I have just seen THE SUM OF ALL FEARS and I want to know what do you think about the 1st 2 nukes that were used (Hiroshima and Nagasaky. Was it genocide?

[ May 02, 2003, 11:13: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Errrrr.

genocide
n : systematic killing of a racial or cultural group [syn: race murder, racial extermination]


Lots of Japanese still around as far as I can tell. (Not to be read as an opinion for or against the use of atomic weapons, just as an opinion for correct usage of the English language.)

It was war, and the bombs put a stop to it.

ditto...how could it even remotely be seen as genocide?

Hello?

I mean that. Hello?

Now, if you had said "Sony Betamax", then yes. Genocide would have applied to that one. It got snuffed within the first 3 months of release. They just figured when in doubt, empty the clip, and drilled down Betamax.

Or, if you had said "American Indians". I don't really think we were performing genocide on that one, but I could definately understand a European's point of view, if they said that's what it seemed like to them. The numbers rival 1945. Definately not one of the high points of our history; an important point, yes.

And, as an added bonus, this weekend I'm going to strangle an entire 12-pack. Just to watch it sqirm and die, because I'm psycho like that. Genocide.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki could not be considered genocide because, a) the Japanese attacked first, b) War was declared.

What Japan did is more genocidal than what the Americans did, but even that is far from it. The Kurds would be a perfect example. It happend it East Timor to a very large extent.

When it's down to them or us the whole point is irrelevant, anyone stupid enough to not defend themselves when their life is threatened probably does not deserve to live.

No, bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not an act of genocide, it served several purposes but extermination of the Japanese wasn't one of them.
War or not war, it is still one of the greatest crimes in the history of mankind.

I think that killing 300 000 human lives is genocide indeed. And I didn't post this topic because it was the US that threw the bombs. I posted it to find out if you think that killing so many civilians to stop an army is justified.

The dropping of the bombs wasn´t an act of genocide, it was meant to put a quick stop to the war, if the bombs weren´t dropped millions of people on both sides would have died..

Japan on the other hand, commited genocide in China.

The question is, are you morally responsible when you can kill one to save thousand?

America thought so :heh:

Edit:
Justified? Nothing is justified in my eyes, so no, the dropping of the bombs weren´t justified.
Justified is a meaningless word we give to acts, to make us feel less guilty about the consequences.

dmc,
that there are still a couple of japanese around does not mean it hasn't been genocide. There are still jews around, but that does not say that the holocaust wasn't genocide. That there are still chechens around doesn't mean that Stalin did not perform genocide on them when deporting them to the deserts of khazachstan.

Genocide may eventually lead to total extermination but the systematic killing (based on ethnic or racial criteria) is an atrocity totally sufficient for that term.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'm unsure. The conventional firebomb raids on japanese cities killed millions. The firestorms in germany killed millions. On the one hand, what does it meat to order the drop of firebombs on a civilian population center? The generals knew what would happen there, the butchery of the civilians was part of their inhuman strategy.

When Nagasaki and Hiroshima were genocide, so were the firestorms. The only problem is that these atrocities were commited against countries that committed atrocities themselves, so people might feel tempted to see the firestorms as venegance of the allies. But then, were was the moral superiority of the victors?

Personally I tend to feel that blowing up/ igniting a large city, in the knowledge that the civilians inside will die miserably, *is* genocide. Making differences based on method is like distinguising **** by smell - it is irrelevant if you need a single nuke of a few hundred tons of TNT or napalm.

Yes Morgoth you are right in the fact that it did save thousands of lives. But why did those "people" from USA have to go and drop the bomb on a city. As the US president at that time said "it was to show the true power of the atom bomb" or something along those line. Well my point is that why did they drop it on a big city. Wouldn't it have been just as good show of power to drop them on one of those small deserted islands below japan?
But then on the other hand I dont think it is genoside. USA didn't do it to wipe out the japaness race. It was just some US to offical who didn't think of the other options (which has occured so many times last and the century it really makes you wonder).
(Edit: After the this post i made i come back to find that Ragusa has posted some really interesting facts. I went through my old history notes and found out the numbers of the people killed in Hiroshima compared to Dresden (germany) during bombing in the same year by the same country. Dreden civilan deaths during bombing was estimated at 135,000 people. Hiroshima was estimated at 80,000. So you can't say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was genoside and the bombing in Gremany wasn't. And i know i didn't put the figures for the Nagasaki bombing and i don't have them here but, i have a list the % if Japanese cities destroyed by US bombing, and 40% of Hiroshima was destroyed while only 26% of Nagasaki was. So by this i am geussing that more people died in Hiroshima than Nagisaki.)

