Would you consider the atomic bombs a war crime?

I think most of the controversy is centered around the targets. If the bombs had been dropped at say Kure or Sasebo (military bases) the psychological effect would have been just as great (and it might well have killed just as many civilians...), but it would have been a military target and as such, less controversial.

 

Lets make something perfectly clear about "The Manhatten Project".

It was concieved to be used against the theat of GERMANY. The threat posed by Germany, and later Japan, was a national emergencey that pushed the U.S. into speeding up development of this weapon. Had these circumstances not arisen, it is doubtful in the extreme whther the U.S. would have had the capacity to put the 'Project' into operation for many decades. Likely congress would not have approved this at all, but any objections to construction of this weapon were, rightly, brushed aside by the circumstances of the hour.

So....blame the government of Adolf hitler for the bomb's construction.

As to it's use, Japanese generals continued to hold out in the hope that the United States would "Tire of their losses" and negotiate a peace settlement. The doctrine of uncondidtional surrender suited perfectly their 'never say die' attitude to the conflict. Would they have had this attitude if their knowlege of exactly what the bomb was and how near it was to completion in 1944 have changed this 'never surrender' idiocy? Probably....but to tell your enemy exactly what you are up to is patently far silllier....so....blame the Japanese government for the U.S. having to use it in anger.

An after effect was to keep the Russians firmly out of the occupation zone when Japan finally surrendered. This was the best thing that happened at the end of the Pac War. No meddling by the soviets. In fact, Stalin had been totally OBSTINATE about direct co-operation in the past, (look at what happened to the "Shuttle Raids" of the *th AAF, and to the co-operation from the soviets when the London Poles attempted to liberate Warsaw on their own. Was there any help from the 1st Ukrainian front then? Oh no! They claimed their offensive had "run out of steam", or that the "rasputista" stopped their advance cold.

Very convenient from a country claiming to be 'expert' at the military management of such weather condidtions...

Yet, Stalin managed to redeploy much troops and material to "support his allies" in a Pacific War that was already looking like a decisive 'win' for the U.S., in the name of 'support'? What balderdash! The Russian went into the Pacific for the express purpose of grabbing anything they could, and to gain a seat at the conference table...

The 'Bomb" stopped all of that nonsense, dead in it's tracks. We had nothing to gain from soviet participation in the Pacific War, and Stalin looked very suspicious when he claimed to be attacking for our 'benefit'. Stalin was nothing more than a self serving liar, and I'm happy we dropped the bomb, despite the obvious distress and mayhem it caused to the Japanese people.

Funny how a militaristic people like the Japanese can now claim to have 'turned over a new leaf' simply for being the victims of a weapon that was dropped to counter their own militarism. Makes them look even more pigheaded than the Soviets....

 

IMO the distinction between civilian and military targets has no meaning when talking about area bombing and WMDs, when your weapons are so inaccurate or devastating that there is a 100% certainity you are going to kill civilians, and lots of them, it makes no sense to state you are targetting a "miltary" target.
I believe whole concept of making war by massacring civilians is aborrent, it's basically genocide, and there's a lot of evidence the bombers were doing exactly that, whether the A-bomb was a war crime I leave to the lawyers, as the people who wrote the treaties in effect at the time had no idea such a thing could be built it's not likely they addressed the issue in an incontroversial way.
BTW nearly everybody who had a functional airforce played with "strategic bombing", the never sufficiently cursed Douet's theories of "strategic air warfare" were just too appealing to the fledgeling air services as it promised them independence. The western allies were probably in a cathegory apart as they (especially Britain) dedicated a huge amount of the war effort to it. IMO the concept roved to be a bluff, it's threat worked great for Hitler at Munich and the shock effect of bombing was critical in bringing about Polish and Dutch surrender, but when the victims managed to survive the initial shock it ended up as onother, especially horrible, form of attrition warfare. BTW there was no certainity the bombs would have a "shock effect", against Hitler they probably would not have unless most of the Nazi hyerarchy was killed allowing for a successful coup.

 

I tend to agree, and I don't think dropping the bombs was a war crime. I'm just pointing out that it would be less "controversial" if they had been dropped on military targets. For that matter, why not the government district of Tokyo, or the emperors palace?

 

The way I view it, It was a war crime but also wasn't.. It was a necessary evil.

What I would class as a war crime would have been some of the later bombings in Germany especially the bombing of Dresden a war crime straight out.

 

If you drop a bomb on The Emperor and or his govt and leaders, you have no one to lead a surrender or peace talks...Its why many an Irish terrorist sits in govt in Ulster today. Thats a terrible example I know, but as good as any other.

 

How about the fire-bombing of Tokyo with Gel\oil bombs which deliberately set fire to the densely packed wooden structures and led to the death of many more Japanese than caused by the Atom bomb. There was really no attempt to minimize civilian deaths (in fact it seems to have set out to maximise them) and although Truman claimed that he was hitting a military base at Hiroshima, I really don't think it was upmost in his mind. The key thing was to show the Japanese Government the enormous destructive power that the US now possessed.

 

The "winners" of war are never tried for war crimes.
The hypocrisy of USA policy is obvious.
They screamed bloody murder when Japan committed a "sneak attack" at Pearl Harbor.
When was the last time the USA declared war on a country, even though our armies have already invaded them.?
Viet Nam is the classic case. We invaded them in 1962 and did not leave for over a decade. War crime.?
Only countries with political and financial might can even consider such a ridiculous notion.
Damn busters is patriotic, but not for "the othert side".?
It is endless..... since the first club was leveraged against an "enemy".
best

 

The options were A: quit the war and allow Japan to keep its colonies remaining in China where they killed millions, B: blockade Japan and starve them all to death or C: invade resulting the deaths of millions of civillians. Japan wanted a war and they got what they wanted. There was a coup attempt by officers after the second bomb to try to force the emperor to keep fighting. THe officers thought it would be better for Japan to die then surrender.

 

Reap the Whirlwind.

 

No, it isn't. I suggest that you read the previous posts in this thread.

 

Wrong.

The Japanese attack on PH was indeed murder in the sense that it violated international law of the time. Care to give recent examples of where the US has violated international law in such a way?

Not really. We never "invaded" Vietnam. We were invited in to supress an insurgency and defend against incursions from the North. Now one can debate how wise it was but it was not an invasion nor was in in contrivention to international law. Also note that some memebers of the US military were tried for war crimes during commited in Vietnam

Damn busters is patriotic, but not for "the othert side".?
It is endless..... since the first club was leveraged against an "enemy".
best[/QUOTE]

??? You are waxing incoherent.

 

its obvious, typical left winger who thinks every one else is okay in war, but if the US does it then it has to be equal to Hitler