60 Years-atomic Bombings Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki War Crime without charges

[kasm 0]

The Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have marked the anniversary of its destruction by the world's first atomic bomb 60 years ago.

 

Yes the bombing ended the war but many innocent civilian were killed so it is War Crime.

 

Nobody was charged for this crime. Why?

 

Why the last Chinese Emperor with others charged with War Crime. and who bombing innocent people with nuclear bomb hadn't blame.

 

Now days Slovan Milosevic of former Yugoslavia curren still on trial for War Crime. and Saddam Husein of Iraq will face trial for the same reason.

 

It is double standard. and political immorality.

[skynet 0]

Why the last Chinese Emperor with others charged with War Crime. and who bombing innocent people with nuclear bomb hadn't blame.

Because Japan deserve to get it! They're the first made the problem, with attacking pearl harbour!
They colonize Indonesia, Vietnam, Korea they rape woman, they servitude the citizen, they stole all natural resources from the colonized country!
and now what they do? nothing... except Trying to hide their sin by change their history text book and tell fairy-tale to their new generation about how good they are, how brave their soldier, etc
When I was primary 5 and my teacher tought me about the history of world war 2, I realized how evil japanese people. and I was so thankfull to US who made and drop that atomic bomb. Right after that some of colonized country realized it's good time to get their independence.

[Saint_Michael 3]

well history shows that if you attack expect to get something back, eye for an eye, but thing is though who would be charged for the war crime everyone that had to do with it is dead. except for th pilots and the crew.

[brainless 0]

kasm: The bombings did not end the war, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two of the few cities left which hadn't been destroyed yet by a firestorm like in the german city of Dresden in late February of 1945 (test run, in the middle of march the same tactic began to be used against japanese cities). The japanese government was about to surrender even without the bombs being dropped...

To quote President Truman [the maniac who gave the order to use those bombs]:

After we found the bomb, we have to use it.

Actually, this was the Manhattan Project's ultimate goal, developing _and_ using a nuclear bomb. There was no other way to justify employing about 100,000 people and spending billions of tax dollars.
That Truman said the bombs have to be used as a means of war according to the "Haager Landkriegsordnung" [sorry, I don't know the english name of this document ... it's about regulating warfare...] but there are two points which show that they were not used like that:
a) together with the bombs, some probes were dropped to measure the amount of radiation etc around the cities (which might have been meant to give useful information to doctors after the war but since the american scientist/medic teams which were sent to Hiroshima and Nagasaki only documentated the destruction and suffering but refused to help, this was obviously not the reason), the US military put pressure on the japanese government to refuse medical aid by the Red Cross and, most interesting when talking about this aspect of the nuclear bombings, it took the US about 7 years to grant japanese medics and scientists access to information about radiational effects to the human body;

just like before in other cities, the US military leadership definitely did not mean to spare civilians because once again, two cities were nearly completely destroyed; both nukes together killed about 150,000 people immediately, another 75,000 within the following months and even now the number of diseases related to radiation is very high compared to the rest of the world [except places like Chernobyl; areas around nuclear power plants or areas where some army used depleted uranium ammunition]...

-----
I did not mean to justify any nations war crimes here, there's just one little difference: After WWII, most nation's populations were forced to face the crimes done by their armies and sometimes themselves (and were rightfully forced); the US people however did not realize the crime done on their behalf but swallowed the justifications...
Edited August 11, 2005 by OpaQue (see edit history)

[canpolitics 0]

