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

[Novus America]

I believe that the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan was justified, but modern nuclear weapons should be banned. The projected casualties for an invasion of Japan were astronomical, and the Japanese were prepared to sacrifice every one of their citizens for an honorable end. Thus, the nukes ironically saved lives, and far more Japanese than American lives.

The situation where dropping a nuclear bomb saves lives will never exist again. The destructive power of a modern nuclear weapon is far, far greater than those dropped on Japan. Additionally, the world’s population has greatly increased since 1945. Say a modern nuclear bomb existed in 1945. If dropped in any given spot, 2 million people might die. With population growth, that same area today might hold 10 million people.

No conventional invasion, even with massive armies and high tech weapons, is likely to be comparable to the destructive power of a single modern nuclear weapon.

Nuclear deterrence is real. I admit that banning nuclear weapons makes a third global war significantly more likely. Nuclear weapons is the reason why the Cold War did not go nuclear, because both sides put humanity’s survival ahead of their own ego. I do not see that in today’s world. Everywhere I turn, people of all walks of life make impulsive and shortsighted decisions, and I do not trust people in the modern day to put humanity’s survival ahead of their pride, as the United States and USSR did for nearly 50 years.

War is horrendous. War is savage. There is no question about that. A large conventional war would be devastating to humanity. Multiple large conventional wars would be devastating to humanity. But not nearly as devastating as what would happen if there was one accident involving a nuclear weapon.

Picture this:
In 2025, China attacks US allies South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Without the threat of American nuclear response, they are free to bring these territories under their domination by any means necessary. 40 million people are killed in this bloody war. Later, in 2050, The United States and Russia go to war over Russian encroachment in Eastern Europe. 30 million people die in that war.

Or

In 2025, Chinese early-warning systems malfunction, showing hundreds of American nukes heading for China’s shores. China believes the failing system, and launches their nukes at the United States. The United States launches nukes back. Nobody in either country survives. Oops. 2 billion people just died all because of an accident.

I’ll take the conventional warfare because, to quote:
“The combination of nuclear weapons and human infallibility will lead to the destruction of nations” - Robert McNamara

Also, no matter what outcome is in a conventional conflict, history proves that no empire lasts forever. Seriously. I’d prefer Russia taking over the United States to nuclear war, for so long as America exists, it would be possible to restore democracy/independence in due time. If we’re all smoldering husks of radioactive dust, we can do nothing to protect our liberty or that of others.

“Nobody in either country survives”
This is the problem, you seem to grossly exaggerate the capabilities of nuclear weapons as well as their likelihood of being used.

A US PRC nuclear war, (which the PRC would be suicidal to start given their inferiority in capabilities) would not kill everyone in both countries, even if it might kill many people in both. Certainly it would kill millions, but WWII killed some 70 million so you cannot say nuclear warfare will always kill more people.

Or that it is likely or inevitable under the current system which works well enough.

[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.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

The only people who don’t think it should are Americans who don’t want their motherland to lose one of their biggest strengths, nuclear bombs are inhumane and dangerous.

[Region of Dwipantara]

I believe that the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan was justified, but modern nuclear weapons should be banned. The projected casualties for an invasion of Japan were astronomical, and the Japanese were prepared to sacrifice every one of their citizens for an honorable end. Thus, the nukes ironically saved lives, and far more Japanese than American lives.

The situation where dropping a nuclear bomb saves lives will never exist again. The destructive power of a modern nuclear weapon is far, far greater than those dropped on Japan. Additionally, the world’s population has greatly increased since 1945. Say a modern nuclear bomb existed in 1945. If dropped in any given spot, 2 million people might die. With population growth, that same area today might hold 10 million people.

No conventional invasion, even with massive armies and high tech weapons, is likely to be comparable to the destructive power of a single modern nuclear weapon.

Nuclear deterrence is real. I admit that banning nuclear weapons makes a third global war significantly more likely. Nuclear weapons is the reason why the Cold War did not go nuclear, because both sides put humanity’s survival ahead of their own ego. I do not see that in today’s world. Everywhere I turn, people of all walks of life make impulsive and shortsighted decisions, and I do not trust people in the modern day to put humanity’s survival ahead of their pride, as the United States and USSR did for nearly 50 years.

