65 Years Since Hiroshima Nuked

BluePlanet

Laminations wrote: »

Again you leave out the greater context.

'If we target civilians to win, then that is fair play'

To win what? What were you fighting for in the first place? If you were invading a country, then not only is that wrong but if you then target civilians 'to win' that is also wrong.

I got some bad news for you.
Your side was invading Japan when they dropped bombs on civilians.
Oh wait - queue the next "context" dodge!

Laminations wrote: »

Secondly, the Allies were not simply targeting civilians, if this was their aim, they'd have dropped the bombs over more populated areas.

You mean, like Nagaski?

Jeboa Safari

BluePlanet wrote: »

I got some bad news for you.
Your side was invading Japan when they dropped bombs on civilians.
Oh wait - queue the next "context" dodge!

After Japan attacked America and allied colonies.
Only one dodging is you, looking for any cop out to not answer a simple question

Laminations

BluePlanet wrote: »

I don't believe you.
You have no way of knowing if that is the case or not.
You're trying to narrow the scope of possiblities down to suit your premise.
It's a rubbish hypothetical situation and you know it.

Basically, if you were on the bridge telling me this, i would tell you to go to hell.
That i don't believe you and your attempts to emotionally blackmail me will fail.

So your saying no you wouldn't blow the bridge? You would give up the strategic advantage and lose the war? You would allow people to die because of your inaction and desire to keep a clear conscience?

BluePlanet

Laminations wrote: »

So your saying no you wouldn't blow the bridge? You would give up the strategic advantage and lose the war? You would allow people to die because of your inaction and desire to keep a clear conscience?

No, i wouldn't be conned by your simple scenario.
I wouldn't believe that this single bridge makes for winning or loosing a war.

The same way i (like some of your most senior military leaders at the time) don't believe that dropping bombs on civilians in Japanese cities makes for winning or loosing the war. No matter how many times you stamp your feet.

BluePlanet

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

After Japan attacked America and allied colonies.

So what your saying again, is that because Japan attacked a US military installation, USA was a-ok to nuke Japanese civilians.
Yeah, i can believe you hold that view.

Laminations

BluePlanet wrote: »

No, i wouldn't be conned by your simple scenario.
I wouldn't believe that this single bridge makes for winning or loosing a war.

The same way i (like some of your most senior military leaders at the time) don't believe that dropping bombs on civilians in Japanese cities makes for winning or loosing the war. No matter how many times you stamp your feet.

*sigh*

Ok one last time for the hell of it.

Two choices.
Blow the bridge or lose the war.

I'm just trying to find out whether you believe that the ends never justify the means, whereas the rest of us (I think) recognise that the ends sometimes justify the means, it depends what the ends are.

BluePlanet

Your ridiculous hypothetical scenario holds no water as it's not applicable to the US nuking Japanese civilians.

US generals say it wasnt necessary to win the war.

Laminations

BluePlanet wrote: »

Your ridiculous hypothetical scenario holds no water as it's not applicable to the US nuking Japanese civilians.

US generals say it wasnt necessary to win the war.

But if it was, would you agree with it then?

Its a yes/no answer you seem incapable of giving.

Jeboa Safari

BluePlanet wrote: »

So what your saying again, is that because Japan attacked a US military installation, USA was a-ok to nuke Japanese civilians.
Yeah, i can believe you hold that view.

And what your doing again is failing to look at the big picture, and accusing others of dodging questions and moving the goalposts, when its you ignoring questions and logic, prefering instead to have a go at posters or America.

Any solution you have suggested so far has been ridiculus, and would have ended up with more casualties on both sides.

Nijmegen

I think, respectfully, that BluePlanet has an entrenched position, though I feel that you are looking at too narrow a set of criteria, your opinion is your own.

In my view, the Imperial Japanese Empire was one of the most racially hateful and destructive nations the world has ever seen, coming in behind the USSR of the time and ahead of Germany even given the experience in China and Korea.

The war with them, from the allied perspective, was a conflict not only to defeat an aggressive enemy, but to end a plight to the peace and security of the region, and end a murderous regime.

