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

[Thermodolia]

Regardless they still tried, and came very close to massively disrupting the surrender process. The point remains is that getting the Army fanatics to surrender was the tricky part, before the nuclear weapons they still wanted to fight to the death.

Convincing them unfortunately took extreme measures.

Yes such extreme measures as the general staff telling the idiots to "go the fuck home".

Yes after the nukes where dropped. Mind you the original plan was to drop more and invade if Japan didn’t surrender. The generals knew this and opted for surrender.

If we hadn’t used them as a threat of more and just went with the blockade/invasion they would have still fought to the death

[Thermodolia]

The Japanese were ready to fight off an invasion, but I'd contend that they were close to breaking point anyways. It is like you want to keep up the fight, but if you have no ammo, no supplies, and no prospect for victory, you don't stay to get killed. You generally give up or retreat to fight another day or to avoid a worse outcome. Such as all those Germans who went west to avoid the Soviets.

The Japanese would fight to the death out of the belief that it could protect the homeland or buy valuable time. Once that was no longer the case, that mindset collapsed like a house of cards. Okinawa was effectively home territory and that was the start of lots of Japanese being willing to surrender. The morale wasn't infinite and did collapse. If the morale collapses, the fight ends in most cases.

North Vietnam was never beaten because they kept getting supplies from China/Soviet Union, but also mainly because their morale kept being high, in spite of heavy losses. They were more determined to win than to allow for any remnant of French colonialism to continue in the form of South Vietnam.

Okinawa was a vicious and brutal fight. The Japanese fought to protect the home island like never before. We would have gotten the same if we invaded

[Nea Videssos]

Not sure how many people have looked at the stuff I posted, but it's sort of funny seeing people hash out the same old worn arguments about Operation Downfall again and again.

[Novus America]

Regardless they still tried, and came very close to massively disrupting the surrender process. The point remains is that getting the Army fanatics to surrender was the tricky part, before the nuclear weapons they still wanted to fight to the death.

Convincing them unfortunately took extreme measures.

Yes such extreme measures as the general staff telling the idiots to "go the fuck home".

Actually it was more complicated than that. The prime minister and privy seal barely escaped being killed. Had the coup successfully killed both and seized the surrender recording it would have thrown the entire process into disarray.

They only went home after they could not find their main targets.

Had they found them, things would be different.

And that was AFTER the nuclear weapons. Before the nuclear weapons far more in the Army were unwilling to surrender. The failure of the coup happened AFTER the nuclear weapons had shocked the Japanese Army leadership into being a little less insane.

Again we have primary sources saying those in the Japanese government were afraid to openly discuss ending the war before the nukes because they were scared of the Army, hence why they tried to do it largely surreptitiously before the nukes.

The nukes provided a reason for the Japanese government officials who were more reasonable to convince the army. The nukes helped alter the political balance in the Japanese government.

The Japanese government was very dysfunctional, which both lead to the war and lead to them dragging out admitting the lost. A shock was needed to break through that political dysfunction.

[Thermodolia]

Not sure how many people have looked at the stuff I posted, but it's sort of funny seeing people hash out the same old worn arguments about Operation Downfall again and again.

Because you are looking at everything from now. And also you’re using things that never would have happened in the first place. The Japanese wherent just going to roll over and surrender without a high death toll. It just wasn’t going to happen.

There where enough lunatics in the military to keep fighting until the last man as evidenced by the troops who refused to surrender for decades after. To think Japan was just going to roll over and say that’s it is absolutely lunacy

[Novus America]

There’s definitely a case for the use of nukes being a war crime, since their destructive power is indiscriminate.

No. And we should use them more often.

Literally the worst idea, there’s absolutely no rational reason to use them “more often”.

Nuclear weapons are actually not inherently indiscriminate in their use. Sure a multi megaton one dropped on a city is, (but remember what is a war crime now was not necessarily a war crime in 1945) but of course we have moved away from just huge multi megaton devices to more accurate weapons with smaller warheads.

If I drop a nuclear depth bomb on a submarine for example, that does not violate the principle of discrimination because there is basically no risk of civilian death. Also no weapon is 100% discriminate either, you do not have to be able guarantee no civilians died, but demonstrate that the advantage gained was outweighed by the lives lost.