War is horrendous. War is savage. There is no question about that. A large conventional war would be devastating to humanity. Multiple large conventional wars would be devastating to humanity. But not nearly as devastating as what would happen if there was one accident involving a nuclear weapon.

Picture this:
In 2025, China attacks US allies South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Without the threat of American nuclear response, they are free to bring these territories under their domination by any means necessary. 40 million people are killed in this bloody war. Later, in 2050, The United States and Russia go to war over Russian encroachment in Eastern Europe. 30 million people die in that war.

Or

In 2025, Chinese early-warning systems malfunction, showing hundreds of American nukes heading for China’s shores. China believes the failing system, and launches their nukes at the United States. The United States launches nukes back. Nobody in either country survives. Oops. 2 billion people just died all because of an accident.

I’ll take the conventional warfare because, to quote:
“The combination of nuclear weapons and human infallibility will lead to the destruction of nations” - Robert McNamara

Also, no matter what outcome is in a conventional conflict, history proves that no empire lasts forever. Seriously. I’d prefer Russia taking over the United States to nuclear war, for so long as America exists, it would be possible to restore democracy/independence in due time. If we’re all smoldering husks of radioactive dust, we can do nothing to protect our liberty or that of others.

“Nobody in either country survives”
This is the problem, you seem to grossly exaggerate the capabilities of nuclear weapons as well as their likelihood of being used.

A US PRC nuclear war, (which the PRC would be suicidal to start given their inferiority in capabilities) would not kill everyone in both countries, even if it might kill many people in both. Certainly it would kill millions, but WWII killed some 70 million so you cannot say nuclear warfare will always kill more people.

Or that it is likely or inevitable under the current system which works well enough.

Hell, even the wildest apocalyptic predictions of climate crisis -Hothouse Earth- fails to eliminate humanity in-scenario. But in the event of a nuclear war, it's safe to assume that globalized civilization as we know it will end.

Invest that spare time into research instead of scoring points on the Internet. Apparently some dude on Youtube found a formula as close to the OG material as possible, using dirt-cheap corn starch and glue. And shooting the missiles down is another good option to consider, that is if the Strategic Defense Initiative successfully make a breakthrough, right now it's wasting money.

SDI is no longer around. So it is not wasting money. We do have another missile defense system, but it does a lot of good, because it has deterrent value, even if it is not 100% effective. It still would make an enemy think twice about trying a limited nuclear attack.

And as of today, IMO fear of government-ordered nuclear war is overblown. China, Russia, USA have developed far more effective and surgical methods to get what they want without gambling everything at once. Obviously it's still a problem, but not a active and looming one anymore like in the cold war.

Imo nuclear bombs shouldn't even exist

Inb4 Operation Downfall kills ten times more US soldiers than the casualty of Hiroshima-Nagasaki, completely destroy the Japanese state and infrastructure, and eliminate 75% of its population through warfare and mass starvation.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

WW2 stopped being civilised in 1914 anyway

[Novus America]

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.

[Plzen]

Inb4 Operation Downfall kills ten times more US soldiers than the casualty of Hiroshima-Nagasaki, completely destroy the Japanese state and infrastructure, and eliminate 75% of its population through warfare and mass starvation.

A US government commission studying the Pacific Theatre of WWII concluded that Japan would have surrendered by December 1945, even if the nuclear bombs were not dropped, even if the Soviets did not invade Manchuria, due primarily to the immense pressure of aerial bombardment.

Of course, it could very easily be argued in that case that another four months of firebombing would have had basically the same effect on Japanese civilians and infrastructure as the atomic bombings did.

[Saiwania]

A missile intercepting another missile during mid flight? Just out of curiosity, how'd you do in physics?

Never took that course. Would be a technician or skilled artisan more than anything else, so far as what I'm most capable of learning if I had the money or connections. Not a scientist or humanities major but not really a mechanic either. I imagine it could be done if it worked like a MIRV in reverse.