In doing so, they dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan. Well, if you don't want to play the game, don't put any money in the machine. Japan committed. Japan lost. And the method of their downfall was justified by resounding victory.

Manic Moran

monosharp wrote: »

So your saying there was no rule against mass extermination of another countries civilian population ?

There certainly was if you were controlling that country's population. Which is why the Germans at Nuremberg were charged with the destruction and killing in occupied territories. Enemy populations not under your control, however, could still contribute to the war effort against you. There was little legal difference between the WWII city bombings and the Zeppelin Raids or the shelling of Paris using the Paris Gun in WWI. They weren't considered illegal twenty years earlier, they still weren't considered illegal in WWII either.

The U.S. used a form of napalm, which was banned by the UN after Vietnam

Would you care to find a reference supporting that one? Incendiary munitions have not been banned. The reason the US no longer uses napalm is that more effective ways of achieving the same result have been found. You will note that the Argentinian napalm in the Falklands raised a few eyebrows but was never considered to be evidenciary of a war crime.

What you have to remember, is that those were the very arguments against the Nuremberg Trials.
It didn't stop the Allies from applying war crime laws retrospectively then.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If in 1945 it was ok to apply war crime laws retrospectively for Nazi crimes, so too they apply to war crimes commited by the Allies

When researching this thread to see if any Germans were tried for the bombings (either by aircraft or ballistic missile) of British cities, I read the entire charge sheet, about 40 pages. Any of the charges based in the conduct during the war seemed to be based on then-extant legislation, notably the Hague conventions of 1907 and Geneva Conventions of 1929. The biggest argument against the Nuremberg trials that I'm aware of was that on occasion the Germans were charged with the exact same thing that the US was doing, most notably the charge against Doenitz of unrestricted submarine warfare. However, because the Allies did the same thing, he was not sentenced on that count.

Pearl Harbour was of course, a military installation and a valid military target. Persons so within would automatically loose their protected persons status under International Law.

Technically, if the hospital were marked as such (and I have no idea if it was or not), it would still be a protected building even within the confines of the bases. However, that just means that you can't aim at it, it doesn't mean that you are automatically going to be liable if a stray bomb hits it.

I don't believe you.
You have no way of knowing if that is the case or not.

When making such a decision, you are correct that it is purely a judgement call and speculation. However, the people making the decision are also those who tend to be best qualified to form an opinion on the matter. If, in the opinions of the military leadership, the destruction of the bridge is militarily required, then the bridge will be blown. The primary objective, as has been pointed out earlier, is to win. You can have the luxury of mourning those who died afterwards.

I am reminded of the argument in the US against those who argue against private defensive use of firearms because 'killing is wrong.' It goes something like 'You believe a raped woman is morally superior to an unraped one with a smoking gun and a dead man at his feet.' In this, also, it is true that it is a moral judgement call. I know which side of the line I'm on in both instances, however, and I don't think I'm in a particularly small minority.

NTM

OhNoYouDidn't

BluePlanet wrote: »

US generals say it wasnt necessary to win the war.

But they don't appear to have said it prior to the bombing.

A bit of revisionism after the fact from them?

BluePlanet

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But they don't appear to have said it prior to the bombing.

A bit of revisionism after the fact from them?

If it is revisionism at least it leans on the side of the sanctity of human life.

Compare for example, the revisionism that claims more people would have been killed if they didn't nuke civilians.
Apologists for mass murder of innocent life.

Jeboa Safari

BluePlanet wrote: »

If it is revisionism at least it leans on the side of the sanctity of human life.

Compare for example, the revisionism that claims more people would have been killed if they didn't nuke civilians.
Apologists for mass murder of innocent life.

An invasion would have lead to far more deaths, according to estimates from the time, probably running into the millions, both civilian and military. Japanese civilians were being trained to resist invasion, even children were trained to strap explosives to themselves and suicide bomb American tanks.

A blockade would result in famine with hundreds of thousands dead, possibly millions. Again civilian and military.