[ May 02, 2003, 12:06: Message edited by: ruler of the universe ]

When you declare war on any country, any country at all, you're declaring war on their civilians. It doesen't mean a little tussle and then the losers have to march home in disgrace, it means that the loser's home is totally obiltherated and everyone there killed. The point of war is to wipe you'r enemies's people off the face of the earth, leaving ANY of them alive is a pretty big step. That is the reason why great leaders seldom declare war, it's not a game.

No Rastillin, this is not true. According to the Geneva Convetion (and don't quot me on this) but it is a crime of war for one country (even during war time) to purposely kill civilins of another country (as well as its own). And your other point about the purpose of been to wipe another people off the face of the earth is a load of bull ****.
This is not true at all. In fact this is hardly the case. Usually the point would be to gain more land or to gain some natraul resource from another country. Not to destroy them completly

When it's down to them or us the whole point is irrelevant, anyone stupid enough to not defend themselves when their life is threatened probably does not deserve to live.That, IMO, is a stupid comment. Killing civilians isn't going to further the cause of the war, as the civilians aren't fighting the war. Destroying a civilian population is not self defence.
And if some über tough guy or something threatened a weak, nerdish person and killed him without the nerd been able to defend themselves or deciding that it would only screw up the situation more if he tried. Does that nerdish person now not deserve to live? Physical and military power are not the only kind that is useful. I more often than not don't punch back when punched as it will only make the one who punched me punch harder. Do I deserve to live?

[/rant]

Killing civilians isn't going to further the cause of the war, as the civilians aren't fighting the war. Destroying a civilian population is not self defence. That is wrong. Killing civilians is a great way to further the war. By killing civilians you are demorilising the people who are fighting the war. And if you are luckey you might take out a few of their top commander people in the process (they surely wouldn't be on the front they would be back in some city wouldn't they?)

Wouldn't it have been just as good show of power to drop them on one of those small deserted islands below japan? Nope

If you strike people in the heart, fear will strike them also, and fear can be a powerfull ally, but it can also be your worst enemy

edit:
When it's down to them or us the whole point is irrelevant, anyone stupid enough to not defend themselves when their life is threatened probably does not deserve to live. And you decide that with a bias argument?

[ May 02, 2003, 13:17: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

When it's down to them or us the whole point is irrelevant, anyone stupid enough to not defend themselves when their life is threatened probably does not deserve to live. That's an interesting thought. As far my understanding is, the goal in a military conflict is to destroy the capability of the opponent to attack or defend. Has one side of the conflict reached this goal, the population of the other side is at the mercy of the one which military has prevailed. Does the population of a defeated country not deserve to live ?

Genocide is a ruthless act which is not justified by any reason war or not. The bombing (devastation) of these two japanese cities was a foolish act IMHO and didn't not prevent the death of thousand of lives since many people still dying from the radiation that was spread by the bombs. :(
But still it was not genocide.

Obliderating hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a matter of moments is a war crime. The Geneva convention states that any attack during war time against a nation's civilan population is a war crime. Not necessarily genocide. But a war crime. According to authoritarian responsobility, the person who ordered the attack is just as guilty as the one who executed it. Was the president of the US held and trialed as a war criminal?

Malaqia - Unfortunately, the Geneva conventions were not in place until 1949.

Malaqai,
If the US wanted to commit genocide, then why stop at Nagasaki? We could have bombed the entire country into the stone age, landed troops and killed everyone who was still there.
That would be genocide.
What happened was war.

Read what Ragusa said. An atomic bomb is just another weapon. Why does it's use signify genocide?

The geneva convention was in place in 1949, but using it as a guide for today, would the same act today be viewed as a war-crime or an act or conventional war.

The nuke is a weapon that can kill so many in so short a time. And it isn't just another weapon. Because if it were, the US and Russia wouldn't be spending millions on disarmament.

I just want to know if you think that killing civilians can ever be justified? In example...to stop an enemy army you have to incinerate an entire city with a nuke. The city has 100 000 people in it. What would you do? Genocide or normal act of war? Or, simply pu, a war crime?

