NationStates

My inner posadist says no, but he's a madman, so probably it should be a war crime.

At least nukes for kids never came to pass. The right to bare nuclear arms should be denied to children.

I'm sure many of you remember what I'm talking about from like 2010. "Nukes for Kids. Buy now, tell your parents later."

I appreciate how OP cites a number of forum posts rather than any actual academic resources about Operation Downfall or the Manhattan Project...

You know, like Richard B. Frank's Downfall or Don Farrell's Tinian and the Bomb.

US-SSR wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Defeatism is unacceptable here. Peace on earth is possible but we've got to keep on trying.

"It is possible to live in peace." -- Gandhi

It's true, and the more we try, the closer we get.

Organized States wrote:I appreciate how OP cites a number of forum posts rather than any actual academic resources about Operation Downfall or the Manhattan Project...

You know, like Richard B. Frank's Downfall or Don Farrell's Tinian and the Bomb.

Frank writes lots of details. His Guadalcanal book was very good too.

Aeritai wrote:

Rusozak wrote:
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.

Weren't leaflets dropped to warn civilians?

Correct me if I am wrong.

Well yes but since the general public wasn't aware of nuclear weapons they probably didn't believe such destructive power was anything more than propaganda, hence the need for a demonstration. Like if China today said they were going to destroy the entire island of Taiwan with a single bomb.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Organized States wrote:I appreciate how OP cites a number of forum posts rather than any actual academic resources about Operation Downfall or the Manhattan Project...

You know, like Richard B. Frank's Downfall or Don Farrell's Tinian and the Bomb.

Frank writes lots of details. His Guadalcanal book was very good too.

John Toland’s The Rising Sun is a great book on the subject because he uses Japanese primary sources like merging meetings, interviews and direct quotes to really get into just how dysfunctional Japanese governance and politics was at the time.

Novus America wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Frank writes lots of details. His Guadalcanal book was very good too.

John Toland’s The Rising Sun is a great book on the subject because he uses Japanese primary sources like merging meetings, interviews and direct quotes to really get into just how dysfunctional Japanese governance and politics was at the time.

He was the ambassador before the war, I think. I have his book, but have not read it in a while.

Absolutely NO.

If deterrence fails, all bets are off. Furthermore, good luck ever enforcing such a charge against a nuclear power. It's just another deluded left-wing fantasy.

Btw: as the son of a WWII vet who fought in the Pacific, I'm glad we ended the war as we did. And any time I find myself tempted to think otherwise (an extremely rare occurrence), all I have to do is remember Japanese atrocities and the temptation disappears.

Does the phrase "war crime" mean anything anymore? Seriously. I've seen people accuse Bill Clinton of committing a war crime by not intervening in the Rwanda Genocide.

Cisairse wrote:Does the phrase "war crime" mean anything anymore? Seriously. I've seen people accuse Bill Clinton of committing a war crime by not intervening in the Rwanda Genocide.

Well? General Dallaire said he only needed 5000 properly equipped troops and a free hand and he could have stopped the genocide. We had them and Clinton and the government looked the other way. Well they did send some properly equipped troops.....to get the nationals out and then left.

It is one of the failures I blame Clinton.

Anyway....this is a tangent.....

The Black Forrest wrote:

Cisairse wrote:Does the phrase "war crime" mean anything anymore? Seriously. I've seen people accuse Bill Clinton of committing a war crime by not intervening in the Rwanda Genocide.

Well? General Dallaire said he only needed 5000 properly equipped troops and a free hand and he could have stopped the genocide. We had them and Clinton and the government looked the other way. Well they did send some properly equipped troops.....to get the nationals out and then left.

It is one of the failures I blame Clinton.

Anyway....this is a tangent.....

In my opinion, war crimes only apply to those war criminals. For example, tojo hideki, it goes without saying what they did wrong. This is the original intention of war crimes, but non-interference in genocide is not a war crime.

Cisairse wrote:Does the phrase "war crime" mean anything anymore? Seriously. I've seen people accuse Bill Clinton of committing a war crime by not intervening in the Rwanda Genocide.

Yes, war crimes are a legally pretty thightly defined concept.

Some people just argue on matters about which they know nothing.

Cisairse wrote:Does the phrase "war crime" mean anything anymore? Seriously. I've seen people accuse Bill Clinton of committing a war crime by not intervening in the Rwanda Genocide.

I'm pretty sure deliberately targeting civilians is still a war crime though, which is kind of hard not to do with a nuke.

Cisairse wrote:Does the phrase "war crime" mean anything anymore? Seriously. I've seen people accuse Bill Clinton of committing a war crime by not intervening in the Rwanda Genocide.

