The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[P@triot]

FIRST we have the Ukraine committing war crimes like murdering 14,000 ethnic Russians, stealing oil, violating treaties, trying to put NATO nukes on the Russian border, etc.

Not one of those things actually occurred. Nice Russian propaganda though!

THEN we have the legal invasion to correct those crimes.

There is no such thing as a "legal" invasion. Nice Russian propaganda!

 

[Rigby5]

Not wrong. There is no law against the US, UK, France, Israel, or India having nuclear weapons.

There is no law against having any weapon, like nuclear weapons.
But there are international laws ratified by the US, against using them on people.
They fall under the International Humanitarian Laws the US agreed to in 1980.
The following discussion is why flame throwers are now considered illegal, as well as napalm and white phosphorus.
But they also fall under the chemical weapons laws.

{...

IHL Treaty law on incendiary weapons​

The only international humanitarian law (IHL) treaty norms specifically regulating incendiary weapons are found in the 1980 Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (Protocol III).

However, one may first question the extent to which the flamethrower designed by Musk’s company qualifies as a proper incendiary weapon in the technical sense of the term. Indeed, as noted by a commentator, the flamethrower is ‘more reminiscent of an oversized butane-jet lighter than the fiery liquid mixture of nitrogen propellant and gasoline that defined the [US] Army’s M2 flamethrower during the Vietnam War’.

Article 1 of Protocol III, while referring to flamethrowers as an example, defines incendiary weapons for the purpose of that treaty as

any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target (emphasis added).

The mere use of butane or other gas would not therefore be sufficient to make a device an incendiary weapon for the purpose of applying that treaty. In any case they would remain weapons using fire and heat to cause harm.

Beyond this question, it is key to highlight that the norms contained in Protocol III only refer to limitations in use for incendiary weapons, and not to a blanket prohibition in all circumstances. This is a transposition of the rules on the protection of civilians, such as the prohibition ‘in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons’ (Article 2). It is uncontroversial that any use of a flamethrower, be it a proper incendiary weapon or not, in breach of those rules on the protection of civilians would be unlawful. The same would hold true for any weapon.
...}

 

[P@triot]

In war they are.

Wrong.

Every time you post, you embarrass yourself:

U.S. Army Adopts Hollow Point Ammo With the M-17 and M-18 | The Loadout Room

The U.S. Army's decision to to adopt hollow point ammo is one based off of facts and performance. Find out why it took so long and what to expect next.

sofrep.com

 

[Rigby5]

Not one of those things actually occurred. Nice Russian propaganda though!

There is no such thing as a "legal" invasion. Nice Russian propaganda!

Of course they occurred.
For example, the Ukraine stole $20 billion worth of Russian oil.

{...
On 8 June 2010, a Stockholm court of arbitration ruled Naftohaz of Ukraine must return 12.1 billion cubic metres (430 billion cubic feet) of gas to RosUkrEnergo, a Swiss-based company in which Gazprom controls a 50% stake. Russia accused Ukrainian side of diverting gas from pipelines passing through Ukraine in 2009.[11][12] Several high-ranking Ukrainian officials stated the return "would not be quick".[13]
...}

Russia–Ukraine gas disputes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And if there is "no such thing as a 'legal' invasion", then what about when the US invaded Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.?

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.

Every time you post, you embarrass yourself:

U.S. Army Adopts Hollow Point Ammo With the M-17 and M-18 | The Loadout Room

The U.S. Army's decision to to adopt hollow point ammo is one based off of facts and performance. Find out why it took so long and what to expect next.

sofrep.com

Wrong.
The article contradicts itself.

{...
The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibited the use of bullets which readily expand or flatten in the human body by national armies engaged in international warfare.

The U.S. ratified the first three articles of the 1899 Hague Convention but never signed Article IV. Additionally, Article IV, Section 3 states that the prohibition on the use of hollow points applies only in a conflict between two signatories. Even if the U.S.A. signed Article IV, the provisions wouldn’t apply to the United States unless fighting another signatory state.

A grey area of international law has always been the treatment of irregular fighters. The Great Powers did not appreciate participation by non-nation state actors in their conflicts. At the 1899 Hague Conference, the Martens Clause determined that non-uniformed insurgents were unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture. This means that according to Hague, the laws of warfare do not apply to guerrillas. pirates and terrorists. SOCOM has used this to their advantage.

In the 90’s, U.S. Special Operations Command lawyers successfully argued that the Sierra 7.62 Matchking hollow point bullets and the Winchester .45 caliber 230 grain Jacked Hollow point were not designed to caused unnecessary suffering and these rounds were then fielded in combat.
...}

The US most certainly DID ratify the 1899 Hague Convention in 1906, and later conventions DO protect guerrillas as long as they carry weapons openly and are not trying to pretend to be civilians, and they are under a chain of command.

