Genocide or normal act of war

Remove all ads!

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 ]

 

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

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

 

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]

 

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?)

 

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:

And you decide that with a bias argument?

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

 

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?