American Politics

[EliteKiller]

Your argument assumes that they only surrendered because the US murdered 200,000 civilians

Lol because that's exactly what happened.

They decided to surrender three days after the bombs were dropped...Are you telling me that's just a coincidence?

Know your history - they surrendered within hours of the Russians declaring war and advancing on Japanese territories ... not within hours of Hiroshima or Ngasaki ... cause and effect perhaps?

or are you saying that's just an even bigger coincidence ....

[EliteKiller]

They even said so in their surrender declaration.

No ... the US said so in the document they produced for the Japanese to sign ... not quite the same ... remember the winners write the history ....

[Va-Va-Voom]

Your argument assumes that they only surrendered because the US murdered 200,000 civilians

Lol because that's exactly what happened.

They decided to surrender three days after the bombs were dropped...Are you telling me that's just a coincidence?

Know your history - they surrendered within hours of the Russians declaring war and advancing on Japanese territories ... not within hours of Hiroshima or Ngasaki ... cause and effect perhaps?

The bombs were a catalyst.

[EliteKiller]

The bombs were a catalyst.

Pure guesswork .... read this https://www.history.co.uk/shows/x-company/articles/why-did-japan-really-surrender-in-ww2

It's 80 years ago so all those responsible are long dead ... to justify a war crime on the basis that it might have ended the war earlier is about as loathsome as it gets ...

The Japanese rapped Chinese women so that they're men would surrender faster ... is that OK?
ISIS behead non-believers so others won't put up a fight - is that OK?
The British used to execute the first twenty people they met when colonizing, because the rest would then surrender ... is that OK?

But somehow the US murdering 200,000 mostly women and children to theoretically 'scare' a nation into surrender is fine ..... is that what you think?

[Va-Va-Voom]

Pure guesswork and asinine for you to say the bombs weren't a catalyst.

I'll go with common sense and say that the instant evisceration of 200,000 people might've been just a little factor in hastening their surrender.

Seems like it would've been a pretty persuasive statement.

[EliteKiller]

Pure guesswork and asinine for you to say the bombs weren't a catalyst.

I'll go with common sense and say that the instant evisceration of 200,000 people might've been just a little factor in hastening their surrender.

Seems like it would've been a pretty persuasive statement.

That wasn't the point ... the point was do you think it's OK to murder 200,000 civilians (a war crime today in anyone's book) to achieve a perceived military goal ...

You can speculate all you want on was or wasn't it a catalyst ... but was it the humane decent thing to do?

To help you here are two lines in the UN definition of a War Crime .... think that covers it neatly don't you ....

* Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
* Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings

[UFGN]

Pure guesswork and asinine for you to say the bombs weren't a catalyst.

I'll go with common sense and say that the instant evisceration of 200,000 people might've been just a little factor in hastening their surrender.

Seems like it would've been a pretty persuasive statement.

That wasn't the point ... the point was do you think it's OK to murder 200,000 civilians (a war crime today in anyone's book) to achieve a perceived military goal ...

You can speculate all you want on was or wasn't it a catalyst ... but was it the humane decent thing to do?

To help you here are two lines in the UN definition of a War Crime .... think that covers it neatly don't you ....

* Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
* Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings

Let's spend the next two weeks listing all the war crimes / atrocities committed during WW2

Let's start with the thousands of Western soldiers and civilians, including women and children, who were beaten, starved and neglected to death in Japanese POW and internment camps

Or the 32,000 people killed by the Luftwaffe in Britain during the Blitz

Or the 25,000 killed by the RAF in one night in Dresden

.............................


If it ever comes to a situation where North Korea was invaded and the Kims were overthrown, and I'm not talking about what the exact catalyst might be or the rights and wrongs, but if it did happen, then the only certainty you can bet your house on is that hundreds of thousands of NK civilians will die, from crossfire, neglect because of enhanced NK military spending, internment, you name it.... but they will die wholesale

So by your logic, you could never justify it.

But what if there was a genuine concern that leaving them in power might cause an even greater disaster?

[LMAO]

Pure guesswork and asinine for you to say the bombs weren't a catalyst.

I'll go with common sense and say that the instant evisceration of 200,000 people might've been just a little factor in hastening their surrender.