If you win, it's not a war crime.

Rusozak wrote:

Cisairse wrote:Does the phrase "war crime" mean anything anymore? Seriously. I've seen people accuse Bill Clinton of committing a war crime by not intervening in the Rwanda Genocide.

I'm pretty sure deliberately targeting civilians is still a war crime though, which is kind of hard not to do with a nuke.

It's definitely a hard thing to consider when a country puts it's military compounds and structures within it's society. Japan was infamous for it in world war 2. The bombs are incredibly controversial because of it. How do you conduct a war against a force that operates where it's own people live? Legal hellhole ensue.

Yes. There is absolutely no reason for them to be used under any circumstances whatsoever. All nuclear weapons should be dismantled

Vetalia wrote:

Cisairse wrote:Does the phrase "war crime" mean anything anymore? Seriously. I've seen people accuse Bill Clinton of committing a war crime by not intervening in the Rwanda Genocide.

If you win, it's not a war crime.

Pretty much what LeMay said. Japan won, he would have been hung.

Ethel mermania wrote:If an enemy were to attack the US. One thing they would want to do is disable the US's secure communications to Europe. In order to do that they would have to take out the long lines building in lower Manhattan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Thomas_Street

The only way to do that is to hit it directly with a tactical nuke (maybe 2,700 tons of ammonium nitrate may do) Lower Manhattan, including me, would be vaporized.

You folks are saying because of its location a nuclear attack on it, would be a war crime, even though a direct hit by a nuke is the only way guaranteed to take it out.

Actually in that case theres a colorable argument that the war crime would be the US using the citizens of Manhattan as human shields and the US would be responsible for that. just as not accepting surrender from and enemy that engages in perfidy isn't a war crime, the perfidy is.

Aclion wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:If an enemy were to attack the US. One thing they would want to do is disable the US's secure communications to Europe. In order to do that they would have to take out the long lines building in lower Manhattan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Thomas_Street

The only way to do that is to hit it directly with a tactical nuke (maybe 2,700 tons of ammonium nitrate may do) Lower Manhattan, including me, would be vaporized.

You folks are saying because of its location a nuclear attack on it, would be a war crime, even though a direct hit by a nuke is the only way guaranteed to take it out.

Actually in that case theres a colorable argument that the war crime would be the US using the citizens of Manhattan as human shields and the US would be responsible for that. just as not accepting surrender from and enemy that engages in perfidy isn't a war crime, the perfidy is.

I'm going to disagree on the basis that

a) Ethel's assertion is probably incorrect: conventional bunker busters should do just fine

and b) the use of military force against targets in proximity to civvies must be proportional to the military value of the target. If the US has only one set of secure lines to Europe, a bunch of generals should be court martialed. I expect the US has many, many secure ways to communicate with NATO HQ, and thus using tac nukes to take out any one of them is disproportionate.

And in point of fact, many countries have military facilities in close proximity to civvies. Many airports are dual-use, hosting for example, National Guard air wings, as well as providing commercial airline service. The US is also by no means the only country to have lots of military bases around its capital. Nobody expects that every signatory to the Geneva Conventions will locate all military (including dual-use) facilities way out in the sticks.

Rusozak wrote:

Cisairse wrote:Does the phrase "war crime" mean anything anymore? Seriously. I've seen people accuse Bill Clinton of committing a war crime by not intervening in the Rwanda Genocide.

I'm pretty sure deliberately targeting civilians is still a war crime though, which is kind of hard not to do with a nuke.

Okay…and? So what? It's a war crime. What does calling it a war crime do? What does it change?

Cisairse wrote:

Rusozak wrote:
I'm pretty sure deliberately targeting civilians is still a war crime though, which is kind of hard not to do with a nuke.

Okay…and? So what? It's a war crime. What does calling it a war crime do? What does it change?

Lets one adopt the moral high ground in a war.
Or write strongly-worded letters, if you wish.

Ethel mermania wrote:Pretty much what LeMay said. Japan won, he would have been hung.

It's 100% true, history is written by the winners and in the same way "war crimes" trials are decided. You're only guilty if you lose.

Disgraces wrote:Yes. WMDs are cringe and also fuck the enviroment

I never thought i'd hear the phrase "Weapons of mass destruction are cringe."

Cisairse wrote:

Rusozak wrote:
I'm pretty sure deliberately targeting civilians is still a war crime though, which is kind of hard not to do with a nuke.

Okay…and? So what? It's a war crime. What does calling it a war crime do? What does it change?

It's a lot easier to prosecute the culprits if they lose if there's still any semblance of a functioning society of law and order in the aftermath? I guess I see your point.