[ May 02, 2003, 19:03: Message edited by: Malaqai ]

Jack Funk,
you make a mistake when equalling genocide with annihilation. Determined and intentional mass murder on an ethnic/ national/ religious group is sufficient already.
The US aren't accused of having wanted to wipe out the japanese or germans in WW-II. But you can't deny they have targeted civilians of their respective enemies on large scale. Even the dumbest soldier was very well aware of the effects of dropping hundrets of tons in bombs on a city full of civilians. Dresden, just like Nagasaki, didn't happen by accident. The key point is if the so-called "strategic bombing" of enemy lands, targeting the enemy's civilians, is just that, genocide.

The question is if targeting of civilian centers and indiscriminate bombing of cities, resulting in the death of hundrets of thousands of civilians is something that can be justified with fighting a war against soldiers of an agressor. I think not.

And the point about the nuke can be seen vice versa either: When ordinary city burning is genocide already, then the nuclear version is even more.


BTA,
the Geneva Convention was indeed not in place in WW-II, however, the Hague Convention (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/1d1726425f6955aec125641e0038bfd6?OpenDocument) (18 October 1907) was. A little generous I'll equal a city bombing with use of force in a siege ... SECTION II
HOSTILITIES

CHAPTER I
Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited. ... Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand. The indiscriminate incineration of a city cannot meet these standards. WW-II was incredibly brutalised; all sides commited war crimes, only that the victors didn't trial theirs.

[ May 02, 2003, 20:49: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Ragusa, as I quoted earlier, genocide is systematic killing of a racial or ethnic population. I defy anyone to say that dropping a total of two bombs that killed a tiny minority of people in the racial/ethnic class of Japanese people is genocide. (Remember, this topic is about the two atomic bombs, not the whole war or even any other part of it.) If the Americans launched atomic bombs at every major Japanese population center, you and I would be in agreement at to the genocidal nature of the attacks. With two bombs, no matter how devastating to those particular cities, I cannot agree with your interpretation.

Tiny minority? Well, you cannot seperate the two nukes from the overall air campaign, claiming that these are just two "minor actions". And the bombing campaigns on japan and germany were planned, systematic and focussed on germans and japanese (= ethnic groups).

The "tiny minority" argument is lagging: Imagine a smaller concentration camp, were maybe "only" some 100.000 jews were killed: That wouldn't have been genocide? Because of insufficient numbers? Hardly.

You must be a cheerful nature to say that some 135.000 peeps in Nagasaki and 64.000 peeps in Hiroshima weren't a major contribution (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp10.htm) to the overall bodycount - within a couple of hours. Seeing them as isolated acts is glossing over.

The only striking difference to a normal firebomb raid was the bonus radiation, making the death of the victims more gruesome.

Besides, some more highly recommended read:
http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mpmenu.htm

[ May 02, 2003, 21:41: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Yes, tiny minority. The racial/cultural group is Japanese, not the people of the two cities that were bombed. Even if the ultimate casualties were 200,000, that is a tiny minority of total Japanese. It's still a lot of people, but I have a problem with the use of the word genocide in this context.

As for my nature, I am not saying anything for or against the use of the bombs or the particular bombs used. I wasn't there, I don't have the information available to me that the American leadership did and, conversely, they did not know what I know about the ultimate ramfications of the use of nuclear weapons. This thread is simply about whether the use of two bombs qualifies as genocide. It does not. Even if you expand the debate the mean everything done in the whole war, it still is not genocide as the intent was not to exterminate the Japanese and the actions taken did not point to any such systematic killing. It was war, and that is not the same as genocide.

To take one of your points, the Jews and the concentration camps, that was both expressly and implicitly genocide. The German leadership stated in no uncertain terms their desire to rid the world of the Jews as a people. They rounded up the Jews and systematically killed them. That is genocide.

As you do not know me, you can have no knowledge about my personal opinions with regard to what happened in WWII. To quote myself:

Lots of Japanese still around as far as I can tell. (Not to be read as an opinion for or against the use of atomic weapons, just as an opinion for correct usage of the English language.) As you can see, I specifically avoided the issue of whether I felt the bombs were justified or could ever be justified.

When you exaggerate the only difference between a city bombing and the concentration camp example is:

The nazis imprisoned people to eventually kill and burn them. That is discriminate killing in a population.

The allies didn't make the the effort to choose people by specific criteria and just burned everyone and everything in a specified area in enemy territory. That is indiscriminate killing in a polulation.

What of both variants is genocide? The first? Or the second variant? Maybe both?

