Was Hiroshima Necessary?

[thomas]

I don't come here to trade insults, even if the board administrators do seem to be getting lax on allowing it.

If you deem a post to be inappropriate or in violation of our rules then please feel free to report it. While we try to stay on top of things we are not able read each and every post and therefore do rely on our members' cooperation.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I said:

I think the guy might have alzheimer's, cause I am sure I have told him that simple fact before and more than once).

Roland said:

Why would I need to know that he accuses me (as if it's a crime, anyway) of having Alzheimer's?

And he writes about trading insults?

And he is the one who wants to block me??

I did not accuse. I said "I think...might..." not "He has...". Further, no, I did not state it like it was a crime. I stated it like I repeat a fact over and over and from the same guy we get the same lie over and over.

And I don't mean it as insult, but its about the most complimentary explanation I can find for why he does this.

Golly. Why would I get annoyed at having to fight the same lie over and over again from the same guy...who then takes a pair of pliers and a blowtorch to my words to twist them into an attack?

No. There is definitely something wrong here, and it might be Alzheimers. Sorry, but people do have that problem. Its real. I would suggest looking into it if one forgets a simple fact so many times. And its not the first time or the only fact.

Something is wrong here, and I would like to see it fixed. Blocking me has not fixed it.

Once again, the Soviets agreed at Yalta to join the war against Japan 90 days after the surrender of Germany. They did so, like clockwork, precisely 90 days later.

Roland said:

If I recall right, the Soviets didn't even declare war on Japan until after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped.

Writing as if it was a sudden decision by the Soviets to kick Japan while she was down.

And I predict that come August and all the renewed interest in the bombs that come every year, he is going to post something like that again.

 

[Tamayo]

I'm here a little late, but:

I DO agree with the idea of demonstrating the fullest extent of one's power to make someone back off. America has kept itself safe through extremely superior firepower, which, thankfully, hasn't seen as much action as one might think is logical.

That being said, though, I don't think there is a way to justify killing those innocent people. They should have never targeted the civilian population, and it honestly amazes me that relations between the US and Japan have been mended so much. Those people had nothing to do with the war, and it's entirely likely that many of them opposed it.

There are a lot of people here who support the dropping of those two bombs, but I wonder how they would feel about it if they thought about it from the Japanese perspective -- What if an entire American city was flattened (and dangerously radioactive for decades to come), innocent men, women and children killed in mass numbers, leaving any survivors with horrible defects and deformations, all to stop a war that none of them had a hand in. Here, that'd be called terrorism to an extreme extent.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I see an administrator found my comment about laxness quickly enough, but what I can't figure out is why Zorro is even still here.

Maybe I'm the only one who resents his relentless insults, but I've never had to put anyone on ignore before. Anyway, so long as I can't see what new slight he's come up with, I can't report it to administration.

 

[Tamayo]

I see an administrator found my comment about laxness quickly enough, but what I can't figure out is why Zorro is even still here. Maybe I'm the only one who resents his relentless insults, but I've never had to put anyone on ignore before.

I've had my disagreements with him, but I still respect him as a poster and someone who cares about what he argues -- Just because we may have some huge disagreements at times and names are thrown around, it doesn't invalidate the whole argument (most of the time ). He may have an edgy attitude at times, but I don't think I've seen him break rules or warrant an ignore. It's not like he's just posting nonsense.

Anyway, so long as I can't see what new slight he's come up with, I can't report it to administration.

That was a choice, my friend.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Thank you Tamayo.

Yes, I get edgy, and its generally not a simple difference of opinion. You don't see me relentlessly attacking the religious for example, even though I strongly disagree with that aspect of their beliefs.

What gets me is when people justify killing and discrimination and stuff like that. And worse is when people just repeat lies and faulty reasoning that has been proven false and faulty. I want to walk away, but I can't. I can't let the truth get lost and buried. I won't.

I DO agree with the idea of demonstrating the fullest extent of one's power to make someone back off. America has kept itself safe through extremely superior firepower, which, thankfully, hasn't seen as much action as one might think is logical.

In my opinion, its been those two massive oceans that have kept America safe, combined with a large landmass, restricted space to invade from the south, Mexico, plus deserts, and Canada to the north, similarly protected with a frozen wasteland in their north.

