75 years after Hiroshima, should nuke use be a war crime?

[Plzen]

How exactly do you "forcibly denuclearize" a country?

My post was more about what should happen, in terms of a just international system, than what should happen, in terms of practical foreign policy.

I can and will question whether something is or is not a valid reason to do something without necessarily knowing whether that something is possible to do and, if so, how it might be done.

[Qihein]

Show me the proof for this!!!!

They have a history funding terrorist organizations because of their hate boner against all their neighbors.

If your actually interested in their history of funding terrorists as well as the history behind the Indian and Pakistan issue. Here's a video that covers it. It sources are in the description as well.

Thanks, I will watch it

[Southeastern Xiatao]

If "has a history of funding terrorists" is a valid reason to forcibly denuclearise a country, reasonable cases can be brought against more nuclear powers than just Pakistan.

I mean, just off the top of my head the US funded Nicaraguan Contras at one point...

How exactly do you "forcibly denuclearize" a country?

That is what I like to know.

[Novus America]

Do you have proof its a thing? The Samson option is made up by two-state and pro-Palestinian activists masquerading as journalists and researchers. Everybody knows Israel has nuclear weapons, it's an open secret they're pissed off is open, so Seymour Hersh decided the logical conclusion of that is that they will take the whole world down with them if they lose a war. This idea of Jews being selfish enough to do that is playing on the anti-semitic myth that Jews disregard goyim.

You’re really reaching with that one.

It has nothing to do with anti-semitism and everything to do with deterrence. Basically the idea is that you don’t invade the nation who says they don’t care if they’ll nuke the world

But Israel never said that and lacks the ability to do it. They would nuke their attackers, but not just shooting them at random places for the LOLs.

They have a limited number of nukes, and limited delivery options, most shorter ranged.

There is no evidence the “Sampson Option” is actually in Israeli nuclear doctrine.

[Novus America]

So show me the proof for this!!!! The problem with that request is that there isn't any. It's another one of the many lies made up about Israel.


With what "logic" ? India is a bit dodgy but they're a key democratic ally against China. Pakistan is a country whose institutions are infiltrated by Taliban sympathizers.

It still be impossible to make a country not allowed to have nukes. Like really how can you do that? Tariffs? They'll still do it anyway I mean look at North Korea.

Not impossible per se, but very difficult and likely very bloody.

[Ansarre]

If "has a history of funding terrorists" is a valid reason to forcibly denuclearise a country, reasonable cases can be brought against more nuclear powers than just Pakistan. I mean, just off the top of my head the US funded Nicaraguan Contras at one point...

This seems to be a running theme with my posts on NationStates, but the citizens of former western colonial powers have a surprising willingness to demand action against foreign governments for transgressions that their own governments are guilty of as well.

It isn't terrorism when we support them.

[Novus America]

How exactly do you "forcibly denuclearize" a country?

That is what I like to know.

One way would be to launch a massive nuclear surprise attack on them. But that is a bad idea for many reasons.

Sanctions might work against some countries, but it would depend on the willing to enforce them and that countries dependence on international trade.
More trade and globalization makes a country more vulnerable to sanctions.

So they work in some cases not others.

In the case if North Korea their international isolation and Russia and the PRC deliberately undermining the sanctions make them less effective.

Whereas say Singapore would completely collapse if real sanctions were imposed on it by all countries. Some countries are more vulnerable to sanctions than others. The more globalized you are, the more vulnerable you are.

[Loben III]

tbh would the concept of a war crime even matter if nukes start flying?

[US-SSR]

What about dropping the bomb someplace where civilians wouldn't be hurt but a lot of people could see it happen? Like a warning shot with a nuke, since at the time nuclear weapons were a secret and such destructive force would have probably been dismissed as impossible without a demonstration.

It was dismissed, they only had the two bombs, it would have taken months to get more. What I have read there was a fear that if it didn't work they thought it would stiffen resistance among the Japanese

In fact, the US had one more bomb available and 20 in the pipeline. Truman's decision to halt the bombing after Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender make that schedule somewhat less urgent. The reason the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, largely spared from wartime damage, and not some unpopulated area was to impress the world, and especially the Soviet Union, with US military supremacy going into the postwar era. It was also not contemplated to drop one on Tokyo, which had already been largely destroyed by firebombing.

One more weapon, a MK-III plutonium bomb was completed before 14 August 1945 but when it arrived in San Francisco on 18 August 1945 to be flown across the Pacific to Tinian for use in late August, it was instead returned to Los Alamos to become the first atomic bomb in the US stockpile...

The US had intended to manufacture and assemble for delivery twenty more MK-III type atomic bombs before the end of 1945 (three in September, three in October, seven in November, seven in December), but the surrender of Japan halted production and assembly of further atomic weapons.

https://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_atom ... ve_in_1945

[Loben III]

It was dismissed, they only had the two bombs, it would have taken months to get more. What I have read there was a fear that if it didn't work they thought it would stiffen resistance among the Japanese

In fact, the US had one more bomb available and 20 in the pipeline. Truman's decision to halt the bombing after Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender make that schedule somewhat less urgent. The reason the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and not some unpopulate area was to impress the world, and especially the Soviet Union, with US military supremacy going into the postwar era.

wasnt Hiroshima also home to a rail yard or some important piece of military infrastructure?

