@Spatterson :
‘’ (b) that the dropping of atomic bombs as an act of hostilities was illegal under the rules of positive international law (taking both treaty law and customary law into consideration) then in force … (c) that the dropping of atomic bombs also constituted a wrongful act on the plane of municipal law, ascribable to the United States and its President, Mr. Harry S. Truman; … The aerial bombardment with atomic bombs of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an illegal act of hostilities according to the rules of international law. It must be regarded as indiscriminate aerial bombardment of undefended cities, even if it were directed at military objectives only, inasmuch as it resulted in damage comparable to that caused by indiscriminate bombardment.‘’ => Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia
You said that you are not patriotic so how come do you agree with the genocide made by your government all these years ago ?
Saying that it was only retribution for Pearl Harbor won’t cut it .It’s like heating a child with a sledge hammer in the head for spilling some ice cream on your new shoes .
There isn’t a reason in the world that allows anyone to massacre civilians . When the World Trade Center collapsed a whole religion was deemed as ‘‘terrorist’’ but if the US army kills over 200.000 people it’s just a way of ending a war ?
Of course that I find those who killed those people who were in the twin towers scum also .
You never answered my question. How was the war going to end? Whatever. We already pointed out over 100,000 people died in the Tokyo bombings… and we gave the Japanese a whole week before to surrender… and we waited 3 more days before nuking Nagasaki. The hell with you and your limited logic, I’m going to bed.
One way or another, a bunch of Japanese were going to die. Carpet bombing, ground assault… nuking. Besides, we COULD have nuked Tokyo. 230,000 dead? I’d say they were lucky it wasn’t more (I feel the need to stress the point here that I’m not a Japanese hater… for all you sickos out there that think I’m glad we killed 230,000 civilians)
The one with the limited logic is non other then you. It was a genocide no discussion so quit blabbering nonsense .
‘‘The hell with you…’’ you don’t believe in hell so I guess this is the second weird thing you said.
If 230.000 Americans would’ve died how would you react ?
gen·o·cide [jen-uh-sahyd]
noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
With emphasis on the “deliberate and systematic” part of it, I’m with Spatterson on this one.
From Wikipedia -
…on 24 July President Harry S. Truman approved the use of atomic bombs against Japan, and the next day Spaatz received written orders to this effect. These orders specified that the first attack should be made after 3 August, and named Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata and Nagasaki as targets.[218] Kyoto, Japan’s former imperial capital, had been included in an earlier version of the target list but Nagasaki was substituted on the direction of US Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson owing to Kyoto’s cultural value…
MADARA, it’s pretty easy to say using the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a terrible event in human history. It was most assuredly just that. To call it genocide is something completely different. To me, that seems to imply that there was some other clearly better choice that could have been made. If genocide was the goal, wouldn’t Tokyo or Osaka be the targets?
Well i guess we could have just surrendered to Japan. Thats one outcome. But… Then maybe Nintendo would have never been invented…thus changing the lives of a generation of mario worshipers
I cant bare the thought of losing my childhood NES
It’s not funny anymore if you spell wrong intentionally.Oh and you said that you were going to bed , have I troubled you with my correct reasoning ?
@cgreen0038: Even if it was a war , civilians mustn’t be put in danger . I admit that there are things that I don’t know but I don’t think the Japanese killed any American civilian.
I mean even in my religion even if there is a war about , those who are not participating in the actual battles mustn’t be harmed in any way .
@David: Sorry I didn’t know that(may they rest in peace ) . But even that can’t explain the death of so many. It’s like justifying
the death of 1.5 million Iraqis for the 3000 at World Trade Center .
The Japanese didn’t kill more US civilians because they didn’t have the opportunity. Where they had the opportunity, in China and elsewhere in Asia, they killed them by the millions.
That was then and this is now. Nor is this specific to Japanese. Humans do awful things, and still do. Iraq in 2013 had the highest level of civilian deaths in 5 years, over 7,000,
In my view, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki may well have prevented an even larger scale of military and civilian loss of life on the main islands of Japan. We simply don’t know.
BTW the range of estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq that I have seen is between 130,000 and 500,000. The latter number includes people who died from contaminated water, children who died from lack of access to maternity wards etc. which strikes me as questionable since these conditions also existed prior to invasion. I think the Syrian civil war has surpassed 100,000 dead according to estimates.
All of these numbers are unreliable. It is of course terrible that people kill each other in wars. Let’s hope that one day we will learn to settle our differences with words only, like on this forum.
People do awful things.
@MADARA - I’m guessing that the reason you are comparing death totals is you think the Atomic bombings were some sort of act of revenge? It wasn’t revenge - that war had to end. I don’t see how a land invasion Japan would have somehow been better than the Atomic bomb and I don’t see any other options than a land invasion. Is there some option I’m missing here? Do you think Japan would have just stopped invading other nations?
@Steve: So you’re saying that even if the Americans and the coalition force didn’t came to Iraq , the situation would’ve been the same ? I don’t think so . I mean you’re saying that they just came to see how Iraqis are killing one another for no reason ?
The whole thing started with that fat lie concerning Sadam’s weapons of mass destruction . If they really wanted to hunt him down , why didn’t they sent some special forces like they to in all those Hollywood movies ?
Don’t get me wrong I don’t have anything against the hard working Americans that had nothing to do with all these wars , it’s just their leadership which is to blame. And the total deaths did reach 1.5 million like I said not between 130.000 and 500.000.
But anyway it doesn’t matter if a million and a half died or just 500.000 , even if they only killed 1 civilian it is still very wrong .
I mean everyone knows that they only entered Iraq to steal their petrol not to enforce democracy .
And yes I agree with you regarding your wish that some day people will sort out their problems by peaceful communication. But unfortunately there are so many factors that act like a wall against any reasonable solution . One of them is the lack of education , and especially moral education, which is more and more prevailing around the world.
@cgreen0038: Yes in my view those atomic bombings were an act of revenge . I know that it was only a war but civilians must’ve been left out of it . If those stupids wanted to kill each other so badly they should’ve chosen a place where there were no civilians and kill each other until no one remained (I know that it doesn’t sound so well but humans’ lives are more precious than anything in this world ).Of course that it would’ve been perfect if there wasn’t any war but we don’t live in a perfect world after all .
Like I told Steve , I don’t blame the whole American nation so I hope you don’t get insulted by my words .
“Yes in my view those atomic bombing were an act of revenge .”
Fortunately your opinion means absolutely nothing. I don’t know what more you’re trying to prove. You’re not going to convince people that it was the wrong decision until you prove or cite studies/plans that say otherwise. I’m talking actual military studies – landwar vs nuking, aerial bombings vs nuking… starvation vs nuking.
@Spatterson : I’ve posted a fragment from an article but it would seem that you were to lazy to read it( I guess it’s because of your age or something).
All I want to prove is that it is wrong to kill innocent bystanders and no matter who does it they still are to blame .
Starvation? You mean that Japan didn’t have any agriculture of any kind and that they relied solely on others for nourishment ?
.