You can attack America, but even with a not so over-massive military, getting the troops and materiel to hold a postition just isn't happening. Look how hard it was to invade Europe just over the English Channel. America? Forget about it!

That is why Japan hit Pearl and left, and the Nazi's attacked that amusement park and left.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

That's your own choice, Tamayo. I prefer to talk to adults.

 

[pauro12]

Why would I need to know that he accuses me (as if it's a crime, anyway) of having Alzheimer's? I don't come here to trade insults, even if the board administrators do seem to be getting lax on allowing it.

Unblock him, no thanks. And I see no reason to talk to someone who reproduces his words, either.

P.S. - I haven't blocked you yet, pauro12, but if you continue being the message-carrier for Zorro's insults, I will. This is your only warning.

I'm not into this insult thingy of you both, but I just reposted his post for you because it is relevant to the thread, and thus I don't give a damn whole thing of what is between you both, and I won't give a damn as well on wasting my time for a senseless debate.. With all due respect sir..

 

[pauro12]

I'm here a little late, but:

I DO agree with the idea of demonstrating the fullest extent of one's power to make someone back off. America has kept itself safe through extremely superior firepower, which, thankfully, hasn't seen as much action as one might think is logical.

That being said, though, I don't think there is a way to justify killing those innocent people. They should have never targeted the civilian population, and it honestly amazes me that relations between the US and Japan have been mended so much. Those people had nothing to do with the war, and it's entirely likely that many of them opposed it.

There are a lot of people here who support the dropping of those two bombs, but I wonder how they would feel about it if they thought about it from the Japanese perspective -- What if an entire American city was flattened (and dangerously radioactive for decades to come), innocent men, women and children killed in mass numbers, leaving any survivors with horrible defects and deformations, all to stop a war that none of them had a hand in. Here, that'd be called terrorism to an extreme extent.

9/11 = war... See how the Americans bursts their anger when innocent people had been targeted.. I guess they already feel how it is to lose innocent people.. I mean, I'm not against with the americans (I wanted to visit US someday as well xD), but for this topic alone (Hiroshima Bombing), it shouldn't have had happened..

 

[Mark of Zorro]

9/11 = war... See how the Americans bursts their anger when innocent people had been targeted..

Yeah, but when it comes to OTHER innocent people, you see a lot of mental contortionism twisting all logic and rules of war into a pretzel.

I never minded actions against al-Qaida to root out those responsible for 9-11. I did not even mind shoving the Taliban violently out of the way to get to al-Qaida if need be. But full scale war against the Taliban? Just for harboring al-Qaida? Without full knowledge of 9-11 plans previous? Why? How many civilians have needlessly died in Afghanistan by American bombs, missiles and bullets? Same in Iraq.

Military types (both in service and thought) just wear two or more faces and have no respect for anything but their own selfish desires. I HATE DAMN NEAR ALL OF THEM. There have been only a few who have been pretty clear about regret and remorse for their past of being a cog in the machine of death have received my forgiveness, and only then because I believed they were sincere. And of course there are those few who actually managed to keep their heads and morals together, at least to the degree of keeping innocents out of it, those who either condemned bad orders they were not given, or refused those they were given.

But when people come here with excuse after excuse for murdering whole cities of innocent people, and NONE of them add up to any definite benefit, it really gets my gander up.

This cannot be said enough: the A-bombs did not end the war, at least not on their own. The supporters keep saying the Japanese would not surrender but would rather be killed or commit suicide...so the answer was to kill them like never before? That makes ZERO sense, and it does not pan out. Or what...we are supposed to believe they were willing to die, in caves, on the beaches, or by fire bombing, but not willing to die LIKE THAT, with A-bombs. ZERO SENSE.

 

[Tamayo]

9/11 = war... See how the Americans bursts their anger when innocent people had been targeted.. I guess they already feel how it is to lose innocent people.. I mean, I'm not against with the americans (I wanted to visit US someday as well xD), but for this topic alone (Hiroshima Bombing), it shouldn't have had happened..

My point exactly. Of course, back when this -- the nukes, I mean -- happened, America was a lot more blatant about their efforts in representing the enemies as moral degenerates, racist propaganda and all. I'm sure that this largely contributes to the number of Americans who straddle the fence on the issue these days. With the amount of misinformation enveloping this bit of history, it's no wonder that most Americans don't view this as a horrible wartime atrocity.