And hollow point is designed and intended to turn into a buzz saw on impact, obviously causing massive increase in damage to flesh, and pain.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong.
By invading and colonizing the Pacific, like the Philippines, Indonesia, Malasia, etc. the US, England, and France were depriving Japan of everything they needed to survive, like food.
Dropping bombs on Pearl Harbor was not offensive because the US should not have been in in the Pacific at all, much less Hawaii.
The Japanese were acting defensively, and the US was the imperialist aggressor.

I love moonbat logic. The US was wrong for expanding to Hawaii and the British were wrong for colonizing as well as the French and Netherlands BUT Japan would have been just fine taking those places.

 

[Rigby5]

I love moonbat logic. The US was wrong for expanding to Hawaii and the British were wrong for colonizing as well as the French and Netherlands BUT Japan would have been just fine taking those places.

Wrong.
Japan did not try to take over places like the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Vietnam, etc., but to force the western imperialists out.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong.
Japan did not try to take over places like the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Vietnam, etc., but to force the western imperialists out.

LOL you are seriously deluded

 

[Dayton3]

LOL you are seriously deluded

People here ignore the obvious:

1) If the U.S. had not dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, the likeliest alternative was not the U.S. invading, but a naval blockade. Given that most food in Japan was transported by ship a naval blockade would've inevitably led to a nationwide famine which would've quickly starved millions of Japanese to death.

2) If the U.S. had invaded Japan, Japan would still have gotten hit by nuclear weapons. The U.S. invasion plans were still to attack key strongpoints in Japan with the nuclear weapons we had available. Three at the very beginning, and as many as 8 within a few months.

3) No matter what had the atomic bombs not been used, millions of Japanese were going to be killed in any possible continuation of the war.

 

[P@triot]

Of course they occurred.

Wrong. Literally didn't. Literally cannot "steal" oil.

And if there is "no such thing as a 'legal' invasion", then what about when the US invaded Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.?

The US didn't "invade" any of them. Next?

 

[P@triot]

And hollow point is designed and intended to turn into a buzz saw on impact, obviously causing massive increase in damage to flesh, and pain.

Bullets aren't designed to cause pain. You lack the humility not to speak on topics that you don't know anything about.

Bullets are designed to stop a threat. That means kinetic force and damage. And that is the point of the hollow point. More damage means each bullet is more likely to stop the threat by itself (ie not having to fire multiple bullets for the same affect).

 

[AZrailwhale]

We can see the rationale behind the use of the bombs on Japan, but in the historical perspective it was a huge mistake, especially in humanitarian terms, and will always be regarded as such. Jingoistic pseudo-patriotism won't change that.

I don’t agree. The US was killing larger numbers of Japanese, mostly civilians, practically every week. Curt Lemay was burning Japan to the ground, one city at a time.

 

[AZrailwhale]

It was not even close to being balanced. The original exhibit was filled with anti-American lies.



A little while ago I addressed one of your posts that used early surveys to minimize the number of soldiers in Hiroshima.

If it was reasonable for you to focus on the lower numbers from early surveys, surely it is reasonable for the Smithsonian to do the same.



Oops. That isn't even remotely a fact.

Japan asked that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

This request was flatly denied, and Japan surrendered anyway.



Another miss. No one gave Mr. Truman any such advice.



That one is outright dishonest.

The atomic bombs were the most closely guarded secret in history before their actual use. So of course the warning leaflets did not mention atomic bombs, and only said that the cities were going to be destroyed by a massive bombing raid.

To claim that there were no "leaflets mentioning the atomic bombs" in a context that challenges the existence of "leaflets warning of massive destruction" is so dishonest that this one has to have come from Gar Alperovitz.



More deliberate deception.

A recommendation to not give any warning of the atomic bomb does not mean that no leaflets were dropped warning of massive destruction.



The assertion is true. Nothing false about it.



Now that's what a false assertion looks like.

Hiroshima was selected as an atomic target early in the bombing campaign when not many Japanese cities had been destroyed. Thereafter it was off limits to conventional bombing.



More like calling Norfolk Virginia a military target.

Hiroshima was Japan's primary military port, and it held vital military headquarters.



All we really need to know is that the people who signed the letter are all liars.

San Francisco contained a lot more military installations than Presidio. There were shipyards, air bases arsenals and ordnance depots.

 

[Mushroom]

They aren't "illegal" on the battlefield either!