I do think nuking a city with a strategic nuclear weapon is now probably a war crime. But there are other uses for nuclear weapons.
So just because one use probably is does not mean all uses are.

But I agree we should avoid using them IF we have an alternative, they should be a last resort.
The use of having a deterrent is to not have to use it. If you use it it failed to be deterrent.

[Novus America]

Not sure how many people have looked at the stuff I posted, but it's sort of funny seeing people hash out the same old worn arguments about Operation Downfall again and again.

None of what you posted showed with certainty that the war would have otherwise ended without more than 250,00 additional people dying. I will have to find the source but IIRC one estimate was that 10 million Japanese would starve to death by December.

Again yes we could have otherwise won the war but not necessarily at a lower human cost.

[Saiwania]

Okinawa was a vicious and brutal fight. The Japanese fought to protect the home island like never before. We would have gotten the same if we invaded

Yes, initially. But past a certain point, they'd get worn out and likely be ready to quit, especially with no supplies and no prospect for victory. The entire point of holding out was to force a surrender that wasn't unconditional. They wanted to keep the Imperial system of government in place and perhaps not lose whatever colonies they still controlled.

Ironically, Japan got what it wanted but they also kind of didn't. Their Emperor remained in place, but their government was altered to more resemble a constitutional monarchy. I'm sure Japan now regrets not surrendering sooner (given that it resulted in the permanent loss of the Kurile Islands to Russia) but they didn't have the hindsight of knowing that they'd get an outcome they could find acceptable. Only that it'd be worse if the Soviets invaded home territory from the north. They more or less scrambled to get into the US sphere of influence while they still could, once Manchuria was being lost.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

For the record now if the Neo-Confucian Kingdom of DPRK thinks dropping nerve agents on US military bases in Seoul is the greatest idea ever conceived I'm not entirely opposed at all to dropping a 50 kiloton weapon on their stores of chemical weapons per that.
<.>

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Nuclear bombs are one of the evilest and cruelest weapons mankind has ever invented. I know alot of people think it's like dropping a huge stick of TNT on a city but it is so much worse. When you see the photos from Hiroshima of the burned, radiation poisoned survivors, you realize how much the Manhattan project fucked up by succeeding in their endeavor. Imo nuclear bombs shouldn't even exist but good luck convincing everyone to give them up.

Nukes should ought to be a war crime just like Sarin gas. They're worse than sarin gas.

Having Sarin gas is not a war crime, even if using it is on people is usually one.
And actually Operation Meetinghouse killed more people than either nuclear attack. Just as brutally too.
The alternatives involved far more people dying just as nastily.

Incendiary weapons are brutal, and now using them on civilian populations is usually a war crime (it was not considered one in 1945 though) using them on military targets is not.

Then there are potential uses for nuclear weapons that do not necessarily kill anyone such as in missile defense.

So to say all uses of nuclear weapons is automatically a war crime is false. Even though use of them certain could be a war crime, and because of their destructive potential they should only be used as a last resort.
Obviously we should not use them unless we have absolutely no alternative. Their value is primarily in deterrence, ironically a deterrent only works when it is not actually used, and if it is used it failed.

The biggest issue is the cat is already out of the bag and not going back in though.
The whole argument “if we could have never invented nuclear weapons we should never have” is a strictly academic thought experiment. You cannot un invent them.

We are stuck with them now, the only option is to keep the existing system we have. Right now they do exist, we are not using them, and we cannot realistically get rid of them. So we are stuck with what we have.

That is retain them as a deterrence, limit their spread, but obviously not go around using them for the lols either.

I'm worried that the more distant world War II gets from the modern era, the more likely people think nukes are just a big bomb. Especially if countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia get them.

[Deltia-]

Well yes, but actually no. Surface explosions render land unusable, while airbursts don't. Plus, there has never been a nuclear war, so we can only speculate how destructive it might be. MAD is what keeps us from going mad.