It's interesting, actually -- Of all the vague topics I've learned about in school, the bombings on Japan, in particular, have always stood out to me as overly obfuscated. I never felt like I got the whole story, or at least an adequate justification for what had happened. I don't think I've ever seen an educational history book which openly condemns the decision to drop the bombs, even though it should seem like an obvious mistake if looked at through America's cultural lens today. In retrospect, it's a wonder why Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't placed side by side with things like slavery and the systematic extermination of Native Americans, etc.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

In retrospect, it's a wonder why Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't placed side by side with things like slavery and the systematic extermination of Native Americans, etc.

You mean slavery was not necessary to bring culture to the blacks?

You mean we didn't have to genocide the Native Americans to save humanity and the world?

Yeah, it is amazing that history books have still not adjusted. Times change, people don't. I am sure if we study it, we will find how many generations it takes, with little variance, for such things to be viewed accurately, without bias, denial and cognitive dissonance.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

It's worth remembering that the Japanese nazi industrial war machine would not have been able to function without the support of the civilian population.

bullets, bombs, ration packs, uniforms, tanks and planes do not build them selves.

I think the US was right to demand unconditional surrender. Because otherwise there would have been a WW3 by now.
There is much I do not understand about Japan.
How is it for example that i read in the paper that the leader of the main opposition in Japan is happy to say that comfort women were necessary.

As I said earlier - Japan started the war. This quote comes to mind.

""Punishment should always be commensurate to the crime. Should be proportionate and visible. A punishment is not only an act of retribution, it's also a signal. It needs to be seen and understood by anyone else who might have flirted with the notion of committing the same transgression. It's vital that the transgressors understand the rules they've broken. Your choice of punishment needs to be seen as fair, proportional and reciprocal. But the nature can only be decided by the punisher himself."
— Ezra Stone, Boss. "

 

[nahadef]

It's worth remembering that the Japanese nazi industrial war machine would not have been able to function without the support of the civilian population.

bullets, bombs, ration packs, uniforms, tanks and planes do not build them selves.

I think the US was right to demand unconditional surrender. Because otherwise there would have been a WW3 by now.
There is much I do not understand about Japan.
How is it for example that i read in the paper that the leader of the main opposition in Japan is happy to say that comfort women were necessary.

As I said earlier - Japan started the war. This quote comes to mind.

""Punishment should always be commensurate to the crime. Should be proportionate and visible. A punishment is not only an act of retribution, it's also a signal. It needs to be seen and understood by anyone else who might have flirted with the notion of committing the same transgression. It's vital that the transgressors understand the rules they've broken. Your choice of punishment needs to be seen as fair, proportional and reciprocal. But the nature can only be decided by the punisher himself."
— Ezra Stone, Boss. "

There's so much wrong with this post (and a few nuggets of right).

America and England started the war with Iraq. If Iraqis managed to detonate nuclear bombs in London and New York, that would be called for, as "the nature can only be decided by the punisher himself".

It's worth remembering that the American/British industrial war machine would not have been able to function without the support of the civilian population.


Right? That's what you're essentially saying. Iraq is well within its right to punish civilian populations in the offending countries by your logic.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Right? That's what you're essentially saying. Iraq is well within its right to punish civilian populations in the offending countries by your logic.

Well, actually, I think his logic is "My side is right and everybody else is wrong" and I think he is being consistent in that.

 

[Chidoriashi]

It's worth remembering that the Japanese nazi industrial war machine would not have been able to function without the support of the civilian population.

bullets, bombs, ration packs, uniforms, tanks and planes do not build them selves.

I think the US was right to demand unconditional surrender. Because otherwise there would have been a WW3 by now.
There is much I do not understand about Japan.
How is it for example that i read in the paper that the leader of the main opposition in Japan is happy to say that comfort women were necessary.

As I said earlier - Japan started the war. This quote comes to mind.

