Should the nuclear bombing of japan in WW2 be considered a war crime?

@VeronicaJane

How does that fact that it was a declared war mitigate the fact that tens of thousands of men, women and children were bombed and irradiated?

@Pikachu it differs is that WWII was a declared war, as opposed to the attacks on the NYC WTC.

As far as the casualties, estimares were that it would have been significantly higher if a land invasion had been executed.

Defense of the home islands street by street, building by building. Defended by the same, or even greater tenacity than Iwo Jima.

Was it the right decision, only God knows.

@VeronicaJane

Comparisons to the world trade center are totally irrelevant because they have no bearing on whether or not this should be considered a war crime.

So the rhetoric was that they would fight street by street. Who knows how that actually would have gone.
What DID happen was that tens of thousands of innocent people were blown up an irradiated. People ready to fight, people afraid to fight, pregnant women, children in their schools, old folks in bed. Burnt to irradiated glass.

How can that be considered anything but a war crime?
why should it NOT be considered a war crime on the basis that the americans didn't want to send their troops in?

The consideration was that there would be fewer casualties both Japanese and American.

Of course, you could always rewrite history to say that the peace-loving Japanese suffered a surprise nuclear attack.

@VeronicaJane

Let's assume that was a genuine conclusion and not an excuse to show off to the russians.
So based on a hypothetical scenario where it might have been worse, it is then acceptable and not a crime to burn innocent men, women and children.
Make you case.


I have no idea what you hoped to accomplish with this puerile statement.
I am not trying to re-write history and whether or not the attack was a surprise has NO bearing on whether it should be considered a war crime.
"fair warning" does not excuse the mass murder of civilians.