[Novus America]

Okinawa was a vicious and brutal fight. The Japanese fought to protect the home island like never before. We would have gotten the same if we invaded

Yes, initially. But past a certain point, they'd get worn out and likely be ready to quit, especially with no supplies and no prospect for victory. The entire point of holding out was to force a surrender that wasn't unconditional. They wanted to keep the Imperial system of government in place and perhaps not lose whatever colonies they still controlled.

Ironically, Japan got what it wanted but they also kind of didn't. Their Emperor remained in place, but their government was altered to more resemble a constitutional monarchy. I'm sure Japan now regrets not surrendering sooner (given that it resulted in the permanent loss of the Kurile Islands to Russia) but they didn't have the hindsight of knowing that they'd get an outcome they could find acceptable. Only that it'd be worse if the Soviets invaded home territory from the north. They more or less scrambled to get into the US sphere of influence while they still could.

Sure. Had they been smart in hindsight they would have surrendered after Saipan or at least Leyte. They would have been better off.
But they did not.

Again nobody is disputing the war would have still ended. The Navy plan of invading Taiwan and the waiting for the blockade to force a surrender would have worked, after millions starved they would have had to surrender but millions more would be dead.

[Novus America]

Having Sarin gas is not a war crime, even if using it is on people is usually one.
And actually Operation Meetinghouse killed more people than either nuclear attack. Just as brutally too.
The alternatives involved far more people dying just as nastily.

Incendiary weapons are brutal, and now using them on civilian populations is usually a war crime (it was not considered one in 1945 though) using them on military targets is not.

Then there are potential uses for nuclear weapons that do not necessarily kill anyone such as in missile defense.

So to say all uses of nuclear weapons is automatically a war crime is false. Even though use of them certain could be a war crime, and because of their destructive potential they should only be used as a last resort.
Obviously we should not use them unless we have absolutely no alternative. Their value is primarily in deterrence, ironically a deterrent only works when it is not actually used, and if it is used it failed.

The biggest issue is the cat is already out of the bag and not going back in though.
The whole argument “if we could have never invented nuclear weapons we should never have” is a strictly academic thought experiment. You cannot un invent them.

We are stuck with them now, the only option is to keep the existing system we have. Right now they do exist, we are not using them, and we cannot realistically get rid of them. So we are stuck with what we have.

That is retain them as a deterrence, limit their spread, but obviously not go around using them for the lols either.

I'm worried that the more distant world War II gets from the modern era, the more likely people think nukes are just a big bomb. Especially if countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia get them.

A legitimate concern, but one for which their is no easy solution.
The cat is out of the bag and not going back in. Nukes are here to stay, the only question is how to best manage them.

[Nea Videssos]

Not sure how many people have looked at the stuff I posted, but it's sort of funny seeing people hash out the same old worn arguments about Operation Downfall again and again.

Because you are looking at everything from now. And also you’re using things that never would have happened in the first place. The Japanese wherent just going to roll over and surrender without a high death toll. It just wasn’t going to happen.

There where enough lunatics in the military to keep fighting until the last man as evidenced by the troops who refused to surrender for decades after. To think Japan was just going to roll over and say that’s it is absolutely lunacy

Speaking about "diehard lunatics" in the military, I suppose you're going to ignore the impact of the Soviet declaration of war in increasing the desperation of the Japanese military. For instance, Torashirō Kawabe, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff, said in the meeting of the Supreme Council in June 1945, "The absolute maintenance of peace in our relations with the Soviet Union is one of the fundamental conditions for continuing the war." They were quite clear that with the state Japan was in, another major enemy was the last thing they needed. While there were obviously some who wanted to fight to the end, and some who wanted to keep holding out to achieve a "favourable" peace treaty, it was quite clear that Japan couldn't continue the war for much longer. It seems likely that Japan would've surrendered within the year. The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki perhaps gave a better "excuse" for those who were holding out to achieve one last military success against US forces, but it wasn't the deciding factor, and Operation Downfall simply would not have happened, to talk of "using things that never would have happened in the first place".

[Novus America]

Because you are looking at everything from now. And also you’re using things that never would have happened in the first place. The Japanese wherent just going to roll over and surrender without a high death toll. It just wasn’t going to happen.