""Punishment should always be commensurate to the crime. Should be proportionate and visible. A punishment is not only an act of retribution, it's also a signal. It needs to be seen and understood by anyone else who might have flirted with the notion of committing the same transgression. It's vital that the transgressors understand the rules they've broken. Your choice of punishment needs to be seen as fair, proportional and reciprocal. But the nature can only be decided by the punisher himself."
— Ezra Stone, Boss. "

If you have read my other posts you probably know that I feel the bombs were a necessary factor in bringing about the unconditional surrender of Japan on the dates that history knows them. I do think they were just as heinous as all the other things committed against civilians on both sides of the war, and sadly that was the nature of this war, far more civilians (mostly allied) were killed in this war than soldiers were.

That being said, I do have to disagree with that last quote being applied to the war. Lots of people, especially when it comes to the allies vs Germany like to see this war as good guys vs bad guys, and on the small scale (Hitler and his cronies, Japanese militarists in charge) it can be seen like that. But I think the majority of the people/civilians killed in that war were essentially innocent, or at least had to do the best they could in difficult circumstances completely beyond their control. So to me (despite the mobilization (brainwashing) of millions of Japanese civilians) I do not think it is correct the equate the atomic bombs as some sort of punishment for Imperial Japan's crimes.

Pretty much all nations have blood on their hands, and honestly in Japan's case they were just doing that whole imperialist thing, something many nations before them had been doing for hundreds of years. Of course that does not make it right, but especially as an American today, I like to believe that a nations people and a nations government need to be judged separately.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

The part of the quote that says the most to me is the part about punishment not just being an act of retribution, but also a signal.

I think it's also deeply wrong, and far to easy, to blame only the government.
Of course my knowledge is more of Germany. but watch this, and ask yourself, was it really only those at the top who supported the war?

This famous speech went out on the radio, was listened to by millions and hugely increased the popularity of the NAZI party.
WW2 wasn't just started by a bunch of nazi's, it was started by the Germans.

[video=youtube;YVP3KU-qOzc]

The Nazi party (and one assumes the case was the same in Japan) had such a high level of popular support, that any politician alive today would gladly murder their own grandmother with an iron rod to have even half as many points in the polls.

It's also worth understanding that WW2 was not won on the battlefield, it was primarily won in the factory and the science lab.

does this make the acts [of the bombs] themselves any less barbaric - no of course not.
but the quaetion is, was it necessary.

Was it necessary for the future of Japan and regional stability for the war to be ended with total US domination - one could easily argue yes.
Was it necessary to send a clear and powerful signal to the world, not just as a message to those who would be tempted towards fascism, genocide and war crimes. but also as a signal to the world re: the USA.

"We are the United States of America, we stand for the freedom and liberty of all people. We have the capabilities to annihilate entire nations, and the fortitude to carry out such a threat. we have an elected government, elected by the people, and so, should an event again take place that would move our people so much that they would demand our government take action, we will. And our victory will be a certainty, just as the the sun rises in the East, so too will brilliance of a thousand suns burn over your home should you bring about the wrath of this freedom loving nation."

unfortunately much of that message has since been diluted, If the US was the worlds policeman directly following WW2, it's a corrupt policeman today.

 

[nahadef]

I don't really understand your point of view, SevenStars.

If we look at Japan in the 30's, even if the people proudly supported the war at the time (and there was dissent, it was simply something you would be ostracised for), people were at the mercy of their government. Here's why:

The Japanese government had anti-Western policies in state some time after World War I (forgive me, I studied it a long time back, and the numbers are vague now). At that point of the post-Meiji era , baseball and jazz, streetcars and neckties were in vogue in Japan, and the government pushed a shift against that. The elite Japanese might have true experience of Western life, but everyday Japanese were at the mercy of the media (no Internet back then, right? No Amazon.com to give them foreign books). By the time of Pearl Harbour, the established narrative of the Japanese government regarding the West was that they were monsters. In Okinawa , they basically told the populace that the Americans were the Rape of Nanking times 10, and this was the cause of mass suicides in the islands as the Americans approached. Could you imagine the people anywhere committing mass suicide without a massive dose of propaganda?

The people of Japan were at the mercy of their government to inform them realistically. As modern as Japan had become, it had no history with the West to really make the people informed, and even in Germany with its long history in Europe, people were able to believe astonishingly bizarre lies... For that matter, the US similarly had a totally racist campaign about Japan at the same time ('the Yellow Menace'). Countries in the 40's lied to their populace in outrageous ways, on all sides.