Actually, yes they are.

The Hague Declaration of 1899.

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.

This was later stated again many times in both Hague and Geneva. But they have indeed been illegal for well over 100 years.

I can only imagine you never really served in uniform, or you would know this.

 

[Mushroom]

I don’t agree. The US was killing larger numbers of Japanese, mostly civilians, practically every week.

And the Japanese killed well in excess of 10 million civilian non-combatants in China. Even publishing a contest in newspapers to see who could behead 100 people first with a sword.

So tell me, what is your issue with Chinese, that you would dismiss the slaughter of tens of millions, over the bombing of two military cities in Japan?

Note: The above clipping is from a Japanese newspaper. In the sports section, announcing that the contest had gone into "extra innings" as it was too close to decide a winner.

 

[DudleySmith]

Just a reminder:

1. You really are an asshole (like, for real)
2. Nuking Nagasaki was not only justified, it was necessary (even if you can't stomach that)
3. This thread is truly immoral

It's people like Mike Griffith who caused the Holocaust. The belief that when your ***** tingles and aches, you give in and hide. It's people like Mike Griffith who caused 9/11. Instead of dealing with Al Qaeda in the 1990's, you give in to your tingling and aching *****. It's people like Mike Griffith who caused the mess in Ukraine.

Weakness invites aggression. Literally invites it. It's a clear and obvious phone call to evil stating "we're ripe for the taking - move now. Our ***** aches and tingles, it's time to rape us".

Only a ****'n idiot makes that phone call

Quoted for truth. We're seeing the results of pandering to gangsters and bullies in real time via the Ukraine now, and saw it during the Obama administration in both Ukraine and Iran.

 

[Open Bolt]

Wrong.
By invading and colonizing the Pacific, like the Philippines, Indonesia, Malasia, etc. the US, England, and France were depriving Japan of everything they needed to survive, like food.

Japan doesn't control those places today. How do they eat?

How did Japan eat in the years before western colonization, when Japan also had no control over those areas?

Dropping bombs on Pearl Harbor was not offensive because the US should not have been in in the Pacific at all, much less Hawaii.

We have every right to be in the Pacific, and attacking us without justification is very much aggression.

The Japanese were acting defensively, and the US was the imperialist aggressor.

That is incorrect. It is the exact opposite.

Beyond this question, it is key to highlight that the norms contained in Protocol III only refer to limitations in use for incendiary weapons, and not to a blanket prohibition in all circumstances. This is a transposition of the rules on the protection of civilians, such as the prohibition ‘in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons’ (Article 2). It is uncontroversial that any use of a flamethrower, be it a proper incendiary weapon or not, in breach of those rules on the protection of civilians would be unlawful. The same would hold true for any weapon.

So it is legal to have nuclear weapons, but illegal to deliberately target civilians (regardless of what sort of weapons is used).

Wrong.
Japan did not try to take over places like the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Vietnam, etc., but to force the western imperialists out.

No. Japan tried to take those places over.

 

[Open Bolt]

Truman should have been hung at Nuremberg.

That would have been a horrible injustice, given that he was a hero who never did anything wrong.

 

[Open Bolt]

1) If the U.S. had not dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, the likeliest alternative was not the U.S. invading, but a naval blockade.

The alternative would have been both. We were not just selecting one single option and pursuing that alone. We were pushing all options simultaneously.

So the blockade of Japan would have continued. The conventional bombardment of Japan would have continued. And the invasion would have happened as soon as we were ready to launch it, had the war still been going at that point.

Given that most food in Japan was transported by ship a naval blockade would've inevitably led to a nationwide famine which would've quickly starved millions of Japanese to death.

Correct.

2) If the U.S. had invaded Japan, Japan would still have gotten hit by nuclear weapons. The U.S. invasion plans were still to attack key strongpoints in Japan with the nuclear weapons we had available.

Correct.

 

[gipper]

So many hypocrites in this thread. Dummies too.

The rank hypocrisy is stunning. Some of the same officials that orchestrated the invasion of Iraq, who under international law are war criminals for carrying out a preemptive war, are now chastising Russia for its violation of international law. The US bombing campaign of Iraqi urban centers, called “Shock and Awe,” saw the dropping of 3,000 bombs on civilian areas that killed over 7,000 noncombatants in the first two months of the war. Russia has yet to go to this extreme.

“I have argued that when you invade a sovereign nation, that is a war crime,” a FOX News host said (with a straight face) recently to Condoleezza Rice, who served as Bush’s National Security adviser during the Iraq War.

Chris Hedges: Worthy and Unworthy Victims