There where enough lunatics in the military to keep fighting until the last man as evidenced by the troops who refused to surrender for decades after. To think Japan was just going to roll over and say that’s it is absolutely lunacy

Speaking about "diehard lunatics" in the military, I suppose you're going to ignore the impact of the Soviet declaration of war in increasing the desperation of the Japanese military. For instance, Torashirō Kawabe, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff, said in the meeting of the Supreme Council in June 1945, "The absolute maintenance of peace in our relations with the Soviet Union is one of the fundamental conditions for continuing the war." They were quite clear that with the state Japan was in, another major enemy was the last thing they needed. While there were obviously some who wanted to fight to the end, and some who wanted to keep holding out to achieve a "favourable" peace treaty, it was quite clear that Japan couldn't continue the war for much longer. It seems likely that Japan would've surrendered within the year. The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki perhaps gave a better "excuse" for those who were holding out to achieve one last military success against US forces, but it wasn't the deciding factor, and Operation Downfall simply would not have happened, to talk of "using things that never would have happened in the first place".

Yes they would have probably still surrendered by the of the year. But by the end of the year far more than 250,000 people would be dead.
That is the point you keep dodging.

Yes there were other ways to win. But those other ways would probably not have resulted in fewer casualties.

[Aclion]

Because you are looking at everything from now. And also you’re using things that never would have happened in the first place. The Japanese wherent just going to roll over and surrender without a high death toll. It just wasn’t going to happen.

There where enough lunatics in the military to keep fighting until the last man as evidenced by the troops who refused to surrender for decades after. To think Japan was just going to roll over and say that’s it is absolutely lunacy

Speaking about "diehard lunatics" in the military, I suppose you're going to ignore the impact of the Soviet declaration of war in increasing the desperation of the Japanese military. For instance, Torashirō Kawabe, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff, said in the meeting of the Supreme Council in June 1945, "The absolute maintenance of peace in our relations with the Soviet Union is one of the fundamental conditions for continuing the war." They were quite clear that with the state Japan was in, another major enemy was the last thing they needed. While there were obviously some who wanted to fight to the end, and some who wanted to keep holding out to achieve a "favourable" peace treaty, it was quite clear that Japan couldn't continue the war for much longer. It seems likely that Japan would've surrendered within the year. The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki perhaps gave a better "excuse" for those who were holding out to achieve one last military success against US forces, but it wasn't the deciding factor, and Operation Downfall simply would not have happened, to talk of "using things that never would have happened in the first place".

This however requires us to accept that soviet occupation is preferable to getting nuked.

[SD_Film Artists]

Yes, but certain countries should have the right to keep them to continue MAD.

IMO not even a large scale invasion of a country's home soil would justify using nuclear weapons. Only retaliatory strikes are acceptable and even then it brings the possibility of false alarms (which happened at least twice during the cold war)

[Novus America]

Speaking about "diehard lunatics" in the military, I suppose you're going to ignore the impact of the Soviet declaration of war in increasing the desperation of the Japanese military. For instance, Torashirō Kawabe, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff, said in the meeting of the Supreme Council in June 1945, "The absolute maintenance of peace in our relations with the Soviet Union is one of the fundamental conditions for continuing the war." They were quite clear that with the state Japan was in, another major enemy was the last thing they needed. While there were obviously some who wanted to fight to the end, and some who wanted to keep holding out to achieve a "favourable" peace treaty, it was quite clear that Japan couldn't continue the war for much longer. It seems likely that Japan would've surrendered within the year. The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki perhaps gave a better "excuse" for those who were holding out to achieve one last military success against US forces, but it wasn't the deciding factor, and Operation Downfall simply would not have happened, to talk of "using things that never would have happened in the first place".

This however requires us to accept that soviet occupation is preferable to getting nuked.

More specifically that Soviet occupation (which where it occurred large numbers of people were killed) and the war continuing months resulting in huge numbers of deaths, was preferable to getting nuked. Which given the nukes killed 129,000 to 226,000, is not the case.