Both cities were warned of the attack, and there were military instalations in both cities. The Americans flew over both cities in bombers droping flyers warning the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that they were going to bomb the city and to evacuate while they could. They gave them plenty of time. The Japanese did not take them seriously, obviously they were mistaked about the US's fortitude in this matter.Was the bombing of these cities a bad thing, most definately. Was it a war crime, I doubt it. People die in war, and often these people are not soldiers, it is called collateral damage. It is unfortunate, but it happens, sometimes it is even necessary. I think the bombing had many positive affects on the world, it was the "straw that broke the camels back" as far as convincing the Japanese to surrender saving many more months of battle, it showed the world just how dangerous these bombs were. Although they had been tested at the Trinity test site, the politicians and lay folk never quite understood the magnitude of the destruction atomic weaponry was capable of, if that was not understood and the technology got into more than one countries hands and an atomic or nuclear war was started think of the distruction that could have caused.Skynet, to say the Japanese were evil is an extremely narrow view. Sure some of what they did was evil, and some of what USA did was evil, some of what Britain did was evil, some of what the French resistance fighters did was evil, definately much of what the Germans were doing was evil, heck it has even come out that some of what the Swiss (who remained neutral) could be considered evil. It was an evil time, and many evil deeds were done by many people from many nations, it does not mean that Japan of the time was evil.

[T100 0]

Skynet, to say the Japanese were evil is an extremely narrow view. Sure some of what they did was evil, and some of what USA did was evil, some of what Britain did was evil, some of what the French resistance fighters did was evil, definately much of what the Germans were doing was evil, heck it has even come out that some of what the Swiss (who remained neutral) could be considered evil. It was an evil time, and many evil deeds were done by many people from many nations, it does not mean that Japan of the time was evil.

173290[/snapback]

I also disagree on the charge that the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki constitute a war crime. I wont say the Japanese deserve it and I dont think we are in the position to judge who deserves what. Say, we wont put a man to death even if he has stolen a magazine from a supermarket. The Japanese invasion is, of course, wrong, but I really doubt whether other countries in the region are that innocent. Russia is one of those countries invading China during the early 1900s, and the US took the Philippines and China has a long history of annexation of the Korea peninsula and Tibet, while it is still threatening to invade Taiwan. Military expansion has been a major theme in history and none of the involved countries are punished justly by a tribunal or alike. The Americans took the land from the Indians and the Australian took the continent from the Aboriginals, can we say they are also guilty of invasion and deserve the A-Bomb?

 

I have been to Hiroshima. You must visit the museum there if you plan to stop at the city. Although I was not impressed with the deliberate downplaying of invasion in the museum, I would agree that the A-Bomb was a tragedy, if not an atrocity. The bombs, though, saved Japan from being attacked by the Soviet from the north and thus luckily avoided the evil Communists (look at Poland and N. Korea). This is, perhaps, the only good thing that the A-Bomb has brought about the country.

 

 

[T100 0]

Skynet, to say the Japanese were evil is an extremely narrow view. Sure some of what they did was evil, and some of what USA did was evil, some of what Britain did was evil, some of what the French resistance fighters did was evil, definately much of what the Germans were doing was evil, heck it has even come out that some of what the Swiss (who remained neutral) could be considered evil. It was an evil time, and many evil deeds were done by many people from many nations, it does not mean that Japan of the time was evil.

173290[/snapback]

I also disagree on the charge that the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki constitute a war crime. I wont say the Japanese deserve it and I dont think we are in the position to judge who deserves what. Say, we wont put a man to death even if he has stolen a magazine from a supermarket. The Japanese invasion is, of course, wrong, but I really doubt whether other countries in the region are that innocent. Russia is one of those countries invading China during the early 1900s, and the US took the Philippines and China has a long history of annexation of the Korea peninsula and Tibet, while it is still threatening to invade Taiwan. Military expansion has been a major theme in history and none of the involved countries are punished justly by a tribunal or alike. The Americans took the land from the Indians and the Australian took the continent from the Aboriginals, can we say they are also guilty of invasion and deserve the A-Bomb?

 

I have been to Hiroshima. You must visit the museum there if you plan to stop at the city. Although I was not impressed with the deliberate downplaying of invasion in the museum, I would agree that the A-Bomb was a tragedy, if not an atrocity. The bombs, though, saved Japan from being attacked by the Soviet from the north and thus luckily avoided the evil Communists (look at Poland and N. Korea). This is, perhaps, the only good thing that the A-Bomb has brought about the country.