Amidst all that, you blame the populace for the war and believe they deserved to die in the way they did. I am willing to say, even if a civilian supported the war by paying taxes and agreeing with the popular opinion, that doesn't make them deserving to die.

I want to seriously recommend you read the first volume of the manga 'Barefoot Gen.' It was written by a survivor of the bomb, and the first volume takes place before the war, and you can see how daily life in Japan in 1945 actually was. It's a classic in Japan at this point, and pretty famous around the world.

My experience of you as a poster here is that you're a fairly smart guy, and I hope you'll consider the actual situation of people in the country at that time. There were of course objectors, and people who wanted change. But the era was different. There wasn't protected freedom of speech, there was a more rural group mindset punishing outsiders, and foreigners were genuinely foreign back then.

I've even looked this up at Amazon:
Amazon product ASIN 0867196025
Read it, and say those people all deserved to die, and I'll respectfully disagree with you. Respectfully.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I don't really understand your point of view, SevenStars.

The only way it makes sense is if every nation is a hive mind and every human in it is in total agreement with the other.

That said, during war, anyone on a military base is a legit target. Anyone wearing a military uniform is a target. Anyone who aims a weapon at you is a target (not just some shephard carrying a gun to kill wolves). Anyone in a military vehicle or vessel is a target. Anyone in a weapons factory is a target. Anyone carrying weapons to the enemy is a target. All of those are obviously prosecuting the war against you, so you can feel free to shoot them.

But this does not give anyone the right to shoot THROUGH an innocent to get at those people. An accident is one thing, but firebombing and use of nukes is obviously no accident. When you intentionally eliminate people who you cannot determine have anything to do with the war, you are scum. You are just scum. And you are a war criminal, in fact, even if its not determined by a court yet or written on a sheet of paper, just like one is a theif for stealing and not just for a judge saying so.

I really, really hate it when people say "the Germans" or "the Japanese" as if they are all responsible for whatever the government and military do, even children and teens how obviously never got a vote.

I mean, damn, look at me. I am American. I HATE my government and I have almost nothing but contempt for the U.S. military. I opposed both Iraq wars and Afghanistan. How PREPOSTEROUS would it be if some Taliban militant came and shot me, of all people, because the Taliban is at war with America?! I never got a vote on the war. And if I had, I would have been in the minority. So what sense does it make to hold me responsible??

I belly ache and belly ache and my country does not listen. I have been belly aching for 12 YEARS about Afghanistan! So many Germans just left Germany because it was all they could do. So many opposers could not leave. Same with Japan. And SevenStars thinks its okay to just flatten a city of people who really have nothing directly to do with the war, perhaps because they pay tax money that supports the war or some crap? As if they had a choice in paying taxes?

I encourage the Taliban to blow up U.S. military bases, vehicles and vessels. I encourage them to take out as many U.S. soldiers as they possibly can. If they gun Obama down, I will say it is his just reward. There were many Germans who felt the same about Hitler and German soldiers Many Japanese who felt the same about Tojo and Hirohito and Japanese soldiers.

You cannot be opposed to the aggressors in war and be any other way, unless its to be a fool. And those so truly on the opposition are hardly responsible for what those aggressors do. Its obvious.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

Erm i'm not condoning the slaughter of innocents. While I'm sure there were many viable targets present in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
The 5 year old boy who's mother was a florist and who's father had died pointlessly on some anonymous island thousands of miles away from his home because when not using ambush tactics the Japanese liked to use a charge head first into the enemy tactic (to apparently scare the enemy); was innocent.

The first mass civilian casualties (in Europe) were in Germany. The Americans were still trying to do precision bombing, with very limited success. The British created a little tactic known as Carpet Bombing. Such was the horror of the war that by the end civilian casualties had become part and parcel of the reality of war.

again. I'm not trying to justify the use of bombs, but I can understand why it was done, and I can also see that if it was not done, the world and certainly Asia would have been a very different place.

In WW2 there was no such thing as the UN. there was no real "international community". Nations pretty much operated on a street smarts principle.
One of the first rules, as anyone with any nous will tell you. Is never carry a weapon your not prepared to use.
If you carry a knife for self defence, you should be ready to stab someone, otherwise they will just take the knife off you, and may even end up stabbing you with it.
The same principle applied to the US. YES - they had this devastating weapon. the ultimate saber to rattle, but would they have the balls to ever use it?
As I said it was about a signal. To the world, to Stalin etc.