Only the first.
Mainly B/C you worded it wrong
"The nazis imprisoned people to eventually kill and burn them. That is discriminate killing in a population."

That is discrimate killing OF a population. The German's intent was to destroy the ENTIRE Jewish population in Europe.

I do not agree that the nukes were an attempt at genocide. It was an attempt to bring a fast close to WWII, and to spare the lives of as many American soldiers as Truman could save. The Japanese had sworn to fight until the bitter end and the allies were trying to avoid having to invade the main islands of Japan.

There really was a true attempt at genocide by the US government. That is what happened to the American Indians living here. That really was genocide by any defintion. It is tragic that it is so ignored, or forgotten by not only the US government but also the world community.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just the culmination of the US/UK mass terror bombing strategy during WW2.

IMO these british and american bombings constitute a horrible crime against humanity, in some ways comparable to the crimes committed by Germany and the Soviet Union during that war.
WW2 was not a war between the "Good Guys" and the "Bad Guys", it was a war between the "Bad Guys" and the "Not-quite-as-Bad Guys".

The Destruction of Hamburg, July 24/25th. 1943
60% of its cityscape was completely gone, death count of about 50,000.

The Dresden bombing attacks of 14-15 February 1945
Dresden was a center of cultural and architectural wonders, including the famous Zwinger Museum and Palace and the cathedral, the Frauenkirche. There were no military objectives of any consequence in the city--its destruction could do nothing to weaken the Nazi war machine. U.S. and British air warfare had left Dresden intact until that point.

The weather was clear and there was no resistance from German fighter planes or anti-aircraft guns.

Early official Allied post-strike reports estimated that 85 per cent of the fully built-up city area was destroyed, that the old part of the city, which comprised the greater portion of the built-up areas was largely wiped out.

Low-flying planes machine-gunned the fleeing population along the banks of the Elbe river. A fourth attack on Dresden concentrated its bomb load on the roads used by the fleeing population.

About 1 million people lived in Dresden at the time, it's impossible to say exactly how many were killed, but estimates range between 35,000 and 135,000.
(The low estimate was made by the regime that was installed by the Soviets after they took Dresden and is not likely to be anywhere near correct.)


Tokyo the night of February 23-24
Around 16 square miles of the city were destroyed and over 100,000 people are estimated to have died.

Thinking about these bombings make my heart ache. :cry:


Mystra's Chosen wrote:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki could not be considered genocide because, a) the Japanese attacked first...That is an utterly stupid statement. I sincerely hope you meant something else than what you actually wrote.

It might, or it might not, be considered genocide, but who started a war first has absolutely no relevance for that question.

Definition of Genocide
- Merriam-Webster:
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.
- Cambridge:
the murder of a whole group of people, especially a whole nation, race or religious group.
- yourDictionary.com:
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

I do not consider the allied bombings to be genocide. I do consider the attempt to imprison and kill the jews to be an attempt at genocide.
Just because we can't label the bombings as genocide does not mean that they aren't horrible crimes.

In common for both is that they were deliberate mass murder of civilians.

[ May 03, 2003, 12:05: Message edited by: Earl Grey ]

On tv I saw an interview with a british bomber pilot who told he lost his trust in the allied targeting practices when he was briefed like that: "Last week be targeted the cities of A and B. Today we're poing to bomb city C where the majority of the refugees from A and B went to. As you can see on these aerial photographs these are the refugee treks ..."

I remember how pissed I was when I was in London and found a statue for national hero "Bomber Harris", the man who ordered and roganised mass murder of german civilians. Not really surprising that Goering when he was sentenced by the Nuremberg Trinbuan only was generally accused of having " ... commanded the Luftwaffe in the attack on Poland and throughout the aggressive wars which followed ... (http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/Goering_judgment.htm)". Had they accused him of ordering the (comparately limited) terror bombing on england, netherlands and poland either they might have had to explain something unpleasant.

but also the world community. No, it is not. It would be just stupid to say anything.

War is never easy, and the decisions that have to be made are brutal. My understanding of the situation has always been this: The Americans were in a war they knew would take years to finish off. They couldn't just walk away and leave the Japanese alone, as the Japanese had proved they were willing to strike American targets. The projections came in that it would cost thousands of lives, both American and Japanese, to finally defeat Japan, a country with a mindset far removed from the American.

