Why is America given shit over Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

[Machismo]

AQ and ISIS kill innocent people as the intended target. Completely different than innocents being killed because they live near strategic points or being used as "shields". If 9/11 occurred on 9/15, we'd talk about the attack being primarily a way to cripple the economy or strike a symbolic blow. But that isn't the point of terror attacks of that type, they target the population primarily.

Innocent people were the intended targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. AQ felt the people in the WTC and Pentagon were no more innocent than we believed the residents of those cities to be.

[God-King Skovald]

While the Japanese have moved on in quiet reflection, the only people that seem to remain obsessed about Hiroshima and Nagasaki are Europeans. The reason for that, obviously, is that the Atomic Bomb is a good way to distract everyone from all of the atrocities committed by Europeans during that time. The more time spent hand-wringing over Nukes, the less attention is paid to how much of an utter liability Europe was to world peace.

So these threads are a good opportunity to remind everyone that millions of innocent lives were cut short on European soil, by European hands, while other cowardly Europeans allowed it to happen.

[McFuu]

Innocent people were the intended targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. AQ felt the people in the WTC and Pentagon were no more innocent than we believed the residents of those cities to be.

We've gone over this, while population was a consideration in targets for the atomic bombs, it was entirely a secondary. Hiroshima was chosen mainly for it's strategic value and the shape of the city (flat area, not previously damaged in bombing run, hills to contain the bomb, easy to see the effects.) Hiroshima had a large military population, including military families.
Nagasaki was a secondary on the day the bomb was dropped, it was secondary to the main target of Kokura. One of the main reasons it was secondary was because it had a larger civilian population. But it also held major ship yards for the Japanese navy.

[Logwyn]

Just as now, they were not politically stable enough to do anything about it.

Think is. All France needed to say was "no" and Hitler would have turned tail and ran away. I get France wasn't in the political state to start a war then. Shoot if the Brits had just No would have worked too.

- - - Updated - - -

If that what it takes to put you down. And that is what it was going to take to put Japan down. They had sworn to fight to the last person with pointy sticks. They regarded the Emporer as a god. Up until the US defeated them that word had no meaning to them. Japan had never lost a war in their history.

- - - Updated - - -



He may say Italy.
As I stated, Germany breached the Treaty of Versailles. WW2 in Europe did not start with a singular event.

We know who ended it though.

I agree. I was curious what his thought on the idea was. Then again I bet he is just come out from under the bridge.

[Akainakali]

While the Japanese have moved on in quiet reflection, the only people that seem to remain obsessed about Hiroshima and Nagasaki are Europeans. The reason for that, obviously, is that the Atomic Bomb is a good way to distract everyone from all of the atrocities committed by Europeans during that time.

If this isn't a Poe of some sort, you've clearly never been to Japan or watched any Japanese entertainment....

[Machismo]

We've gone over this, while population was a consideration in targets for the atomic bombs, it was entirely a secondary. Hiroshima was chosen mainly for it's strategic value and the shape of the city (flat area, not previously damaged in bombing run, hills to contain the bomb, easy to see the effects.) Hiroshima had a large military population, including military families.
Nagasaki was a secondary on the day the bomb was dropped, it was secondary to the main target of Kokura. One of the main reasons it was secondary was because it had a larger civilian population. But it also held major ship yards for the Japanese navy.

And in both cases, they purposefully attacked innocent civilians in order to get at more strategic targets. Both the Pentagon and WTC were strategic targets. If we are going to wipe our hands away with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then we don't have much room to complain about 9/11. Personally, I'd rather complain about both.

[Alteiry]

Japan raped its way across China and was in league with a nation that wanted to commit genocide on those it deemed impure, alcoholics, addicts and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

They did horrible things that make the atomic bombs look like vacation. While the civilians were not directly guilty ( they still fed those soldiers, produced their weapons and ensured they had a place to retreat to ) of all those things, they were still what kept the army afloat.

So why exactly is it wrong, in a war against an axis of tyrants and psychopaths, to fight fire with fire? Had the Axis won we'd have seen hundreds of millions killed due to their race. Two atomic bombs are a small price to pay in order to quell that evil for good.


