN BURNING TO DEATH IN THEIR OWN HOMES!

...

Let's nuke Iran.

[Lorcania]

The result : A miniscule amount of military deaths compared to the deaths of thousands of innocents with the effects of the radiation exposure still present in their childrens children but, i guess like all wars civilians are always the ones that suffer the most.

[Rio Cana]

in one particular modern documentary, they said that the Japanese would have surrendered early in 1945 if they had known that the Soviets were going to declare war against Japan. The Japanese were even trying to get the Soviets to be a middleman in negotiations with the US. Anyway, not knowing that the Soviets were going to declare war, the Japanese kept stalling in order to get assurances from the US that they could keep there Emperor. In the end, the US dropped two nukes, the Soviets invaded and the Japanese got what they wanted which was to keep there Emperor.

The Japanese did not want the Soviets involved since they must have thought that via negotiations with the US they could somehow keep Manchuria and Korea. They rather have there cities destroyed then lose the rich resources of Manchuria and Korea. When it came to the destruction caused by the nukes, the Japanese had plenty of cities that were completely destroyed so two more that were destroyed did not really do anything to them.

Has for the US using the nukes on Japan, it was war. The Japanese had done many atrocities in Asia. But the US should have told the Japanese about the Soviets getting involved in the war. Chances are they would have surrendered sooner thus no need for the nukes. Some people believe if you have a new but destructive weapon you need to use it in order for any unfriendly nations to see that if it came to it that they would indeed use it.

[New attika]

neither is justifiable if it was in a non civilian occupied zone then ok but these killed so many innocents

[New attika]

Yeah, that's not how the civilised part of the world works.

And I believe in nuclear armament.

only the americans had nukes back then so the rest of the world could suck it
Also,I may not get geopolitics but meh, I like to think the japs deserved worse than two nukes dropped on them for what they did to the chinese

they were not nukes they were atom bombs

[Rio Cana]

neither is justifiable if it was in a non civilian occupied zone then ok but these killed so many innocents

By WW II, the way war was waged had changed. No more isolated battle regions. Entire nations and continents now became battle regions.

[Rio Cana]

only the americans had nukes back then so the rest of the world could suck it
Also,I may not get geopolitics but meh, I like to think the japs deserved worse than two nukes dropped on them for what they did to the chinese

they were not nukes they were atom bombs

Same thing.

nuke (nk, nyk) Slang
n.
1. A nuclear device or weapon

[Octogots]

only the americans had nukes back then so the rest of the world could suck it
Also,I may not get geopolitics but meh, I like to think the japs deserved worse than two nukes dropped on them for what they did to the chinese

they were not nukes they were atom bombs

what's the difference
Also,speaking of the soviets,I heard the Japan was terrified of them after some experiences in in 30s

[The Ben Boys]

No, it saved American lives by not forcing X-Day, and it saved Japanese civilans who were trained to resist any Allied forces. As we saw on Okinawa and other places where Japanese civilians were, most either died trying to kill Americans or threw their kids off cliffs, then themselves.

[Quarelia]

I believe that the use of the Atom Bombs were justified. Not just for the fact that it saved American lives, but it also saved many Japanese lives. The invasion of Japan would have been very costly. The common estimate is that 1 million US lives would be lost in the invasion. For the Japanese, 5 to 10 million casualties were expected. That far exceeds the 200,000 killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If I had to make the call between those two options, I know for certain I would pick the latter.

[Sidhae]

Crimes. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no strategic military or industrial significance.

Not that I have any objection against nuclear warfare if it helps get the job done, but if the victorious side claims to have made a fair review of war crimes rather than imposing victors' justice, then a fair review it should be, and incinerating/irradiating a couple hundred thousand civilians sounds hardly better than throwing them in death camps or just massacring entire cities the good old-fashioned way.

[Wielki Lechia]

It was a reasonable use of force. Many more lives would of been lost, and things would of turned out a lot grimmer than what happened. Do I agree with it? Absolutely not, no one should ever be forced to that extreme. And in a perfect world wars wouldn't exist, but what happened happened. The Japanese people were defiant, as was the government, and Japan would of been painted red with blood otherwise.