With me? OK, so faced with the possibility of huge American casualties, the Americans decided to try and end the war with a single (or pair of) stroke(s). It is the responsibility of leaders to think about their own men first, and then the enemies -- I know that it is not considered PC, but EVERY country thinks of her own soldiers before the enemy, and expecting them to do otherwise is foolish. So they dropped the Bombs. Since no one knows how many lives, both Japanese and American, that would have been lost, we cannot really second guess the people who made this decision -- I mean, lets say "X" people died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Had the war been toughed out conventionally, and "x+100,000" people had died, then in hindsight someone today would have been berating the Americans for doing it conventionally and theorizing about the benefits of having used a nuke.

In other words, the leaders at the time made a decision, based on the best information available. They thought they were going to save not only the lives of their own soldiers, but also the lives of Japanese, in the long run. Maybe they were wrong, who knows? Maybe conventionally the war would have cost "x-100,000" lives.

20/20 hindsight is so easy, but it also has no bearing on the reality of the situation faced by the real people, who faced real consequences and real time limits.

Yago -- What? The destruction of the indian tribes, an entire continent of people, was systematic and certainly on a larger scale than anything Hitler did. Maybe I am not understanding you.

At Chandos the Red: No, misunderstanding.

I agree with all you said. It would be just foolish for me to comment. :( :mommy:

But the vanishing of two high developed cultures like the Incas and the Actecs is one of the most infamous incidients in History. And the way the Spaniards "replaced" the dying indians in their colonies through Africans.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/japan/no_surrender_01.shtml
When Emperor Hirohito made his first ever broadcast to the Japanese people on 15 August 1945, and enjoined his subjects 'to endure the unendurable and bear the unbearable', he brought to an end a state of war - both declared and undeclared - that had wracked his country for 14 years. He never spoke explicitly about 'surrender' or 'defeat', but simply remarked that the war 'did not turn in Japan's favour'. It was a classic piece of understatement. Nearly 3 million Japanese were dead, many more wounded or seriously ill, and the country lay in ruins.

I just want to mention. The Americans offered the Emperor a deal. If he would work together with the Americans, they would let him an the traditional Empire be. The nuclear bombs helped the emperor to decide. The American gained an important ally in the Emperor. Japan is a very traditional society and the support of the Emperor was a key factor for the American occupation. The Japanese were ordered by the Emperor, not to resist the Americans and to cooperate with them.

If the USA at this time didn't have the bomb, they would have made a peace treaty with Japan, without occupying it. As Depaara pointed in his post out, to conquer mainland Japan with "conventional" means was beyond the military capability of the Americans. Blackmailing them with Blitz and offering them a treaty with possibilites for both sides just made more sense.

A mix between criminal bombing and smart diplomacy.

[ May 03, 2003, 17:53: Message edited by: Yago ]

Sorry, Yago, I am actually awake now (should have had coffe first before thinking). To draw comparisons on genocides was just plain silly on my part.

Earl Grey -- The fire bombing of Dresden was an act of revenge and proves that the allies were not beneath acts of terror. But IMO the nukes used on Japan are not in that category, although you are right, the end results were the same.

Maybe my last post was a bit overkill, it really depends on why you are fighting the war in the first place.
By killing civilians you are demorilising the people who are fighting the war.
Not necessarily, it depends on the mindset of your soldiers, I doubt the nazi soldiers were much bothered by the saughter of the impure monsters.

And in case I have not mentioned this before, it was'nt genocide as the bombs were not launched with the intention of killing the entire Japanese "race".

Chandos the red wrote:
The fire bombing of Dresden was an act of revenge... It was? Revenge for what?

On the 25th August 1940 the Germans attacked a oil depot at Thameshaven; one aircraft got lost, continued west and dropped it's bombs on the City of London. This angered the War Cabinet and that night 80 bombers bombed Berlin in reprisal.
Perhaps this is what you were thinking of?