What kind of General could look the wives of his fallen soldiers in the eyes and say

'' We could've ended the war sooner. Your husband would still be alive, had I bombed their cities. But I put the lives of their civilians, the ones that feed the army, above that of my own men. "

Holy hell, I'd see that as treason. As the military leader your main goal is to kill the enemy and protect your own men/nation. And that's precisely what they did.

Ah yes, makes sense to punish japanese civilians for the crimes of the japanese government and armed forces.

Also, the bombs didn't end the war. The Japs were already planning unconditional surrender by the time the bombs dropped because they had the Red Army breathing down their necks with just a week or two away from a full scale invasion of Hokkaido. They wanted to surrender to the USA to avoid having their Emperor and his imperialist government hung up by their entrails in the streets of Tokyo like the Reds did to the germans in Berlin.

[Akainakali]

Dropping Nukes on Japan was Illegal. A crime that is unpunished.

Getting Shit over it would be smallest punishment. U.S rightfully deserves it too.

Actually dropping nukes was not illegal per se even under the laws of war at the time. Given that barely anyone even knew what a nuke was, much less that they'd been constructed, nobody had had bothered to prohibit something that was basically Science Fiction.

What was illegal was the deliberate targeting of civilian populations that were not engaged in any military activities.

Unfortunately for declaring that this war crime had been committed under those laws, Japanese military production was highly decentralized and very widely dispersed through the cities. So under the laws of war as they existed at the time, even that doesn't really stand up.

[Prothynyas]

im guessing that they never had to drop the bombs , to make japan surrender

[Halicia]

Actually dropping nukes was not illegal per se even under the laws of war at the time. Given that barely anyone even knew what a nuke was, much less that they'd been constructed, nobody had had bothered to prohibit something that was basically Science Fiction.

You're correct, but for the wrong reasons. Not because of the weapons used, but because the rights of civilians in wartime wasnt added to the Geneva Conventions til post-WW2, pretty because of this.

The thing though... is that the US continues to choose not to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its continued stockpile of NBC weapons. (as well as the whole torturing and unlawful detainment of PoWs when Bush suspended the Geneva Conventions during the 2nd Iraq War)

[Sky High]

Nuclear weapons leave fallout, fallout has lasting implications to the environment long after a war is over. which at least to me is more of the reason the US gets shit for it (rightly).

[manuelajbarlow]

hello everyone

[Xargoth6634]

It's amazing how this insane, racist myth has lived on for so long. What you are talking about isn't rooted in actual statements or strategy, but an old meme that the Japanese are savage, brutal animals that have no free will and can only obey the commands of their fanatical God-king emperor.

The reality is more complicated. The Emperor wanted to surrender but was afraid that his military wouldn't go along and would stage a coup. Japan had a non-aggression pact with Russia, but Russia broke that and invaded Manchuria right before we dropped the bombs. The U.S. was aware that the Russians were going to do this, and it is now pretty much settled history that the U.S. rushed to drop the bombs because we knew that Russia's advance was going to be the final blow that caused Japan to surrender. We wanted to use those bombs to make a point, and if we waited for Japan to surrender then we would have had no way to demonstrate what the bomb could do.

Citation needed.

[Forogil]

Citation needed.

The statements are plain wrong - so I doubt that you will get any good references.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic...a_and_Nagasaki August 6th and August 9th
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet...n_of_Manchuria - August 9th

Thus the Soviet invasion was after the bombing began, they were not a credible reason to surrender before that.
There were no credible unconditional surrender-initiatives from Japan before the bombs; the unconditional surrender was important to avoid a repeat of the dagger-in-the-back story of Versailles-treaty that was one reason for WWII.

Added: There is no need for any conspiracy-theories about the bombs - or deep analysis (a land invasion was likely to be costlier). The US spent a lot of resources on the bombs during a war - obviously the bombs would be used.

[Amalaric]

The funny thing is that Japan is currently going towards a war with China which America doesn't want and that could potentially spiral into WW3.