And your suggestion that America just stop attacking is just stupid beyond belief.

demonspawn

Manic Moran wrote: »

Would you care to find a reference supporting that one? Incendiary munitions have not been banned. The reason the US no longer uses napalm is that more effective ways of achieving the same result have been found. You will note that the Argentinian napalm in the Falklands raised a few eyebrows but was never considered to be evidenciary of a war crime.

Yeah, sorry. It's use against civilians was banned by the UN in 1980 in Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The use of incendiary weapons on military targets near civilian populations was also banned.

I'd find it hard to believe that the U.S. didn't kill civilians when they carpet bombed Iraq during the Gulf War. Here's a great site all about the history of napalm and the theaters it was used in.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/napalm.htm

Manic Moran

The use of incendiary weapons on military targets near civilian populations was also banned.

Have you actually read the protocol before posting, or are you just doing your best guess at a recollection?

Here's the text.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm

Let's say the Russians invaded and set up a bunker complex in Stephen's Green, by the bandstand. I think that could be argued to be near a civilian population. Show me where in that text, or any other convention covering the laws of war it flat out says that we can't shell them with white phosporous artillery or drive up with a flamethrower tank to burn them out or otherwise destroy the bunkers. There are restrictions on the use of incendiaries, there is no blanket prohibition.

NTM

BluePlanet

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

An invasion would have lead to far more deaths, according to estimates from the time, probably running into the millions, both civilian and military. Japanese civilians were being trained to resist invasion, even children were trained to strap explosives to themselves and suicide bomb American tanks.

A blockade would result in famine with hundreds of thousands dead, possibly millions. Again civilian and military.

And your suggestion that America just stop attacking is just stupid beyond belief.

The only estimates i've read were for estimates of American (military) lives.
They didn't drop bombs on Japan to save Japanese lives.
And Estimates varied wildly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties

RandomName2

BluePlanet wrote: »

The only estimates i've read were for estimates of American (military) lives.
They didn't drop bombs on Japan to save Japanese lives.
And Estimates varied wildly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties

No they did it to defeat the Japanese... which incidentally saved Japanese lives... and American lives... and lives in all occupied territory by the Japanese (apart from Manchuria).

I wonder how many Japanese would have died had the bombs not been dropped. 10 million? 20? An interesting question with no pleasant answer.

Oh I'm sure you would say none would have died, or that people would have come back from the dead and the second coming of Christ would have happened had the bomb not been dropped, or some such.

Moriarty

Maybe a more interesting question at this point in the thread - considering the possibility of thread stagnation - is whether it was likely that nuclear weapons would have been used at some point, if not on japan during ww2.

Considering that yields of nuclear weapons increased massively in the handful of years post-ww2, perhaps two limited detonations saved us a much larger nuclear catastrophe a few years down the line?

Laminations

Moriarty, I did mention that possibility about 15 pages ago and so have others in this thread

Laminations wrote: »

I'm also not overjoyed at the opening of a Pandoras box but I realise it wouldve been opened sooner or later and in some ways I think the nuclear deterrent has prevented many subsequent wars from escalating, saving even more lives

RandomName2

Moriarty wrote: »

Maybe a more interesting question at this point in the thread - considering the possibility of thread stagnation - is whether it was likely that nuclear weapons would have been used at some point, if not on japan during ww2.

Considering that yields of nuclear weapons increased massively in the handful of years post-ww2, perhaps two limited detonations saved us a much larger nuclear catastrophe a few years down the line?

Although it's tempting to think that, quite frankly, on reflection, I doubt it.

The two very small dropped nuclear bombs on Japan were a far cry from the hundreds of hydrogen ICBMs which were eventually developed. The casualty rates of the nuclear bombs were in the context of the war, of no great significance. Fallout, whilst a tremendous shock to both sides, was also not significant enough to prevent the use of nuclear weapons afterwards. Only the strategic significance of the bombs really made the world look on in awe.

No: I'd say it was World War Two that prevented the use of nuclear weapons. The fact was that a nuclear explosion could not be seen in isolation, but would have an inevitable counterstroke. When people mentioned the threat of nuclear weapons the concept of world war three immediately sprung to mind (even if such a war might only last a day before both sides were annihilated).

