Hiroshima’s fate, 70 years ago this week, must not be forgotten

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/02/hiroshima-bombing-70-years-on-eric-schlosser

The consequence of the atomic bombing. (softest photos. Because I fear inadequate response moderators. They can delete a topic, if you place the real consequences of the bombing. But you can find them in Google)





On August 6, 1945, the US dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, killing about 140,000 by the end of the year, out of the 350,000 who lived in the city. But maniacs and cannibal in White House were not satisfied. Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

Do you think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons as a war crime?
Do you feel the need to create an international tribunal for the crime of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (or you care only about Boeing? Despite the unfinished investigation.)
What do you think - should the international tribunal to recognize the use of nuclear weapons on peaceful cities of a crime against humanity?
What do you think about this?

 

No, because an invasion would have resulted in Millions more dead on both sides. Even more dangerous was that if a regular invasion was to take place the Soviets would have participated. Meaning Japan would be another war like Korea. So by Nuking the Japanese we did them a favor.

 

the day the earth cried.

 

lol is that a joke?

 

What question you answer - "No"?
You - no think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons as a war crime?
You - no feel the need to create an international tribunal for the crime of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
You - no think should the international tribunal to recognize the use of nuclear weapons on peaceful cities of a crime against humanity?

In other words, you agree to the use of nuclear weapons without any restrictions? Did I understand you correctly?

P/S:
All the military experts and military historians recognize the senselessness of use of nuclear weapons in Japan. Only the Western media continue to write nonsense on this issue. But this is now available in the US political inquiry.

 

1.No such thing as a war crime
2.You only get tried for war crimes if you lose
3.no such thing as crimes against humanity,since there is no global judiciary

All military experts? Or the ones that you agree with? lol

Nukes were not needed to end the war, they were needed to end it sooner and with less blood and treasure.

 

You surprised me.
The concept of "war crime" codified in the Hague Conventions (1907), the Geneva Conventions on the Protection of Victims of War of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977, the UN General Assembly resolutions and other documents.

The concept of "crime against humanity" describes for example the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This category includes for example the term "genocide." Or the massacre of civilians (such as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki)

With regard to the surrender of Japan and the atomic bombing can be read here. http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

Please, learn to think for themselves.

 

Don't tell me about conventions, they mean nothing. The only reason we had Nuremberg was because the Germans lost, if they had won they would have tried Eisenhover,Patton, Zhukov and Montgomery for "war crimes" the only crime in war is losing.

Genocide is meaningless again,since there is no court that can bring anyone to justice. The only time the Hague does so is when the Powers like America decide to try someone. No one went on trail for agent orange, no one went to jail for Russian atrocities in Afghanistan, no one went to jail for bombing civilian Trains in Serbia. So do not tell me about human rights.... there are only national interest when talking about geo politics.

I will not debate you on the need to Nuke Japan, if you cannot summarize your links.

 

I think that you are incorrect in your characterization of the cities as peaceful. They were military targets:

Both cities had significant military importance. We did not bomb a quiet suburb.

There are consequences to attacking us. That is what those pictures demonstrate.

If we believe you pose a threat to us, real or imagined, you can expect a psychotic overreation, completely out of proportion to the threat you may actually pose. Threaten us at your own risk. We will destroy you and ourselves before we will risk losing our freedom.

 

It is not a war crime because the civilians were not a target. Collateral damage alone does not constitute a war crime.

 

It was not a war crime, Because the targets were military. The goal of the bombings was not to wipe out the Japanese People.

Why didn't the Soviets do so after the war? What was stopping them?

Nuclear weapons have never been used against peaceful cities. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not peaceful...they were engaged in war activities.

That is factually incorrect. The opinions are not unanimous.

 

As bad as it is, but it is the truth!

History shows since being recoded one thing: The winner writes the history and the defeated person is in his mercy!

Was Hiroshima a crime? No, because even of course denied, the invasion of Japan would have cost millions life … and no one is willing to spend so much blood when he has an alternative!

Was Nagasaki a crime? Maybe, maybe not … can be hard discussed if necessary or not. For me the named reason that Japan must be shown that US can do it again and as often they want is not really valid. An alternative target as a complete city was possible to make this point clear to Japan!

But in all matters one should not forget that Japan attacked the US without any declaration of war!
And please, no silly crap of conspiracy that Pearl Harbor was false flag jabbering about.

 

the nukes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible, but achieved a greater good.

they showed the world the horror of nuclear weapons.

if we didn't use them then, we may have used much more powerful ones in a war between The West and the USSR.

 

Agree for once with you.

 

We need another Truman willing to do the same with IS.

 

There is absolutely no doubt.

Twice we were a Russian commander's disobeying protocol/orders away from nuclear conflagration with far more powerful, sophisticate bombs.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/may/14/the-man-who-saved-the-world-review

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

there are probably similar stories about Americans, although I don't know of any.

 

really?then what a bout Vietnam?by Agent orange US did them a favor?






what about Iraq?by using DU?

 

u want to kill millions of Arabs, in order to take out IS?

 

Japan decided to attack the U.S. and it cost them dearly. The United States wanted to stay out of WWII completely, but wasn't allowed to sit on the sidelines.

The moral of this story? Don't mess with the United States.

 

FDR had no intention of ever staying out of WW2.

 

The nukes did good and got people to see the horrors of using them. I am death the destroyer of world one of my favorites quotes came with the creation of the atom, so some good came of the bombin of Horishima.

 

sometimes good comes out of horror.

this is one of those few times.

 

Sure, sure. He just couldn't wait, right? Seems that opinions vary on that topic.

 

Agreed he wouldn't have been helping the British during the war if he wanted to stay out of said war. He saw the Nazis as a threat....

 

As George Bush demonstrated quite so well Maybe we Americans should recalibrate our geopolitical thoughts to be a little more nuanced than "Bomb, rawr." Maybe then, like Trump said we wouldn't be behind so many of these other countries.