There is no such thing now, but it doesn't mean that it can't ever be done. The point is that anti ballistic missiles can or might advance like any other technology should there be a breakthrough or enough money thrown at it. Nukes will improve as well to counter that. Each will only go as far as what fate will decide.

There is an arms race between body armor and small arms for example. Currently, most firearms (with a high enough caliber) will kill people. However, there are signs that body armor might become so good as to render bullets completely useless at a future date. One experimental armor with this nanotech material gets harder the faster a projectile impacts it, any slight change in pressure causes that spot to contract and harden like diamond. It could prove to be virtually impervious, especially if firearms manufacturers have nothing that can defeat it but this armor became cheap or common place in the long term.

[Novus America]

Inb4 Operation Downfall kills ten times more US soldiers than the casualty of Hiroshima-Nagasaki, completely destroy the Japanese state and infrastructure, and eliminate 75% of its population through warfare and mass starvation.

A US government commission studying the Pacific Theatre of WWII concluded that Japan would have surrendered by December 1945, even if the nuclear bombs were not dropped, even if the Soviets did not invade Manchuria, due primarily to the immense pressure of aerial bombardment.

Of course, it could very easily be argued in that case that another four months of firebombing would have had basically the same effect on Japanese civilians and infrastructure as the atomic bombings did.

Given Operation Meetinghouse killed more people than either nuclear attack, it would have done far more damage. Also the whole “keeping up the blockade and firebombing bombing would have had Japan surrender by December 1945” although probably true, IIRC it also assumed some 10 Japanese million dead from starvation.

The Navy plan of simply waiting for them to starve to death under blockade plus the Air Force plan of burning every city to the ground with napalm would have “worked” inasmuch as Japan still loses, would have resulted in far more dead.

[Region of Dwipantara]

Inb4 Operation Downfall kills ten times more US soldiers than the casualty of Hiroshima-Nagasaki, completely destroy the Japanese state and infrastructure, and eliminate 75% of its population through warfare and mass starvation.

A US government commission studying the Pacific Theatre of WWII concluded that Japan would have surrendered by December 1945, even if the nuclear bombs were not dropped, even if the Soviets did not invade Manchuria, due primarily to the immense pressure of aerial bombardment.

Of course, it could very easily be argued in that case that another four months of firebombing would have had basically the same effect on Japanese civilians and infrastructure as the atomic bombings did.

I'm (actually) interested at the source for that. Because everything will be far more uncertain when the Allies actually invades. Also, that means 1) the impending food crisis finally triggers mass starvation, especially since nearly all infrastructure would be destroyed and 2) a very bitter Operation Olympics had already commenced. If Operation Coronet:Electric Boogaloo was launched, prospects will be even more grimmer. Don't forget that at the same time, Imperial Japan is running a massive propaganda campaign calling for "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million".

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

A US government commission studying the Pacific Theatre of WWII concluded that Japan would have surrendered by December 1945, even if the nuclear bombs were not dropped, even if the Soviets did not invade Manchuria, due primarily to the immense pressure of aerial bombardment.

Of course, it could very easily be argued in that case that another four months of firebombing would have had basically the same effect on Japanese civilians and infrastructure as the atomic bombings did.

I'm (actually) interested at the source for that. Because everything will be far more uncertain when the Allies actually invades. Also, that means 1) the impending food crisis finally triggers mass starvation, especially since nearly all infrastructure would be destroyed and 2) a very bitter Operation Olympics part I had already commenced. Don't forget that at the same time, Imperial Japan is running a massive propaganda campaign calling for "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million".

The war was already lost for the Japanese when the Soviet Army rekt Japan's last source of vital war materiel in the span of a week... Manchuria. And all the important guys i.e. not the Imperial Guard major who committed high treason on the 15th of August realised this. So the expectation that Japan would resist into December is a fantastical meme divorced from reality.

