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

[US-SSR]

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?

Google "radiation."

[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

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.

They keep their doctrine, ability, capabilities, and nuclear warheads deliberately vague. So that they can claim that they have the ability to carry out a “Sampson Option” and keep everyone guessing as to if they actually can.

[Loben III]

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.

did they think that the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo were any better?

[Loben III]

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

Google "radiation."

i know what radiation is, thank you.

[Novus America]

Look the conspiracy theories are cute and all but there is a simple logical explanation.

Japan has been beaten, but the government was still in denial. Especially after the bloodbath o Okinawa it was clear every day the war went on many people died, more Japanese starved and huge amounts of resources were consumed. We wanted to end the war as soon as possible.

We probably wanted to impress the Soviets as well, but that was not mutually exclusive at all with wanting to impress on the Japanese army that it was over and they could not win.

Which we had to do to end the war as soon as possible.

So given the other options, all of which would have probably caused the war to last longer and more to die, while it was a horrible thing, it was less horrible than the probable alternatives.

[Thermodolia]

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.

Same reason why NK has nukes. That way they can never be removed

[Novus America]

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

Google "radiation."

Yes? Radiation is not inherently worse than chemical contamination.

[Thermodolia]

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.

I’m not criticizing the Israelis here I’m just saying that they have threatened other nations to back off or get destroyed

[Loben III]

Google "radiation."

Yes? Radiation is not inherently worse than chemical contamination.

hell dare i say the atomic bombings were merciful of the US then the Navys plan or the invasion.

[Thermodolia]

Google "radiation."

Yes? Radiation is not inherently worse than chemical contamination.

Or mass starvation

[Novus America]

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.

Dude we went over this! How many times?

Yes we could have just kept blockading and conventional bombing until millions of Japanese starved to death.
But why would that be better?

[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.

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

All WMDs should be regarded as war crimes.

[Loben III]

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.

Dude we went over this! How many times?

Yes we could have just kept blockading and conventional bombing until millions of Japanese starved to death.
But why would that be better?

imagine the asshurt we'd be dealing with if we went ahead with that.

[Novus America]

Yes? Radiation is not inherently worse than chemical contamination.

hell dare i say the atomic bombings were merciful of the US then the Navys plan or the invasion.

Exactly. The Army plan was just stupid, and would have been much worse.

The Navy plan was perfectly logical from a completely dispassionate standpoint and would have worked. With millions of Japanese (but relatively few Americans dead although the invasion of Taiwan would have been pretty nasty all around).

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I wonder if 1/5th of this thread is still pro the Japanese Endlösung like Americans historically were in 1945.

[Liriena]

Look the conspiracy theories are cute and all but there is a simple logical explanation.

Japan has been beaten, but the government was still in denial. Especially after the bloodbath o Okinawa it was clear every day the war went on many people died, more Japanese starved and huge amounts of resources were consumed. We wanted to end the war as soon as possible.

We probably wanted to impress the Soviets as well, but that was not mutually exclusive at all with wanting to impress on the Japanese army that it was over and they could not win.

Which we had to do to end the war as soon as possible.

So given the other options, all of which would have probably caused the war to last longer and more to die, while it was a horrible thing, it was less horrible than the probable alternatives.

Even if we accepted it as a "necessary evil" to end the war quickly, it should have still been punished as a war crime.

[Loben III]

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

All WMDs should be regarded as war crimes.

once again, would morality even be considered once WMDs are used?

should High explosives be banned? Depleted Uranium rounds? certain infantry weapon ammunition?

[Loben III]

Look the conspiracy theories are cute and all but there is a simple logical explanation.

Japan has been beaten, but the government was still in denial. Especially after the bloodbath o Okinawa it was clear every day the war went on many people died, more Japanese starved and huge amounts of resources were consumed. We wanted to end the war as soon as possible.

We probably wanted to impress the Soviets as well, but that was not mutually exclusive at all with wanting to impress on the Japanese army that it was over and they could not win.

Which we had to do to end the war as soon as possible.

So given the other options, all of which would have probably caused the war to last longer and more to die, while it was a horrible thing, it was less horrible than the probable alternatives.

Even if we accepted it as a "necessary evil" to end the war quickly, it should have still been punished as a war crime.

except we won. shit sucks dont it?

[Liriena]

All WMDs should be regarded as war crimes.

once again, would morality even be considered once WMDs are used?

should High explosives be banned? Depleted Uranium rounds? certain infantry weapon ammunition?

Yes. If you still choose to use them as some sort of "necessary evil", go ahead. But when you're done, you ought to face an appropriate punishment.

[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.

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

There is no evidence it exists beyond “Israel would destroy its attacker before it died”.
There is no evidence of the whole “nuke uninvolved countries for the LOLs” part some claim exist.

[Liriena]

Even if we accepted it as a "necessary evil" to end the war quickly, it should have still been punished as a war crime.

except we won. shit sucks dont it?

Notice how I said "should".

[Novus America]

Look the conspiracy theories are cute and all but there is a simple logical explanation.

Japan has been beaten, but the government was still in denial. Especially after the bloodbath o Okinawa it was clear every day the war went on many people died, more Japanese starved and huge amounts of resources were consumed. We wanted to end the war as soon as possible.

We probably wanted to impress the Soviets as well, but that was not mutually exclusive at all with wanting to impress on the Japanese army that it was over and they could not win.

Which we had to do to end the war as soon as possible.

So given the other options, all of which would have probably caused the war to last longer and more to die, while it was a horrible thing, it was less horrible than the probable alternatives.

Even if we accepted it as a "necessary evil" to end the war quickly, it should have still been punished as a war crime.

How would that even work? You threaten to hang the Air Force leadership for doing the least bad option, so then they are too scared too do it, and the Army goes and does stupid shit to kill far more people, or the Navy just waits for millions to starve.

If you did do that it would make your military unable to do anything because you are going to khan your own soldiers no matter what. That is hardly good for morale.

[Loben III]

except we won. shit sucks dont it?

Notice how I said "should".

thats nice and all but what about an actual arguement?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The idea that the average Japanese man would resist Americans to his last starving breath in late 1945 was and probably still is fuelled by turboracism dating back as far as Wilhelm the Last of Germany.

[Loben III]

The idea that the average Japanese man would resist Americans to his last starving breath in late 1945 was and probably still is fuelled by turboracism dating back as far as Wilhelm the Last of Germany.

uh oh, its the dreaded "R" word.

considering the experiences on Iwo Jima and Okinawa that idea had some place in reality.