[Damann 0]

When you attack someone what do they do? Retaliate. When they attacked pearl harbor what did we do? Retaliate. What did they expect, us to back off and let them take over the contry? The japaneese were relentless and that is why we used the A-Bomb. Besides if the japaneese were smart they would run when they see papers falling from the sky telling them they are about to be bombed. Truman made an example of japan, so nobody would think the usa is weak.

[HoRuS 0]

They're the first made the problem, with attacking pearl harbour!They colonize Indonesia, Vietnam, Korea they rape woman, they servitude the citizen, they stole all natural resources from the colonized country!
and now what they do? nothing... except Trying to hide their sin by change their history text book and tell fairy-tale to their new generation about how good they are, how brave their soldier, etc
When I was primary 5 and my teacher tought me about the history of world war 2, I realized how evil japanese people. and I was so thankfull to US who made and drop that atomic bomb. Right after that some of colonized country realized it's good time to get their independence.

Teachers always teach about history in your nations favor. They don't tell you about what your nation did before things occured. Remember the US is stolen from the indians and those patriots raped women as well and stole (still steal) natural resources from a land that isn't theirs.
If the Japanese invaded Pearl Harbor first, why didn't the US just invade back, instead of slaughtering innocent women and children with a coward nuke?

When you attack someone what do they do? Retaliate. When they attacked pearl harbor what did we do? Retaliate. What did they expect, us to back off and let them take over the contry? The japaneese were relentless and that is why we used the A-Bomb. Besides if the japaneese were smart they would run when they see papers falling from the sky telling them they are about to be bombed. Truman made an example of japan, so nobody would think the usa is weak.

As I said above, why a weak retaliation with a nuke? Fight man to man, like a real man
And what about proving usa is weak? They still invade poor nations and steal resources, with the excuse of "we want to make the world a better place (for us)". They forbid everyone to have no nuclear nor massdestructions weapons, while they have the biggest arsenal themselves... How fair.

My words aren't to insult people but to let people see the other side of the medalion.
Peace

[wariorpk 0]

The dropping of the atomic bomb was completely nessecary from my point of view. I am sure that not everyone knows that we were planning a war against Japan on their soil. That would have killed millions of people both Japanese and American (I would speculate more than the bombs killed). The Japanese had it comming to them after they attacked American soil unprovoked. What we did was not a war crime but a retaliation.

[kasm 0]

Because Japan deserve to get it!

I am not defending Japanees action or any war.

 

Why they tought us that there are rules even in the time of War?

 

Why there is Geneva Convection?

 

Why the rules are not for all?

 

well history shows that if you attack expect to get something back, eye for an eye, but thing is though who would be charged for the war crime everyone that had to do with it is dead. except for th pilots and the crew.

173264[/snapback]

We speak here about using wepon of mass destruction against civilian.

but thing is though who would be charged for the war crime everyone that had to do with it is dead. except for th pilots and the crew.

- The pilot and crew obeyed the order.

- The decicion maker who must to be blamed as we do in case of Slovan Milosevic of former Yugoslavia or Saddam Husein of Iraq

- Also we judge the dead as we did for Hitler

 

When you attack someone what do they do? Retaliate. When they attacked pearl harbor what did we do? Retaliate. What did they expect, us to back off and let them take over the contry? The japaneese were relentless and that is why we used the A-Bomb. Besides if the japaneese were smart they would run when they see papers falling from the sky telling them they are about to be bombed. Truman made an example of japan, so nobody would think the usa is weak.

173393[/snapback]

The same for Solvan, he acting against disintigration of Yougoslavia.

Sadam acted against Iranian agreesion in the region and taking part of Iraq or resisting Kurds seperation as Turkey does

.

The japaneese were relentless and that is why we used the A-Bomb.

Besides if the japaneese were smart they would run when they see papers falling from the sky telling them they are about to be bombed. .

To where to run ?. Did London residents run when Hitler dropped paper from the sky

Truman made an example of japan, so nobody would think the usa is weak..

Vietnam didn't learned that lesson.