[Holy Tedalonia]

If "has a history of funding terrorists" is a valid reason to forcibly denuclearise a country, reasonable cases can be brought against more nuclear powers than just Pakistan. I mean, just off the top of my head the US funded Nicaraguan Contras at one point...

This seems to be a running theme with my posts on NationStates, but the citizens of former western colonial powers have a surprising willingness to demand action against foreign governments for transgressions that their own governments are guilty of as well.

Pakistan uses it's nukes as a pathetic shield to hide under. If they didn't have it, they would have been invaded long ago so that it neighbors don't have to deal with the terrorist groups it funds. In essence it's nukes allows Pakistan to being able to fund these terror groups without really any consequences.

[Holy Tedalonia]

It was dismissed, they only had the two bombs, it would have taken months to get more. What I have read there was a fear that if it didn't work they thought it would stiffen resistance among the Japanese

In fact, the US had one more bomb available and 20 in the pipeline. Truman's decision to halt the bombing after Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender make that schedule somewhat less urgent. The reason the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and not some unpopulate area was to impress the world, and especially the Soviet Union, with US military supremacy going into the postwar era.

Actually there was a fear that Japan would surrender to Russia rather then the US. That's the reason why the second bomb dropped a fear Japan would surrender to communism and be sphered by the Soviet union

[Plzen]

Pakistan uses it's nukes as a pathetic shield to hide under. If they didn't have it, they would have been invaded long ago so that it neighbors don't have to deal with the terrorist groups it funds. In essence it's nukes allows Pakistan to being able to fund these terror groups without really any consequences.

If you wish to truly bring about a world without state-funded terrorism, rather than advocating for small countries to disarm themselves and put their fates at the discretion of superpowers who are themselves perfectly willing to continue committing the same crimes for which they feel the need to punish lesser states, you can instead start with the one country you can influence without using hostile foreign policy - your own.

It isn't terrorism when we support them.

It's sort of disturbing how many people seem to hold this opinion unironically.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Pakistan uses it's nukes as a pathetic shield to hide under. If they didn't have it, they would have been invaded long ago so that it neighbors don't have to deal with the terrorist groups it funds. In essence it's nukes allows Pakistan to being able to fund these terror groups without really any consequences.

If you wish to truly bring about a world without state-funded terrorism, rather than advocating for small countries to disarm themselves and put their fates at the discretion of superpowers who are themselves perfectly willing to continue committing the same crimes for which they feel the need to punish lesser states, you can instead start with the one country you can influence without using hostile foreign policy - your own.

Yes the us has funded terrorism before, even funded Pakistan to fund terrorists. I'm not saying the US is an angel or capable of not making mistakes. But we're talking about Pakistan the country that's invests the most funding to terrorism than any other. While I do hope the US recieves some consequence actions, I do believe it'd be more cooperative at receiving those consequences than some nationalistic military regime bent on funding terrorism.

[US-SSR]

In fact, the US had one more bomb available and 20 in the pipeline. Truman's decision to halt the bombing after Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender make that schedule somewhat less urgent. The reason the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and not some unpopulate area was to impress the world, and especially the Soviet Union, with US military supremacy going into the postwar era.

Actually there was a fear that Japan would surrender to Russia rather then the US. That's the reason why the second bomb dropped a fear Japan would surrender to communism and be sphered by the Soviet union

[citation needed]. First, Japan surrendering to Russia without surrendering to the US makes no sense at all and was never a consideration in Allied planning.

Second, the fear was that Russian entry into the war woud lead Japan to surrender before the bombs could be dropped, depriving the US of the opportunity to demonstrate its military superiority entering the postwar era. Some even believed the US had slowed its own war effort in order not to provoke a Japanese surrender before the bomb could be used.

In fact, the US had one more bomb available and 20 in the pipeline. Truman's decision to halt the bombing after Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender make that schedule somewhat less urgent. The reason the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and not some unpopulate area was to impress the world, and especially the Soviet Union, with US military supremacy going into the postwar era.

wasnt Hiroshima also home to a rail yard or some important piece of military infrastructure?

That was the rationalization, that Hiroshima was a supply and logistics center for the military. However, the actual reason was that it had been little damaged by the war previously and so offered an ideal target to show the bomb's horrific destructive power. Also, just about any point on the home islands could have been said to be a supply and logistics center for the Japanese military.

The just war principle of proportionality could be extended to situations such as Hiroshima; in a bombing raid against a ball bearing plant it's reasonable to expect that some nearby civilian housing could be damaged. What makes Hiroshima and Nagasaki different is the tremendous disproporitonality between the destructive power of the bomb and the military value of the target. A similar disproportionality can be seen in the firebombing of Dresden and possibly Tokyo. (Just to anticipate one response, no, Japanese war crimes do not justify retaliation against Japan's civilian population.)

