(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4227956&forum_id=2#37982465)

no hope for the so called concervaheroes on this board

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4227956&forum_id=2#37982664)

and if Hiroshima was a war crime then so was 100x other bombing campaigns in Japan and Germany. which means you’d be okay with trying thousands of officers and politicians for these crimes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4227956&forum_id=2#37982682)

Surely if we are going to consider the morality of the act - we have to take into consideration the context surrounding the act? I.e. it would have cost far more JAPANESE lives had we not dropped the atomic bomb - not just operation downfall but even purely in comparison to just continuing the regular firebombing.

Also surely you're familiar with the line of thought that spread among military theorists after the Napoleonic Wars and U.S. Civil War - that the worst atrocity in war is actually having a war drag out year after year after year - such that it was actually more humane to perform some shock and awe campaign and knock your enemy out fast rather than have the war drag on which was bad for anyone.

But then this leads to the very act of waging war - is it in any way moral to start hamstringing your military with restrictions while engaged in warfare with an enemy who has no (or fewer) restrictions? Does it not at least boil down to a tradeoff of your side's military lives versus the enemy's civilian lives that you're forced to "morally quantify"?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4227956&forum_id=2#37985293)

What would be the moral strategy then? Weren't the Japanese at the very least an extreme case when we're finding Japanese soldiers in the jungles all the way into the 1970's still fighting for the emperor / still fighting ww2?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4227956&forum_id=2#37985299)

A power bent on world domination made war on their corner of the planet, then declared total war on us via a sneak attack. They acted without mercy and casually murdered everybody who stood in their way. Literally every member of their empire was a part of the war effort-- women and children were making war materials at home. Japan had the opportunity to accept the Postdam Declaration prior to the bombs being dropped and declined to do so. If they make the choice to die for their empire, then we had little choice but to keep fighting.

And after we finally save the world and defeat this monstrous power... they want to whine and complain that the bomb we used to end their reign of terror was too big and scary? Get the fuck out of here with that shit. Hypothetically, had American scientists invented a button that would incinerate the entire island of Japan and destroy every living thing on it, we would have been 100% justified in pushing it and just using the island of Japan as a landfill. Japan got off amazingly easy. Their emperor especially got off easy, he should have been executed by hanging or, at best, executed by firing squad.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4227956&forum_id=2#37982705)

lol @ catholic cucks trying to make this a guilt thing

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4227956&forum_id=2#37982748)

Just look at what the US was doing with oil transports in the pacific leading up to it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4227956&forum_id=2#37984393)

Or at least it appeared it would save millions of lives. I don’t believe the “they were going to surrender anyway” argument. But it didn’t appear that way from the outside. They rebuffed all surrender negotiations.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4227956&forum_id=2#37982823)

Why don’t you argue if it’s moral to tactically nuke the Chinese or the Iranians, that’s far more relevant. WW2 was 75 yrs ago. It’s ancient thistory.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4227956&forum_id=2#37982995)

John Dower's "War Without Mercy" is pretty good, too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4227956&forum_id=2#37985142)

not that fire-bombing the cities wouldn't have had an equal (or worse) result in terms of body count. but i do think there are additional factors that have to be counted in any fair analysis of whether the overall decision was "moral", putting aside the issue of "war-crimes" per se.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4227956&forum_id=2#37985254)

The question of whether any of these things are war crimes is laughable jewbait imo.

I'm WWII both sides engaged in atrocities. The extent to which we have educated lawyers on here arguing as to the better quality of American atrocity is scary as to its orwellian implications.

Winners decide what's a war crime. U.s. won so no these were not war crimes.

Recognize that any argument that ARE unspeakable atrocities (fire bombing and nuking children in the name of economic hegemony in the Pacific) was necessary to aid the war effort is equally applicable and as valid reasoning for anything the axis powers did.

Failure to recognize the above demonstrates a lack of objective understanding of wwii

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4227956&forum_id=2#37985679)

hopefully some of you weird dorks have to face a life or death situation at some point in your lives so you can at least begin to grasp the condition of biological life

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4227956&forum_id=2#37988207)

I'd reckon that using a WMD indiscriminately in a way that causes mass civilian death would qualify as a war crime under some definition as it should if we are going to have a thing called a war crime.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4227956&forum_id=2#37988259)