 

The dropping of the atomic bomb was completely nessecary from my point of view. I am sure that not everyone knows that we were planning a war against Japan on their soil. That would have killed millions of people both Japanese and American (I would speculate more than the bombs killed). The Japanese had it comming to them after they attacked American soil unprovoked. What we did was not a war crime but a retaliation.

173421[/snapback]

Then don't blame others when they defend their countries's interest with any mean.

 

The same don't blame the terrorist who sucrifies their life and killing innocent people for their cause.

 

Notice from BuffaloHELP:

Please refrain from posting back to back to back... merging 4 posts.

[AbstracT 0]

japan attacked the US, the US reacted...japan killed basically a whole naval fleet which is a good thousands or so people...US came back with a bomb that killed alot of people also...if japan stayed where they was,there would've been no pearl harbor and bombs wouldn't of hit them....they took it upon themselves to put themselves in the situation...and the bombing was the repercussion

[heavensounds 0]

well...It is just like that: JAPANESE were asked to give up and the war would be over! But they didn't - so the punishment had to come! If they wouldn't have thrown these bombs than all the other deaths of innocent ppl and soldiers would bo without any meaning...THE WAR HAD TO END!! and this was the only way to do it...so I hope you don't think that this was just because Americans are so happy killin people ?! Nobody likes to kill civilians if he is not a psycho & war has that sort of outcomes - this is why war should not start at first place!!!But I usually look at it...that it had to happen because there was so much karmatic tension that it had to release...Without that everything is nonsense!

[HoRuS 0]

well...It is just like that: JAPANESE were asked to give up and the war would be over! But they didn't - so the punishment had to come!  If they wouldn't have thrown these bombs than all the other deaths of innocent ppl and soldiers would bo without any meaning...THE WAR HAD TO END!! and this was the only way to do it...so I hope you don't think that this was just because Americans are so happy killin people ?! Nobody likes to kill civilians if he is not a psycho & war has that sort of outcomes - this is why war should not start at first place!!!

 

But I usually look at it...that it had to happen because there was so much karmatic tension that it had to release...Without that everything is nonsense!

177809[/snapback]

I agree with the last part though, but if the US were asked to give up, they wouldn't have given up as well. If Japan threw an Atomic bomb on the US they would still be charged for warcrimes, it's just hypocrite, that's all...

[Ralphie 0]

if the united states did not drop the bombs, then think of how much longer the war would have continued and how many more lives would be lost. the japanese had a fighting attitude to fight to the death and never surrender. this is what caused the japanese to have such heavy casualties throughout the entire war. if the bombs were not dropped and the japanese did not see how incapable of winning the war they were, then they would have just kept fighting. american soldiers would be sent in and the japanese and united states' military and japanese civilians would suffer more casualties. ive also heard that as the american troops were island hopping, the japanese people would commit suicide rather than surrendering. my history teacher even said that people would throw their children and themselves over cliffs. even after the first bomb was dropped, the japanese were given a bit of time to surrender, but they didnt. they saw how much damage the bomb could do but they didnt surrender, they allowed the second bomb to be dropped by not surrendering. can you just imagine how much bloodshed there would be if the allied powers were forced to continue to attack until the japanese would surrender?the use of the atomic bomb didnt go completely 'unpunished.' im not really saying this is a punishment, but the soviet union became angry at the united states for many reasons, including the use of the atomic bomb, which then led to the cold war. during wwii, the united states and great britain did not have a great trust with russia. this mistrust led to the not sharing of all of the secrets of the atomic bomb, which then led to further dislike between the two powers and was one of the causes of the cold war.its really hard to say if the atomic bomb was the correct route to take. we can see how things turned out after it was dropped, but what if it never was. would more lives have been saved? i dont think so. would the cold war have taken place? i believe it still would have due to the sour relationship with the soviets and americans.from the things i have learned and been told, this is the type of conclusion i currently have. there is probably a lot more information out there that i dont know about and if i did it might change my views. so if you disagree with me, dont flame me for my opinion, just share your thoughts.