Was it a war crime?

Was it a war crime?

Yes, as was the entire bombing campaigns on both Japan and Germany.
But we won so who gives a shit.

In short, yes because it intentionally destroyed civilian infrastructure and killed civilians, but that doesn't inherently make it bad in a war, because all things war are bad (weapons are cool tho)

According to libertarian theory, any type of indiscriminate mass bombing is criminal.

Rothbard in War, Peace and the State:

"Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification."

Nukes are not real, never were dropped. Ask yourself why the two cities purportedly bombed were guns of Christianity. It was a propaganda piece, Japan wanted out of the war and even became are allies immediately following it. Don't believe the lies

Maybe you shouldn't start wars you can't win?

"War crime" is a Jew-inspired meme. All is fair in love and war.

yes, you fucking yanks didnt finish the job

>We
The only true victors of WW2 are Jews. Are you a Jew?

I could care less about the deaths of 300,000 person. The ENTIRE PLANET was put under the grips of the Jews in that War. Even a number as large as 300,00 is nothing compared to that fact.

Maybe you shouldn't murder tens of thousands of non-combatants who have nothing to do with the war.

they were all combatants lol

Actually non-combatants most definitely have to do with total wars. They maintain the economy, give birth to new soldiers, among many things...

>start
Roosevelt started the trade war. Being deprived of oil is a death sentence.

Yes, because it should have bombed on Germany instead of Japan.

Sounds like a nip problem to me.

navy or chair force, which are you?

Uhm americans taking blame? Blame Albert the Jewstein. I dont know why these fat americans are proud of this shit. They also have a scapegoat. Ameritards.

So a newborn baby is a combatant? Housewives, retired old people, disabled people?

This is al Qaeda logic. Any American civilian is free game because we work and pay taxes for the American government. According to you, no killing in war is impermissible in war whatsoever.

ya they were all learning how to fight american soldiers in the event of an invasion. The army was telling ppl to use muskets and kitchen knives as weapons.

First nuke, no.
Second nuke, Maybe.

Got their act straight in the end so yeah.

Of course not exterminating 2 cities is not crime

Nice al Qaeda mentality there. Americans are no better than terrorists.

nice non argument

Actually, scratch that. America is worse than al Qaeda because our crimes are on a much larger scale.

Not nuking them more was a war crime.

Only if we had lost

It saved a lot more lives than it cost. Plus, who's going to punish the sole nuclear power in the world with "war crime" charges? Good luck.

>war
>object of game is to kill other player
>oh no you killed too hard its crime
fucking white people

statism is a war crime

ITT Americans are bootlicking sheep who blindly accept government propaganda and rationalize anything their government does. It's funny that they perceive Japanese people as being such when they themselves exemplify that description more than anybody else in the world.

ASHES FOR THE ANGLO

I'd say yes. They did aim for cities and not military bases.

...

They started it

according to who?

...

No, I wouldn't say so.

Neither De Jure or De Facto.

Sounds just like al Qaeda.

You sound just like fart after Taco Bell.

America is the law.

Quote by whm?

Fuck no.

uncle Sam.
From the same book where it said Saddam has secret hidden nuclear weapons

Yes, it was completly unnecessary.

Japan had been looking to make a peace for a couple of years before that, BUT the allies demanded:

* Unconditional surrender. That means to give up any weapons without any guarantees.
* Holding subjecting Hirohito to war crimes trials and possibly executing him. Hirohito would have been the leader responsible for agreeing to any peace terms.

I think that people could have looked at the way the allies conducted the war, and they could have seen that bad things were going to happen to them if the allies won. So, even after Midway (battle of 1942 were Japan lost most of its aircraft carriers), the Japanese continued to fight on without any real hope, but in desperation hoping to somehow be able to extract some sensible peace terms from the allies.

Oh yea, I forgot. After the USA dropped the atomic bombs, they made the peace terms more sensible and stopped demanding the execution of Hirohito.

They just kept the war going so that they could use this to do human experimentation on a mass scale with the war as an excuse.

No. By the summer of 1945 Japan was arming grade-school children with spears and training them to commit suicidal banzai charges to resist the expected American invasion.
The atom bombs saved countless lives, on both sides.

You know they attacked the US first, right?

Its not like we went to them and said "hey buddy, surrender to us although we're allies and give us your weapons" and then bombed them...

Just so you know, the good guys won. The dresden bombing was necessary and 1000% justified. The nazis deserved everything they got.

Bye now.

/leaves thread

>country surrenders
>lel we need to bomb them now

If you were a citizen in North Korea, you would believe the North Korean propaganda about Americans. You fall for dehumanization propaganda so easily.

it was a crime we didnt use more

Yes, Goering was right about that one.

Of course it was a war crime. And a sin against The Holy Spirit.
Fuckin corrupt, satanic assholes.

One of the biggest atrocities in the history of mankind.

Not necessarily worse than firebombing.
100,000 people died in the firebombings of Tokyo before the a-bombs.

Could be allied propaganda, like Germans eating babies in ww1 and Germans making lamp shades out of Jewish skin in ww2.

>I don't understand Total War

Ashes for the Anglo!

Nothin personal kid

Show your real flag, Leaf.

>Was it a war crime?
As much as having nuked Japan bothers me because I'm a weeaboo, they had it coming. It's not a war crime to wage effective warfare or have more powerful weapons. It's irresponsible to use nuclear weapons at all, but, no, I don't consider their use during WW2 criminal.

Wrong, Moscow should've been nuked.

We got the requisite number of kills required for a tactical nuke, so no. Don't you understand video games?

I'm not 100% sure about that. Many of the pictures that show the results of the attack and sailors and civilians, show them acting to casually.

Anyways, the United States has been at war almost non-stop since its founding. It has without a doubt started most wars it has been involved in. Do you think it would be fair to kill limitless American civilians because of that?