[Novus America]

Actually there was a fear that Japan would surrender to Russia rather then the US. That's the reason why the second bomb dropped a fear Japan would surrender to communism and be sphered by the Soviet union

[citation needed]. First, Japan surrendering to Russia without surrendering to the US makes no sense at all and was never a consideration in Allied planning.

Second, the fear was that Russian entry into the war woud lead Japan to surrender before the bombs could be dropped, depriving the US of the opportunity to demonstrate its military superiority entering the postwar era. Some even believed the US had slowed its own war effort in order not to provoke a Japanese surrender before the bomb could be used.

“Some even believe” and “enviro against war”. Not really a convincing argument. Where is your actual evidence?

Such as documents proving the US military ordered the war egoist here “slowed down” for that purpose.

Also just the other day you said we should have prolonged the war and waited for millions to starve instead.

[Novus America]

tbh would the concept of a war crime even matter if nukes start flying?

Probably not. It only matters if you can enforce it.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Some food for thought. Since it's the 75th anniversary and all.

[Loben III]

[citation needed]. First, Japan surrendering to Russia without surrendering to the US makes no sense at all and was never a consideration in Allied planning.

Second, the fear was that Russian entry into the war woud lead Japan to surrender before the bombs could be dropped, depriving the US of the opportunity to demonstrate its military superiority entering the postwar era. Some even believed the US had slowed its own war effort in order not to provoke a Japanese surrender before the bomb could be used.

“Some even believe” and “enviro against war”. Not really a convincing argument. Where is your actual evidence?

Such as documents proving the US military ordered the war egoist here “slowed down” for that purpose.

Also just the other day you said we should have prolonged the war and waited for millions to starve instead.

tbh a American invasion wouldve killed far more Civilians then the atomic bombings too.

and probably wouldve made the IJA's actions in china look like childs play.

[Thermodolia]

You’re really reaching with that one.

It has nothing to do with anti-semitism and everything to do with deterrence. Basically the idea is that you don’t invade the nation who says they don’t care if they’ll nuke the world

So show me the proof for this!!!! The problem with that request is that there isn't any. It's another one of the many lies made up about Israel.

It’s not a lie. It definitely exists. And it’s not a bad thing. Not everything is a “lie”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

[US-SSR]

[citation needed]. First, Japan surrendering to Russia without surrendering to the US makes no sense at all and was never a consideration in Allied planning.

Second, the fear was that Russian entry into the war woud lead Japan to surrender before the bombs could be dropped, depriving the US of the opportunity to demonstrate its military superiority entering the postwar era. Some even believed the US had slowed its own war effort in order not to provoke a Japanese surrender before the bomb could be used.

“Some even believe” and “enviro against war”. Not really a convincing argument. Where is your actual evidence?

Such as documents proving the US military ordered the war egoist here “slowed down” for that purpose.

Also just the other day you said we should have prolonged the war and waited for millions to starve instead.

There is no inconsistency. The argument is that the US desire to use the bomb on Japan drove its decision making, not the false dichotomy between bombing and invasion. Had Japan surrendered, whether because of US or Russian action, there would have been no reason to bomb Hiroshima and no clear proof of US military might.

And claiming Japan would have surrendered weeks or months after Russian entry into the Pacific theater with or without atomic bombing is not saying we should have waited for millions to starve on either side. This is not the first time you have put words into my mouth or that of others, which is why you spend most of the time here on my ignore list. Bye for now.

[Liriena]

Considering the long-lasting effects of nuclear warfare, not to mention how its only use in history was against civilian population and it is all but guaranteed to always put civilians at unnecessary risk... yeah, it should be considered a war crime to use nukes. That's kind of a no-brainer for me. You'd have to be ideologically poisoned to think that there's anything reasonable about treating something so destructive and indiscriminate as an acceptable tool for warfare.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So show me the proof for this!!!! The problem with that request is that there isn't any. It's another one of the many lies made up about Israel.

It’s not a lie. It definitely exists. And it’s not a bad thing. Not everything is a “lie”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

Tbh threatening to flatten Syria with atom bombs is probably a reasonable option when you consider the prospect of Syrian tanks rolling down Tel Aviv. Then again preventing the latter is why the IDF exists.

[US-SSR]

“Some even believe” and “enviro against war”. Not really a convincing argument. Where is your actual evidence?

Such as documents proving the US military ordered the war egoist here “slowed down” for that purpose.

Also just the other day you said we should have prolonged the war and waited for millions to starve instead.

tbh a American invasion wouldve killed far more Civilians then the atomic bombings too.

and probably wouldve made the IJA's actions in china look like childs play.

As noted the bombing/invasion dichotomy is false. There were other options the US did not take. Neither Gen. Eishenhower nor Adm. Leahy believed the bombings were needed to force Japan to surrender or to minimize US losses.

[Loben III]

Considering the long-lasting effects of nuclear warfare, not to mention how its only use in history was against civilian population and it is all but guaranteed to always put civilians at unnecessary risk... yeah, it should be considered a war crime to use nukes. That's kind of a no-brainer for me. You'd have to be ideologically poisoned to think that there's anything reasonable about treating something so destructive and indiscriminate as an acceptable tool for warfare.

what makes nuclear weaponry worse then Chemical weapons or other WMDs?