Were the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a war crime? Were they a necessary evil? And if the casualties were still alive to this day, what would they do for a Klondike Bar?
Were the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a war crime? Were they a necessary evil...
Liam Hernandez
Jeremiah Allen
who gives a shit?
we've had this thread so many times and its always the same thing, if you really wanted to know what people think of it you could easily look up "hiroshima nagasaki nuke warcrime" on the archive and find out.
Cameron Jenkins
Reminder that there are no rules in war. The single solitary objective any state-entity has during a war is doing anything and everything within their power to win that war in their favor using any means necessary and with as few casualties on their own side as possible, yes, even if that means using nukes.
Isaac Johnson
bbut that's mean :(
Levi Kelly
The use of nuclear weapons wasn't a war crime, but the use of nuclear weapons against almost purely civilian targets was. Japan was ready to surrender long before the atomic bombings on the condition that they were allowed to keep their emperor. The US said that wasn't good enough and went ahead and nuked Japan already. After the Japanese surrender, the US let the Japanese keep their emperor anyway. The claim that the use of nuclear weapons saved the US a lot of time and saved a lot of lives isn't true because it was predicated on an invasion of Tokyo. The US could have accepted a Japanese surrender long before. The atomic bombings actually cost more life and caused lots of environmental damage.
Luis Thompson
>purely civilian targets
>Japan was ready to surrender
Hudson Lopez
Bentley Bennett
>Stalin beat Japan lmao
Retarded. The Soviets didn't have the naval capabilities to launch a full scale invasion of mainland Japan. The only people who espouse that retarded """theory""" are fags that are butthurt about the nukings.
John Nguyen
>Japan was ready to surrender long before the atomic bombings
"Viewed from the Japanese perspective, the most important day in that second week of August wasn’t August 6 but August 9. That was the day that the Supreme Council met — for the first time in the war — to discuss unconditional surrender. The Supreme Council was a group of six top members of the government — a sort of inner cabinet — that effectively ruled Japan in 1945. Japan’s leaders had not seriously considered surrendering prior to that day."
>Japan’s leaders had not seriously considered surrendering prior to that day."
Your own sources seem to go against your statement.
>purely civilian targets
Seem to be ignoring the fact that the HQ of the Second General Army was loacted in Hiroshima, and that Hiroshima was an industrial city contributing towards the japanese war effort.
Nagasaki was a major seaport and industrial city too, also contributing towards the Japanese war effort.
So no, not "purely civilian".
Carson Watson
Hiroshima, no.
Nagasaki, yes.
Isaiah Williams
Can you imagine being Nagasaki? You are one of two cities ever to be nuked, but because it came second, no one gives a shit about you. It's always Hiroshima this, Hiroshima that. Seriously fuck that. They had it tough too.
Sebastian Gray
>bomb didn't beat japan stalin did
Truly liberal revisionists are scum
Christian Mitchell
I think Nagasaki is more famous because it's got that famous picture attached to it
Lincoln Morris
99% of people will say the picture is Hiroshima though.
Grayson Reyes
No they won't
Christopher Lopez
>Were the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a war crime?
Well, civilians did get killed, but it was a relatively peaceful way to go for most of them, as opposed to the raping and beheading that the Japanese did to their enemies.
>Were they a necessary evil?
Yes.
Landon Reyes
Yes they will.
Gabriel Cox
Nope
Oliver Scott
Doubly retarded. The Soviets were not keen on doing another amphibious invasion after they fucking botched Shumshu. AND THE SOVIETS TOOK THE ISLAND.
Henry Howard
>but it was a relatively peaceful way to go for most of them
wew lad
I'm not sure severe radiation sickness is "peaceful".
Thomas Bailey
>Japan was ready to surrender long before the atomic bombings
Then why didn't they surrender after the 1st bomb??
Carter Howard
Yeppers.
David Allen
I'm pretty sure a majority of them were vaporized instantly, but that's just conjecture. Got some sources on how many survived?
Anthony Jenkins
Because thats a meme. They weren't ready to surrender.
Jason Howard
Nah
Mason Hill
This.
I've been to Hiroshima, nice little city, and it had next to no military presence whatsoever. I've come to the conclusion that the Nuke drops really were just human testing, sadly.
Benjamin Sanders
>and it had next to no military presence whatsoever
Yes, now.
It was a major embarkation port and industrial center that was the HQ of the 2nd army as well as the army marine.
Your attempts at sounding profound come off as ignorance desu
Connor Gutierrez
Well, I've been there, and presumably you haven't, and they said to us that there was almost no military presence whatsoever and that it was almost entirely civilian.
Who's more reliable for being believed? Someone who went to Hiroshima, went through the nuclear warfare museum, and who had a rather educational experience there, or some obese basement dwelling social outcast?
Daniel Watson
Hiroshima was the HQ of not only the 2nd army, but of Shunroku Hata as well, who commanded the defense of all of southern Japan at the time. More than 40,000 military personnel were stationed there, not to mention the number of military supplies stockpiled there.
Mayhap pick up a history book from time to time, you're on a history board after all
Matthew Green
You could independently verify the claims yourself since Japan hasn't always been forthcoming about it's history in WWII.
Lucas Gonzalez
I've been to Berlin and it has next to no military presence whatsoever. I've come to the conclusion that Berlin could not have ever had been home to military personnel ever and no one can't refute me because I've been there personally and saw this with my own two eyes.
Mason Peterson
>Who's more reliable for being believed? Someone who went to Hiroshima, went through the nuclear warfare museum, and who had a rather "educational" experience there by people from a nation known for its historical revisionism, or some obese basement dwelling social outcast with a lot of access to various resources in the internet he can cross-reference?
Fixed that for ya.
Gabriel Sanchez
Your whole post is wrong, but Im just gonna disagree on one point. Droping nukes for testing on humans was just a minor bonus.
The real purpose was showing the might of atomic power to the world and the Red's more importantly.
The relative peace you see right now? You owe that to the power of atom.
Julian Nguyen
The first one is very debatable, but Nagasaki was a complete shitshow. The Japanese were given barely any time to give out a proper response to the first nuking before another one.