[Nea Videssos]

Japan would've surrendered anyway for a variety of reasons. One major factor among them being the Soviet invasion. It seems to have been forgotten that the Japanese did offer to surrender several times before, but were rebuffed by the Americans. Saving lives wasn't the main motivation for using the bombs. It was more to intimidate the Soviet Union, and to test the bombs on a "proper" target. See for instance, how Truman's Sectretary of State James Byrne remarked that "Russia might be more mangeable" with the threat of nuclear weapons having been displayed in Japan. Leslie Groves, the military director in charge of the Manhattan Project, also remarked that "the whole purpose of this project was to subdue the Russians"

While we're on the topic, I'll copy and past some stuff I found ages ago:

In regards to the supposed death toll of an American invasion, more recent analyses and estimates place the number considerably lower than the one often cited, not that a full scale invasion would have been necessary. Japan was about to surrender anyway, and indeed, several offers of surrender not long before were rejected by the American government.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946 said this: "Even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

There's a strong case to be made that the nukes had less effect on Japanese capitulation than did the promise of total air dominance by the US and a total fracture inside the Japanese high command as the Japanese navy and airforce were assiduously wiped out and as bombings of Japanese cities become the norm (in particular the extremely deadly firebombings of major cities/population centres under the orders of Curtis LeMay, such as the firebombing of Tokyo, which killed over a hundred thousand people in a single night, in Operation Meetinghouse, whilst as a whole the firebombing killed over 350,000 civilians). Arguing whether or not the nukes or the firebombing campaign were more morally justifiable is besides the point, since both were similarly harmful, causing massive casualties to the civilian population.

But this idea that the nukes were actually needed doesn't seem true, to the extent that very few historians reached that conclusion when looking at the evidence from inside Japan. Japan knew it was set to be wiped out by conventional weapons. They planned for an invasion but it was clear that it needed a civil militia, not a professional one. The emperor was scrambling to maintain any clear domestic control as Japan's infrastructure was simply annihilated. So offering a treaty which kept the emperor in power was far more effective at getting capitulation than dropping two nukes on two cities which had zero strategic value.

All targets of strategic value had already been wiped out. The Americans nuked two targets of minor strategic value. Hardly a demonstration of a morally superior power, more like a demonstration of vast technical power willing to do anything at all, no matter what the moral questions. I can understand the total war argument but taking a moral view of war crimes after that isn't tenable, but this is what the US did with the Nuremberg trials. As LeMay said, "Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.... Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier." At least he understood that what he was doing was not moral and didn't need to delude himself about it.

The Pacific war has various other common misconceptions, including the belief that Japan was solely to blame for the initiation of the conflict.

"It was obvious that Japan would not attack us unless provoked into it as a rat driven into a corner. [FDR], however, undertook a series of provocative actions . . . with increasing violence until both national pride and national desperation led them to Pearl Harbor. I believe that the verdict of history will show that either [FDR] was wholly ignorant of Japanese psychology . . . or that . . . he was determined to provoke war with Japan as the method of entry." (H. Hoover, Freedom Betrayed, p. 824)

In 1944 British Cabinet Minister Sir Oliver Lyttelton noted that: "Japan was provoked into attacking the Americans at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty on history ever to say that America was forced into the war. Everyone knows where American sympathies were. It is incorrect to say that America was ever truly neutral . . . ." (Prange, Pearl Harbor, p. 35)

"Roosevelt knew that the only way that he could fulfill his secret commitments to Churchill to get us into the war, without openly dishonoring his pledges to the American people to keep us out, was by provoking Germany or Japan to attack." (Albert Wedemeyer, Wedemeyer Reports!, p. 18)

"Even contemporary historians could think that “as for [the Japan-U.S. War] . . . Monaco [and] Luxembourg . . . would have taken up arms against the United States on receipt of such a note as the State Department sent the Japanese Government on the eve of Pearl Harbour." (Dissentient Judgment of Justice R. B. Pal, at the Tokyo Trial, p. 546)

"The image, fostered through [the Tokyo Trials], of Japan as one of the world's most rapacious militarist powers has long prevailed on both sides of the Pacific. Difficulty of access to private and official archives of the war years has helped perpetuate the darkness which still obfuscates many aspects of the Pacific War." (Joyce C. Lebra, The Indian National Army and Japan, p. xiii)

"[The Pacific War] . . . was not simply a Japanese version of the capitalist pattern of imperialism described by Lenin and demonstrated by Western powers. It was . . . a war for preservation and defense of vital interests threatened by the advance of Western imperialism in Asia. Similarly, the traditional image of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere as the grand design for Japanese empire in Asia can also be questioned." (Lebra, Ibid.)