The fact that a single bomb was used to cause utter devastation to a city was really nothing knew. Sure the fact that it was 1 bomb and it's lethality was so extreme was new. But Large scale bombing on densely populated civilian areas was something routenly carried out by ALL sides.

In fact you could argue that Tokyo had it just as bad as Hiroshima


After all the Americans were dropping around 1,500 tonnes of ordnance on Tokyo per day for a long time.
on the worst run - more than 100,000 lost their lives with over 1,000,000 severely injured.

This was the context of the times.
We now live in an era of sterilised war, laser guided smart bombs and when we hear casualty reports on the news it rarely in the double digits.
Even 1 soldier dying is news.
How different times are now. During WW2 entire blocks of nations where fighting for their very survival. It was a very different time.

The point of contention is of course that Japan was about to surrender. This always reminds me about a similar point during the Falklands war in the 80's. There was an Argentine ship which was sailing towards the edge of the combat zone (possibly retreating) it was sunk and many argentine sailors lost their lives.

again - the OP asks was it necessary.
not was it right, justified etc.
I posit that for the world to be in the state it is today (for better or worse) then yes, the 2nd world war and many of it's horrors were necessary. After all if you could go back in time and kill Hitler would you?
Without Hiroshima and Nagasaki there may not have been a cold war, Or worse, Russia could have called America's bluff and started a nuclear war.

I don't understand how the Japanese Government ever let it come to that tho. triple A grade idiots the lot of them. With all of the tactical skill of a turtle.
The US had complete and total air superiority over all of mainland Japan.
They were conducting day time bombing raid, without even bothering to bring fighter escorts most of the time, because Japan had NOTHING in the way of anti-air capabilities left.
Yet they did not surrender. stupid ignorant fools, lol but you can't blame em, inbred elites are not exactly known for being smart.
they thought instead they would mount a gorilla offensive, (lol we won't mention the taxi companies aye ;-) )


I think the residents of Okinawa were right to be scared of the Americans though.
Unfortunately the Japanese used ambush tactics against the US where they would pretend to surrender and then attack. So front line units just killed every single Japanese they saw. And the ideas of "Yellow Peril" are just the same as the idea's that the Japanese kicked to their soldiers. Killing especially on such a scale is unnatural, which is why you demonise the enemy, so that your soldiers do not hesitate.

As for what you said about the government controlling the media and people having a single world view.....from what I understand not much has changed there

 

[Kenji]

Dropping the A bombs on Japan was completely unnecessary.Japan was on the verge of surrendering and the Americans were panicking in case the war ended before they could test their bombs on humans.

 

[nahadef]

I think the residents of Okinawa were right to be scared of the Americans though.
Unfortunately the Japanese used ambush tactics against the US where they would pretend to surrender and then attack. So front line units just killed every single Japanese they saw. And the ideas of "Yellow Peril" are just the same as the idea's that the Japanese kicked to their soldiers. Killing especially on such a scale is unnatural, which is why you demonise the enemy, so that your soldiers do not hesitate.

As for what you said about the government controlling the media and people having a single world view.....from what I understand not much has changed there

I'm in pretty full disagreement with all you wrote here, but especially these last two points.

Okinawans were told Americans would rape and kill them all. Not soldiers, civilians. Masses of civilians killed themselves from Imperial orders and because of genuine fear. Americans did not kill and rape as a standard in WWII. So you are really misinformed on the topic, or you misunderstood what I wrote. The Japanese government misrepresents this in textbooks to this day (last I heard) because it was an appalling action from a government upon its own citizens.

History of the Ryukyu Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Several mass deaths occurred, such as in the "Cave of the Virgins", where many Okinawan school girls committed suicide by jumping off cliffs for fear of rape.

Maybe your last point was a joke, but really, things today aren't comparable to back then at all. Dissent is far more tolerated, and people have the freedom and capability to investigate alternatives to what the government is selling. It's up to citizens to do so. This was not the case in 1940.