Interestingly, the Soviets still maintained the idea of Blitzkieg in WW3 scenarios - hoping to conquer the whole of western europe before the Allies had a chance to retaliate. As part of that Blitzkrieg advance, tactical nuclear drops would be used as a matter of course.

However, the would-be protagonists of WW3 were those for whom WW2 was a very distinct reality, and they would have been aware of the consequences that such a course could have.

Why was this not the case with WW2, after the horrors that were witnessed during WW1? Well it was for France (where most of the Western front took place), and to a lesser extent Britain and America. It clearly wasn't for Germany, but remember that Germany had never seen the war brought to her country, and never considered herself truly beaten.

It shows an interesting maturity that America, despite a relatively straightforward victory in WW2 (compared to her allies) turned back from an escalation of the Korean War, Cuban Missile Crisis and even Vietnam War (which actually cost them that war). Whether an expansion of the Korean War, and the potential toppling of Communist China would have been better or worse for mankind in the long-run can never be known though.

demonspawn

Manic Moran wrote: »

Have you actually read the protocol before posting, or are you just doing your best guess at a recollection?

Here's the text.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm

Let's say the Russians invaded and set up a bunker complex in Stephen's Green, by the bandstand. I think that could be argued to be near a civilian population. Show me where in that text, or any other convention covering the laws of war it flat out says that we can't shell them with white phosporous artillery or drive up with a flamethrower tank to burn them out or otherwise destroy the bunkers. There are restrictions on the use of incendiaries, there is no blanket prohibition.

NTM

Yeah mate, I was just trying to avoid cutting and pasting but here ya go.

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
2. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

I think that's clear enough tbh. So shelling or bombing St. Steven's Green is out. Driving up in tanks and using flame throwers is allowed so long as every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties is taken, but we all know this doesn't happen.

Here's a little picture to illustrate what has been prohibited by Protocol III:



Civilian population (possibly a school?): check
Airborne incendiary weapons: check
Israel held accountable for war crimes against the people of Gaza: ......

OhNoYouDidn't

BluePlanet wrote: »

If it is revisionism at least it leans on the side of the sanctity of human life.

Compare for example, the revisionism that claims more people would have been killed if they didn't nuke civilians.
Apologists for mass murder of innocent life.

Not quite my point. Its very easy for people who had an input into whether the bomb should have been dropped to come out after the fact and say they didn't think it was a tactical necessity when the true horrors emerged.

Thats seperate to the debate on the use of the nuke itself.

Overheal

Is Artillery considered air-delivered? I know its gotten stupidly accurate these days

Moriarty

Overheal wrote: »

Is Artillery considered air-delivered? I know its gotten stupidly accurate these days

Only if you consider a round from a rifle to be air-delivered.

demonspawn

Overheal wrote: »

Is Artillery considered air-delivered? I know its gotten stupidly accurate these days

Considering artillery is used to cover a large target area, I think it's safe to say using incendiary artillery shells in a civilian environment would be included in the prohibition.

Edit: Laser guided missiles and smart bombs are also stupidly accurate but they still manage to find their way to civilian targets such as schools and hospitals.

Manic Moran

I think that's clear enough tbh. So shelling or bombing St. Steven's Green is out. Driving up in tanks and using flame throwers is allowed so long as every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties is taken, but we all know this doesn't happen.

Artillery =/= Air Delivered. It's a ground-based weapon system, the launching platform is quite firmly in contact with Mother Earth. Air Delivered = Airplanes, UAVs, Helicopters, Zeppelins, and anything else which is in the air when the munition is fired/dropped.

Here's an example from an Army manual:
http://library.enlisted.info/field-manuals/series-1/FM100_38/1CH.PDF

Both surface and air-delivered ordnance produce unexploded submunitions. Several factors, such as the delivery technique, age of submunition, ambient air temperature, and type of impact medium, influence the reliability of submunitions. The actual hazard area produced depends on the type of ordnance and the density of the UXO.

a. Surface Delivery Systems. The Army and Marine Corps employ a variety of rockets, missiles, and cannon artillery. Each system is capable of delivering improved
conventional munitions (ICMs) that contain submunitions... <snip>

b. Air Delivery Systems. There is no set air delivery mission profile. Most airframes are capable of delivering a variety of submunitions.

demonspawn wrote: »

Considering artillery is used to cover a large target area, I think it's safe to say using incendiary artillery shells in a civilian environment would be included in the prohibition.