All i want to say is the phrase someone famous guy (i can't remember the name): the history is always written by the winners . So it's not suprising that the war crimes that were commited by the allies have never been brought to justice or even worse have been transformed to heroic acts
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagashaki was made not so much for a quicker closure of the war but mainly for experimentation because they knew the destructive power of the nuclear bombs only theoretically and not practically.
Now for the genocide of the native american populations it has never been officialy accepted but hey these people were nearly extincted from the Spanish and the English with a pretty systematic effort and this continues to our days especially for the american indians. (concentration camps sorry i meant encampments :rolleyes: isolation)

Interesting that Americans do not see this as genocide, or even an atrocity of such great scale. Yet the facts cannot be denied: atomic bombs were dropped on two cities that practically decimated it in seconds. They were dropped on civilians, not military targets. Some people like to say it's to put an end to the war, but why weren't they dropped on military targets? The observation made was right: when the victors write history, it is an heroic, not a cowardly and dastardly, act. And up to this time, talking to those who defend the actions, I still fail to see how the explanation that it ended the war justifies the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, and the continued deaths years later by those who were affected by the blasts. Indeed, if Americans ask Japan to apologize for Pearl Harbor, shouldn't America as well make an example by apologizing for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty one... I am become Death, the shatterer of worlds. (J. Robert Oppenheimer)

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1914/19140750.htm

Oppenheimer was perhaps the most troubled by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On August 17, 1945, he wrote to Henry Stimson, the Secretary of War: "The safety of this nation, as opposed to its ability to inflict damage on an enemy power - cannot lie wholly or entirely in its scientific or technical prowess. It can only be based on making future wars impossible."

He was opposed to the development of the H-bomb and said: "I find myself in profound anguish over the fact that no ethical discussion of any weight or nobility has been addressed to the problem of atomic weapons... What are we to make of a civilisation which has always regarded ethics an essential part of human life, and which has always had in it an articulate, deep, fervent conviction... a dedication to... doing no harm or hurt... what are we to think of such a civilisation which has not been able to talk about killing almost everybody, except in prudential and game-theoretical terms."

Near the end of his life, Oppenheimer expressed mixed feelings about the atomic bombings:

"I have no remorse about the making of the bomb and Trinity . That was done right. As for how we used it, I understand why it happened and appreciate with what nobility those men with whom I'd worked made their decision. But I do not have the feeling that it was done right. The ultimatum to Japan was full of pious platitudes. ...our government should have acted with more foresight and clarity in telling the world and Japan what the bomb meant." (Lansing Lamont, Day of Trinity, pg. 332-333). I don't see it as genocide. It is an war atrocity. It was pure Machiavelli. 2 of the main reasionings I stated above. There were more reasionings involved. It wasn't honorable nor was it necessary to end the war. The bombing was a means of Realpolitik, to achieve far more goals, than simply ending the war.

They were dropped on civilians, not military targets.
A "military target" would be, at maximum, the size of a large hospital. Granted I'm not familiar with military factories but is it really a good plan to fire an A-bomb at something the size of a large hospital. Not only would you destroy the target but you would also devastate every village in several hundred kilometers.

Well, that again depends on the size of the bomb - not every nuke is a 25 MT monster. But anyway, nukes aren't without reason called "waepons of mass destruction".

I can hardly call hospitals military targets in fact there are under no circumstances military targets. But the A-bomb even if it dropped on the empty sea would cause a major destruction considering the radiation and the Tsunamis it would create.
And the two bombs that were dropped in WWII were not so powerfull as the new ones. As for the small destructive power A-bombs the problem remains it's not the people only that are affected the nature is also and as far as i know the nature has not gone into war with anyone yet :(

I still have to take issue with the usage of the word "genocide" in this context. Genocide means that you are out to completely wipe a race off the face of the planet. If the goal of the nukes had been that, tney would have dropped a few more. They didn't. I'll go with mass murder, maybe, but "genocide" is a hot-button word that has no bearing on what actually happened. A huge number of Japanese were killed, but the death toll, both projected by the Americans beforehand and the real one that came after, that death toll never came anywhere close to being one that would wipe out the Japanese race or culture.

Any sophistry trying to make this event into "genocide" reminds me of Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean!"

[ May 05, 2003, 23:55: Message edited by: Depaara ]

I completely agree with Depaara (for once :D ;) ). It wasn't genocide, it was a war atrocity, mass-murderer. (I know I state nothing new, but I am happy to agree for once :D ).

Depaara wrote:
... reminds me of Humptry Dumptry in Alice in Wonderland.It's Humpty Dumpty, dammit! :p

AGGH! Caught by the Typo demon. I'll go fix that right now!

The bombings weren'y by definition genocide. It was quite tragic though. It's always difficult to justify sacrificing a life, much more tens of thousands for what is believed to be a greater loss of life.

reminds me of Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland Humpty Dumpty was in Alice in Wonderland (or more accurately, Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There)? I always thought he was originally from Mother Goose. I guess I was wrong.