As a Soviet invasion and occupation of the Northern part, plus the war dragging on (thousands were dying every day) months would have certainly resulted in more deaths and a worse outcome for Japan, getting nukes was in hindsight, actually probably preferable. As horrible as it was, there were far more horrible things that could have and probably would have happened.

[Novus America]

Yes, but certain countries should have the right to keep them to continue MAD.

IMO not even a large scale invasion of a country's home soil would justify using nuclear weapons. Only retaliatory strikes are acceptable and even then it brings the possibility of false alarms (which happened at least twice during the cold war)

Okay, to be technical MAD is not actually the nuclear doctrine of any nuclear power.
Most rely on either minimum credible deterrence or some form of calculated ambiguity/flexible response for deterrence.

MAD is not really a serious credible deterrence doctrine anymore, it was a 70s oddity.

People tend to use MAD and deterrence interchangeably but that is incorrect, MAD is a specific, largely obsolete nuclear doctrine that does not encompass all nuclear deterrence doctrines.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The Soviet Navy couldn't invade even a deserted island defended by starving Japanese conscripts without almost losing, despite being literally carried by American lend leased ships. What makes people think they would have attempted to land on Hokkaido?

[Novus America]

The Soviet Navy couldn't invade even a deserted island defended by starving Japanese conscripts without almost losing, despite being literally carried by American lend leased ships. What makes people think they would have attempted to land on Hokkaido?

They wanted to. Even if they had failed on their attempt, it is still very likely delaying the war longer would have resulted in more casualties than the nukes caused.

The longer the war lasted, the stronger a position the Soviets would be to make demands at the very least.

The problem is it is very hard to see how not dropping the nukes would have actually created a better outcome for Japan.

Given the likely alternatives would probably be far worse and more destructive.

The war dragging on with a few million more dead from US conventional attacks and starvation even if it resulted in the same occupation situation (the Soviets only occupying the Kuriles) the situation is would still be worse, because the damage to the Japanese population and economy would have been worse. Each month the war dragged on things would get much worse.

So ending it as swiftly as possible by using the nukes was a good idea.

[Saiwania]

The Soviet Navy couldn't invade even a deserted island defended by starving Japanese conscripts without almost losing, despite being literally carried by American lend leased ships. What makes people think they would have attempted to land on Hokkaido?

Because the Soviets already drafted an invasion plan for taking Hokkaido and only had to get a green light from Stalin for proceeding. If the Soviet Union didn't have the ships, the island could be taken via paratroopers. Hokkaido itself wasn't defended very much because Japanese military were concentrated to the south focused on the US invasion. The Red Army took Sakhalin and the Kurils with minimal difficulties.

Stalin was deeply upset with Truman's opposition to their participation in Japan and didn't see him as a partner for the postwar world he could work with, in comparison to FDR whom he had more respect for because FDR was more willing to give the Soviets some quid pro quo. Stalin is said to have regretted not taking Hokkaido, which is why he gave the green light to China for invading all of Korea when that opportunity presented itself.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/05/st ... _hokkaido/

[Stellar Colonies]

As long as one country has nukes, other countries should.

Use of them however on civilian populations would almost certainly be regarded as a war crime, and probably should.

Although, to be honest, the damage that the nukes wrought in Japan was minor when compared to that of the conventional bombing.

[Sundiata]

So long as extreme nationalism or tribalism exists, conflict will likely never be solved.

There will someday be joy and redemption for us who make peace.

[The Archregimancy]

We will never know if Japan would have surrendered or not regardless of the use of atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We will never know if an invasion of the Home Islands would have been necessary without that use.

We will never know if the use of the atomic bombs averted even greater loss of life and even greater tragedy.

We will never know if the real reason for using atomic weaponry was to send a message to the Soviets.

We will never really know any of these things.

All I do know is that I'm very glad that I will never have to face war-time decisions like Truman faced with the atomic bomb, or Churchill faced at Mers el Kebir.

Our lack of knowledge will not stop us from speculating - hence this thread - but I'm not sure I'm prepared to pass moral judgement on people who had to make far more difficult decisions than I will ever have to make, and who made those decisions fully aware of the potential ramifications.

Not that this is going to stop many of you.