Again, if an Iraqi killed you and your family, under your logic, that is simply a cost of war. Baffling stuff.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

One of the first rules, as anyone with any nous will tell you. Is never carry a weapon your not prepared to use.
If you carry a knife for self defence, you should be ready to stab someone, otherwise they will just take the knife off you, and may even end up stabbing you with it.
The same principle applied to the US. YES - they had this devastating weapon. the ultimate saber to rattle, but would they have the balls to ever use it?

You actually think this applies to mass warfare???? You think someone was going to take America's nuke and use it against them???

As I said it was about a signal. To the world, to Stalin etc.

So if I killed you to send a message to your family, that would be cool? Well, you know, if your family had been troubling me lately, or, you know, at least looking at me funny.

Okay, maybe you don't like me mixing the personal and the international. Okay. How about Japan executes North Korean residents to send a message to North Korea concerning those medium range missile tests over Japan? Or, maybe not just anyone, but those sending cash back to N.K. that surely some of it reaches the N.K. military. Not in peace time you say? Well how about if war is declared?

Like def, I just find your statements baffling from a persepective of valid logic and sensible consistency.

After all the Americans were dropping around 1,500 tonnes of ordnance on Tokyo per day for a long time.
on the worst run - more than 100,000 lost their lives with over 1,000,000 severely injured.

And who here condoned that? It gets skipped over because the question was about nukes in the final days of the war. But that does not mean people condone it. I brought it up specifically because I knew SOMEONE would drag in that strawman. Firebombing Tokyo indiscriminately was a war crime just as much as the nukes were.

This was the context of the times.

No it wasn't. According to Hague and Geneva conventions attacks on civilian population centers were against the rules of warfare.

The Americans were still trying to do precision bombing, with very limited success.

Well that is a damned shame, innit? Can't always have massive success.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Several mass deaths occurred, such as in the "Cave of the Virgins", where many Okinawan school girls committed suicide by jumping off cliffs for fear of rape.

This is from wiki, but boy does it annoy the crap out of me, which should be no surprise to anyone who knows me.

NO, they did not commit suicide merely to escape rape. As def said, it was because they were told they would be raped AND KILLED. And if they are going to be killed anyway, why endure a rape? I am sick to death of the political correctness today of blowing rape WAY out of proportion along with any sort of possible trauma as a result of sex (as if each and every one of us have not had some negative feelings or concerns about sex, like a fear of disease or pregnancy even in the back of our minds).

So anyway, those girls killed themselves because they believed that that way, they would die more or less on their own terms. They did not do it just avoid getting raped. They did it to avoid being MURDERED after being raped.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

In response to the contention of "well that is just the way it was back then", here is the Hague convention of 1907.

Article 25: The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
Article 26: The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.
Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.
The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.[5]

Now some may gripe that that specific to bombardment on land, but its pretty obvious that is would apply to ANY sort of bombardment where the target is on land as projectiles fly THROUGH THE AIR. No one would try and claim their cannon fire does not apply as the cannon ball traveled thought the air before reaching the land target, would they? They would not attempt it if the bombardment was from a ship. Yet they attempt this with airplanes??

So, was any effort made to avoid hospitals, museums and churches? NO.

Was any effort made to avoid houses that were undefended? NO.

Now to the contention that the Germans and Japanese did it first, so we had to do it back (sigh) if you kill my brother does that mean I now have the right to kill your brother?? What the hell did your brother do to deserve death? If you kill my child, can I now kill yours and its all good??? Hell no! That is so backward and retarded its not even funny. You kill the offender, not his family. Obviously.

It is really quite clear that those who look at the rules of war and see the nukes as being allowed are just scanning for anything to use as a loophole against all reason. Its nothing but complete intellectual dishonesty, although I allow room for the cause being a geniune lack of intelligence when I say that.

The laws of war also demand military necessity for an action as well as proportionality. The nukes obviously satisfied neither condition.

As to the contention that the nukes were necessary to end the war, a resounding NO to that as well, and its been answered in detail. The Japanese were so finished.

And if you stil think there is room in the rules to allow this, consider this: if you can just blow up civilians to your heart's content, why did anyone ever put pen to paper to make and agree to any rules??? There is zero point to the conventions if you can do that, so NO, obviously, the bombs were war crimes and they were not necessary.