"They [Japan] feared that if those supplies were cut off, there would be 10 to 12 million people unoccupied [i.e., unemployed] in Japan. Their purpose, therefore, in going to war was largely dictated by security. "(Douglas MacArthur's testimony at the 1951 American Congress)

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Tfw you stage a coup on the 15th of August to continue the war for Japan but all you get from the generals is... "fucking go home."
<.< >.>

[Nea Videssos]

Some more stuff I found as well:

"Adm. William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… in being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

The commanding general of the US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”

“It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” —Adm. William “Bull” Halsey

Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…” Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives…” He later publicly declared “…it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” Even the famous “hawk” Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin."

[Plzen]

I'm (actually) interested at the source for that. Because everything will be far more uncertain when the Allies actually invades.

“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

- United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report (Pacific War), page 26

EDIT: oops, ninja’d; someone already posted this quote before me

[Novus America]

A missile intercepting another missile during mid flight? Just out of curiosity, how'd you do in physics?

Never took that course. Would be a technician or skilled artisan more than anything else, so far as what I'm most capable of learning if I had the money or connections. Not a scientist or humanities major but not really a mechanic either. I imagine it could be done if it worked like a MIRV in reverse.

There is no such thing now, but it doesn't mean that it can't ever be done. The point is that anti ballistic missiles can or might advance like any other technology should there be a breakthrough or enough money thrown at it. Nukes will improve as well to counter that. Each will only go as far as what fate will decide.

There is an arms race between body armor and small arms for example. Currently, most firearms (with a high enough caliber) will kill people. However, there are signs that body armor might become so good as to render bullets completely useless at a future date. One experimental armor with this nanotech material gets harder the faster a projectile impacts it, any slight change in pressure causes that spot to contract and harden like diamond. It could prove to be virtually impervious, especially if firearms manufacturers have nothing that can defeat it but this armor became cheap or common place in the long term.

A missile intercepting a missile works in the same way as a missile intercepting an aircraft really. Missiles are small, very fast aircraft. There are several ways to do it. One is kinetic energy, basically crashing your missile into theirs. Difficult sure as it requires complex calculations and a very maneuverable interceptor but it can be done.
It has been done.

It is the same principle as hitting any moving target really, closing the distance until there is none.

Now there are other ideas too. One is lasers, which travel FAR, FAR faster than any missile.

Another is to place a nuclear warhead on your interceptor missile, so you only need to get close enough to the enemy missiles to work.

Although a missile defense system does not actually have to work to be effective interestingly enough. If the enemy is uncertain if it might work or might not, it still changes their cost benefit analysis.

Say I have a missile defense system of 50 interceptors. That you think can shoot down ten missiles with a 90+% of certainty. In that cases you are probably not going to launch 10 missiles at me, knowing you are likely to lose almost everything and gain nothing.

So therefore I have made sure you will not use a limited nuclear strike.

The best system is one of a robust missile defense AND effective counterattack ability. As it causes the enemy the most doubt in their ability to net gain anything by attacking you.

[Ammostan]

Yes. Anyone who says no is a fascist, period.

International law is a farce.
If you believe that a corrupt all powerful organization consisting of global mob rule should exist then you're a fascist, period.

[Novus America]

Some more stuff I found as well:

"Adm. William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… in being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

The commanding general of the US Army Air Forces, Henry “Hap” Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a New York Times reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said that “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”

“It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.” —Adm. William “Bull” Halsey

Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…” Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, for his part, stated in his memoirs that when notified by Secretary of War Henry Stimson of the decision to use atomic weapons, he “voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives…” He later publicly declared “…it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” Even the famous “hawk” Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Twenty-First Bomber Command, went public the month after the bombing, telling the press that “the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin."