Seems like it would've been a pretty persuasive statement.

That wasn't the point ... the point was do you think it's OK to murder 200,000 civilians (a war crime today in anyone's book) to achieve a perceived military goal ...

You can speculate all you want on was or wasn't it a catalyst ... but was it the humane decent thing to do?

To help you here are two lines in the UN definition of a War Crime .... think that covers it neatly don't you ....

* Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
* Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings

We have to look at it in the context of 1945 instead of being afforded the hindsight of living in 2018 and analyzing it. When the alternative is an invasion that could result in millions of deaths, the killing of American soldiers which won't play well in the US, be a multi-year operation, and allow the Soviets to enter the war which requires Japan to then have to surrender to two countries instead of one, then yes. The quicker the war was over, the better.

The US was in a total war with Japan. At the end of the day, there's little effective difference between being incinerated by a nuke, being killed via firebomb, or having a bullet put through your head. In every case, you're dead.

As for the two UN war crime definition lines:
1. I've already said that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were important cities in the Japanese war machine. As such, they were rightful military targets. I even said that Tokyo and Kyoto could've been targeted instead, but that wouldn't have accomplished anything since they weren't of strategic importance from a military pov. The US even went as far as dropping leaflets in potential target cities warning occupants to evacuate immediately.
2. Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cities in the military cog, it's a little naive to claim they would've been undefended. Maybe not adequately defended, but they weren't defenseless.

[EliteKiller]

Think we've done this to death, I did caveat with 'it was 80 years ago' and of course we are talking with advantage of hindsight ...

I can't see any reason why dropping nuclear weapons on a civilian target could, can, or ever will be acceptable ... but's it's only my opinion ...

I agree that there are dozens of unpunished war crimes pretty much from every war ever fought "the only good German is a dead German" is about as genocidal a statement as you can make ... yet the British used it in recruitment posters in '44 ... war is a nasty business and terrible thing happen ...

However that can't and never should be an excuse ... targeting civilians for military gain is now illegal, it wasn't in 1945 ... it's good that times change ...

The use of Nuclear Weapons in 1945 is a great divisive debate ... for some it will always be a justified action that potentially saved more than it killed ... for others a heinous crime against innocent civilians that should never be repeated ...

We will never agree and that's a good thing ... if we all thought the same about everything what the feck would I have to write about on the internet every day ????

[Jedi]

Nukes definitely ended the war. There is no debate on that, imo.

What many are debating though is that it wasn't necessary and that the Russian Invasion was enough. Operation Ketsu-Go didn't anticipate battle on two fronts.

Using the nuke was unjustifiable and even if i grant you the first one was necessary (which i do not) you can't disagree that the 2nd one wasn't.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are war crimes, don't @ me.

[LMAO]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are war crimes, don't @ me.

You can scream that from the heavens until the end of days, but it'll never reflect reality. Attacking civilians in non-occupied lands wasn't considered a war crime until 1977 with the ratification of Protocol I of the Geneva Convention. However, mass killings of civilians during occupation was, but Japan was never occupied, so that law didn't apply.

Protocol I, Article 51 (Protection of the civilian population): https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/470-750065

Had Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened today, then yes, I'd agree that they are war crimes. But you can't apply ex post facto.

[UFGN]

I've just been watching George Galloway butchering the US Senate

If not watched it before and I deffinately have more respect for him having seen it. Wouldn't say I'm a fan of his but this is a brilliant self defence under pressure. The senators didn't know what hit them

https://youtu.be/TRbMQ4t2Nfo

[LMAO]

George HW Bush dead at 94. He was never my president, but from what I've learned and read about him, he seemed like an okay fella who maintained the decency of the office - just happened to come into office at the worst possible time for him.

RIP

Jimmy Carter is now the oldest living president.

[Royal Gooner]

The curse of Aaron Ramsey strikes again.

RIP.

[LMAO]

Pence needs to stfu. Can't believe all those times he rudely interrupted.

But seriously, the guy who employs undocumented migrants at his companies and whose current wife was once illegally here is going to shutdown the government over a ludicrous wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for. Masterful dealmaker and MAGA indeed.

I can't wait until we have an adult in the White House again.