[May90]

What kind of General could look the wives of his fallen soldiers in the eyes and say

'' We could've ended the war sooner. Your husband would still be alive, had I bombed their cities. But I put the lives of their civilians, the ones that feed the army, above that of my own men. "

Holy hell, I'd see that as treason. As the military leader your main goal is to kill the enemy and protect your own men/nation. And that's precisely what they did.

Not sure if serious. Just hope that your country is never at war with someone having this mindset.

[Polarthief]

Eric Dubay put out a three hour long video supporting the notion that nuclear weapons are a hoax...

This level of thinking is the same as those who think the Holocaust didn't exist (I guess my grandmother is just insane and branded her own arm with numbers?). In the same way, Nagasaki and Hiroshima just didn't exist I guess?

[pateuvasiliu]

Dropping Nukes on Japan was Illegal. A crime that is unpunished.

Getting Shit over it would be smallest punishment. U.S rightfully deserves it too.

What crime lmao they were at war.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure if serious. Just hope that your country is never at war with someone having this mindset.

Very fucking serious. Why is the life of a civilian more sacred than the life of a poor man that was conscripted and force to fight?

That's a pretty sexist mindset, considering most civilians were women.

- - - Updated - - -

History is written by the victors. Tyrants and psychopaths fought other tyrants and psychopaths.

Yeah except the Axis attacked first and wanted to genocide jews/gypsies/addicts/disabled people?

- - - Updated - - -

The people in the military signed up knowing that they might go to war. The war was with the government of Japan not the people living inside of Japan. Dropping the bombs saved lives since it instantly stopped the war. Dropping the second one so quickly might have been over kill though.

I'm fairly sure during WW2 conscription was forced, not voluntary.

[Recyclebin]

Japan raped its way across China and was in league with a nation that wanted to commit genocide on those it deemed impure, alcoholics, addicts and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

They did horrible things that make the atomic bombs look like vacation. While the civilians were not directly guilty ( they still fed those soldiers, produced their weapons and ensured they had a place to retreat to ) of all those things, they were still what kept the army afloat.

So why exactly is it wrong, in a war against an axis of tyrants and psychopaths, to fight fire with fire? Had the Axis won we'd have seen hundreds of millions killed due to their race. Two atomic bombs are a small price to pay in order to quell that evil for good.


What kind of General could look the wives of his fallen soldiers in the eyes and say

'' We could've ended the war sooner. Your husband would still be alive, had I bombed their cities. But I put the lives of their civilians, the ones that feed the army, above that of my own men. "

Holy hell, I'd see that as treason. As the military leader your main goal is to kill the enemy and protect your own men/nation. And that's precisely what they did.

Are they? I hear a lot of US bashing, but ive almost never seen objections to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As a side note. I love Japan and everything about their culture. ya ya. something something weeaboo. w/e they are cooler/more emotionally creative then us, just admit it. Its true. (For context: Im American, born and raised and I absolutely have pride in, and love my country)

[LaserChild9]

I have no idea what you are even talking about anymore. We are talking about a land invasion of Japan. While we could cut them off, they have everything they need on main land Japan to remain extremely dangerous. They already had weapons, but you made the insistence that farmers can't be dangerous, which is stupid because there are plenty of weapons and tactics especially in a mountainous terrain such as Japan to make farmers dangerous. The Vietcong are also pretty adept at this style warfare. No doubt anyone who would have wanted them could have gotten military grade weapons from the Japanese army to fight off invading foes.

Back to your insistence on never invading Japan and surrounding them for all eternity and saying that they had nothing to hit our Navy with. Cool, so forever we will have to run recon over them, and blow up everything they start making that could potentially hurt us.

You keep telling yourself whatever you need to hear to justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I'm sure those people who were killed would understand why you would have sentenced them to death. What it all boils down to is 'it was easier to just drop a nuke on them'.

The problem is not the act itself, its the amount of people here who blindly defend it as if it is an example to live by when in actuality Protocol 1 of the Geneva convention states:

Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food, water, and other materials needed for survival. Indiscriminate attacks include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technology such as biological weapons, nuclear weapons and land mines, whose scope of destruction cannot be limited. A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime.

The fact is that 32 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Geneva convention was updated in such a way that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be viewed as war crimes in the modern age if they happened today.