I chose Stephen's Green specifically because it is easy enough to distinguish between the park and the surrounding environs to help meet the requirements of part 2 of the protocol which you quote. But it's very definitely an urban area.

Edit: Laser guided missiles and smart bombs are also stupidly accurate but they still manage to find their way to civilian targets such as schools and hospitals.

Which isn't a war crime in itself.

Here's a little picture to illustrate what has been prohibited by Protocol III:

Picture lacks context. It is not automatically a violation just because WP is falling on civilians.

ETA:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/13/ap/europe/main4719434.shtml

The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest it is being used improperly or illegally.

Intent must be known.

NTM

Overheal

Modern Artillery, from the guy who talks in a loud whisper:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1SxQ0arrSo

demonspawn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeikyQBfoRs

High-precision artillery shells are pretty much pointless when airburst shells and rockets are covering areas as large as a city block.

GuanYin

Manic Moran wrote: »

And, in the end, the Japanese ended up surrendering unconditionally, just like the Allies had demanded to begin with.

NTM

This simply isn't true.

The Japanese rejected the Potsdam Declaration and the terms outlined. When the Japanese finally discussed surrender, they insisted that the Emperor's position would not be threatened.

Contrary to the outline of the Potsdam Declaration which had terms for the removal of the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, the Japanese maintained that the Emperor would not be subject to arrest. The US's response was that ultimately, power would be restored to whoever the Japanese people wanted, effectively allowing the imperial status quo.

Manic Moran

GuanYin wrote: »

This simply isn't true.

The Japanese rejected the Potsdam Declaration and the terms outlined. When the Japanese finally discussed surrender, they insisted that the Emperor's position would not be threatened.

This is what they signed:

We, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.

We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated.

<snip>

Potsdam, Check. Unconditional surrender, check.

They rejected Potsdam initially and asked for a specific clause for the Emperor but when push came to shove, they took it without one. The allies never changed their position that "The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people"

NTM

GuanYin

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is what they signed:



Potsdam, Check. Unconditional surrender, check.

They rejected Potsdam initially and asked for a specific clause for the Emperor but when push came to shove, they took it without one. The allies never changed their position that "The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people"

NTM

OK, true.

However, can you find me a source that suggests the Japanese surrendered without specific assurance on the fate of the Emperor. Or a suggestion that they would have surrendered without it?

Because every source I know suggests that was the case.

Manic Moran

However, can you find me a source that suggests the Japanese surrendered without specific assurance on the fate of the Emperor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/books/chapters/0909-1st-spec.html?pagewanted=print

At that point Forrestal suggested a compromise: The United States should send a reply that reaffirmed the Potsdam demands while neither rejecting the Japanese offer nor discouraging hope that the emperor could remain.
<snip>
Unlike most products of a committee, Byrnes's reply was a masterpiece. Addressing the key Japanese reservation on the emperor, the note was intentionally ambiguous

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/P/o/Potsdam_Declaration.htm

Following the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Emperor persuaded his government to surrender, and the Japanese asked for a armistice based on the terms of the Potsdam Declaration plus a guarantee that the Emperor would remain the formal head of state. The Allies responded with the Byrnes Note:

<snip>

Contrary to myth, this was no guarantee of the Imperial institution, as the Americans would make clear early in the occupation. The Japanese nonetheless felt compelled to capitulate.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mDGsAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=byrnes+note&source=bl&ots=s-eFTkxsuE&sig=0IlHsqLVl5gE07UumL0sibSHBBQ&hl=en&ei=2VpsTLu-OpTCsAPAqJmeBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCMQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=byrnes%20note&f=false
(Google Books won't let me copy/paste, but start at page 189)

Or a suggestion that they would have surrendered without it?

They did surrender without it. In fact, footnote 3 of page 190 of that last link makes mention of a concern of what would happen if they made the specific guarantee.

NTM