Obviously Japan would still have been defeated by the combination of the Navy blockade and continued conventional bombing, but again the results in very many people dying, almost certainly more than the juiciest weapons.

And the whole “Japan was ready to surrender” is not really true, it shows a complete misunderstanding of the Japanese governing and command structure. See the Rising Sun by John Toland, which is probably the best review of Japanese primary sources.

Even after the nuclear weapons parts of the Army still attempted a coup.

They reason why people in Japan who wanted to surrender before the attacks had to attempt discuss it secretly was they knew fanatics in the Army would not permit any surrender to happen and would launch a coup if it was tried.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

By "parts of the army" you mean the gaggle of field officers in Tokyo who got there because of nepotism?

[Thermodolia]

WW2 stopped being civilised in 1914 anyway

War has never been “civilized”

[Novus America]

By "parts of the army" you mean the gaggle of field officers in Tokyo who got there because of nepotism?

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 many still wanted to fight to the death.

Sure much of the army leadership was made up of unqualified lunatics. But that does not change the underlying premise.

Convincing them unfortunately took extreme measures.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

By "parts of the army" you mean the gaggle of field officers in Tokyo who got there because of nepotism?

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".

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

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”.

[Nea Videssos]

I also found this regarding the idea of the atom bombs as "experiments" both during the Manhattan Project and in Japan. Copied it over to Dropbox for convenience.

Some of its contents:

I checked the following main documents of the Manhattan Project (MP):

Captain W.R. Parson's memorandum "Notes on Initial Meetings of Target Committee" to Rear Admiral W.R. Purnell (l2/12/1944);
Brigadier General L. Norstad’s memorandum to Director, Joint Target Group (28/ 4/45);
Dr. J. R. Oppenheimer’s memorandum to Brigadier General T.F. Farrell ( 11/5/45);
Major J.A. Derry's and Dr. N.F. Ramsey's memorandum to Major General L.R. Groves (12/5/45);
Brigadier General L. Norstad's memorandum "Notes of the Interim Committee" to Commanding General, XXI Bomber Command (29/5/45).

Having examined these documents (Yamagiwa, Tachibana & Okada, 1993), I came to the conclusion that the U.S. Armed Forces deliberately planned not only to use the A-bombs on civilians to make the destruction most effective, but also to gain as much information as possible about the “ effects" of the bombs. I think that my thesis is proved by the very quick organization of the Manhattan survey teams going to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Jones, 1985, pp. 543f. )

In the light of the above mentioned mentality and morals of some leading American scientists in the period of the pre-bombing, it seems that it was natural for them to see the bombing as such. In this context, the opinion of J.B. Koepfli, scientific advisor to the State Department, deserves to be cited. He wrote the following in a letter to Shield Warren, Director, Division of Biology and Medicine, AEC on 1/6/51:

"The atomic bomb casualty areas in Japan constitute an unparalleled natural laboratory and a unique opportunity particularly for pursuing certain long phases of the studies." (emphasis added).

It seems to me that such an opinion represented a common understanding among most of the MP and ABCOJNIH scientists.

2. According to a 5/ 2/93 story from the Kyodo News Agency at Los Angeles the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were described as “ experiments " or “ tests " in the official records of the nuclear tests issued by the Nevada Office, Department of Energy (DOE).

Every year since the beginning of the 1980s, the revised version of these records, supplemented with the record of new tests, has been published for the mass media and researchers by this Nevada office. Since the first version, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings have been recorded as the second and third “ tests, ” following the first one at Alamogordo, New Mexico. The bombings have been counted as the second and third as a part of the subsequent test series that included the blasts on the Bikini Atoll, the Nevada site and others from 1945 through to the 1990s.

These facts were reported on 7/2/93 in a major article in the Ciwgoku Shimbun. This is an influential local newspaper with a circulation of 700,000 in Hiroshima Prefecture. It is important to recognize that even the Nevada Office, DOE, understood the bombings to be “ tests. "

[Saiwania]

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 mainly because they kept getting supplies from China/Soviet Union, but also 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.