"like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima" - Americas Iraq Attack Plan

yellum

"Shock and Awe" tactics they're calling em. Guess the word Blitzkrieg was taken.

Read this from a few news sources:
here ,CBS src here andCommon Dreams src here

800 cruise missiles smacking into Iraq in the space of 48 hours. Thats one every 4 minutes. Twice as many as were deployed over the last Gulf War which took 40 days. Thats going to get CNN's ratings back up.

Ullman told CBS reporter David Martin. So “you take the city down. You get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."

Lemming

From here

The main objective was not just to disable Iraq's fighting capacity but to leave the population dispirited and unwilling to support Saddam's regime.

Didn't Hitler try this on the English during the Blitz in 1940? Wow .. that was a success. War (or Terror Attacks) does funny things to the mindset of a nation that you can't predict Like perhaps the US after 9/11 when Al Queda wanted them to quake in their boots and do nothing?

But seriously though, do they think the Iraqi people are going to hail the US as saviours after that? No water, No power, disease rampant in Baghdad?


From here

He wants to do to Baghdad what we did to Hiroshima.

Nobody in their RIGHT MIND should want to inflict another "Hiroshima" on the world. That name stands as a testimant to why fission weapons should never again be used. They are not military weapons. They are designed to kill civilians - to anhilate population centres. To even aspire to do something "similar" is the work of a very warped mind.

rien_du_tout

Something I've been asking myself from a young(er) age......... .Could the atomic bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagisaki be considered war crimes of some sort?? I think that the infliction of so many civilian deaths makes it seem like it could, although I dont understand the legal definition of a war crime or whatever. It has to be up there with the worst moments of human civilisation.

seán

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hellrazer

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
Something I've been asking myself from a young(er) age......... .Could the atomic bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagisaki be considered war crimes of some sort?? I think that the infliction of so many civilian deaths makes it seem like it could, although I dont understand the legal definition of a war crime or whatever. It has to be up there with the worst moments of human civilisation.

seán

It seems to me like the whole world has forgotten that the US was/is the only country to have ever used not one but two Nuclear weapons in a conflict.
The atrocities of Nagisaki and Hiroshima should have been treated as crimes agains humanity.It will never happen though because of who it was that carried it out.The US is wrong trying to police the planet and they wont even listen to the UNs ruling.In most cases willing to go it alone against these "rogue states".Its the US that needs sanctioning not the Iraqis.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hellrazer

Originally posted by daveirl
Oh for christ's sake. Can the Anti-Americanism. Yes Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible events but come on the US were the good guys. The world was at war with pure evil. The Japanese were as bad as the Nazi. Just look up Unit 731 if you want to see about War Crimes. My god, I'm not a big fan of US foreign policy at the moment but come on, they saved all of our asses in WW 2

Too right Im "slightly":) anti-US.
Im talking about the number of innocent civilians killed by those two Atomic bombs.If it had only been the murderous Japanese army that were killed then fine but it wasnt.
It was mainly civilians.
Its also the case with Iraq.
Im all for the ousting of Sadam but not at the expense of innocent children who by the way are still dying from the depleted uranium weapons that were used in Gulf War 1.
Come on FFS the US still wont give the Iraqis enough medicine to treat their kids leukemia.So dont start all this Im all for the US crap.The US are the ones at fault here and given half a chance they`ll bomb Iraq with more cluster bombs,depleted uranium weapons etc.
Richie.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hellrazer

Originally posted by daveirl
And how would you have gone about winning WW2. It took the atomic bomb for them to surrender.

I dont have an opinion on how the war should have been won.It definately should not have involved Atomic bombs.
It was still at the loss of massive civilian life.Thats my point nothing more nothing less.
Besides I think any country would have surrendered after that.
Dave would your attitude still be the same if the US had dropped the bombs on German soil rather than Japanese soil????I think not.Just because its on the other side of the globe it doesnt seem to effect us here in the West.Similar situation in Iraq."Its in the middle east so I dont really care" seems to be the attitude of many in the west.
Richie

KdjaCL

Originally posted by daveirl
And how would you have gone about winning WW2. It took the atomic bomb for them to surrender.

At the rate the US were moving tru the Pacific surrendering was the easy way out.
They still had enough troops and weaponary to fight on for a long time in the pacific but they constantly being pushed back, the general consensus among the japanese was that the US would have gotten to Tokyo eventually and by surrendering they knocked that on the head.

Also with the fall of the rest of the Axis and other factors whether those Nukes were used or not ,the war was being lost on all fronts by the Axis so i have to agree they should not have been dropped on civilian cities.

Germany had fallen before the japs surrendered so it was only a matter of time and with the excess troops US had stationed in Europe and also the rest of the Allies Japan really had no choice and no hope of winning.

kdjac

Clintons Cat

"Shock and Awe" tactics they're calling em. Guess the word Blitzkrieg was taken.

Reading that article
The term that comes to my mind is "Gunboat Diplomacy"
Ie send a Gunboat to Shell some renagade tribal village and the rebelllious tribes will concede to the overwhelming technological supremacy.

m1ke

the nuclear strikes on japan were an act of pure malice, coldy calculated

1. The option of contacting japan and showing japanese scientists a test version of bomb, and saying surrender or we'll use this on you was debated and dropped.

2. The Japanese were going to surrender anyway but the Americans wanted an "unconditional" surrender and the Japanese feared for their sovereignty and didn't want their emperor to be deposed.

3. The term "unconditional" surrender was actually used mistakenly by Roosevelt in a press conference, and to keep face and not look like a chicken he had to continue using it. This also forced Churchill to use the term too so not as to show a split. This effectively cut of all negotiations accidently.

So America could have avoided dropping the Bomb but they just wanted a fast and easy way out. Infact I think simply showing Japanese scientists a nuke go off in the Nevada desert(or wherever they do it) would be enough to secure their surrender.

ykt0di9url7bc3

gl Bush...have fun and place nice


<Saddam>"But I'm ready for him!"

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl
come on, they saved all of our asses in WW 2

So winning the war for the good guys should excuse any atrocities comitted? This is effectively what you're trying to argue here.

I'm not saying Nagasaki and Hiroshima were atrocities, but there is penty of evidence to indicate that the "generally held" belief of them saving lives is, at the very least, suspect - which should be sufficient enough grounds for at least an investigation.

It is possible for both sides in a war to commit atrocities.

ncidentally, I believe Greenpeace or Earthwatch or some such organisation has come out and stated that the deliberate targetting of water and electrical supplies which affect civilian areas in a nation which has a resource network of such low quality already would certainly constitute a war-crime, as the impact on the populace would be devestating.

Nice to see that its being touted here as a favoured tactic.

jc

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by daveirl
Going OT: But its generally accepted that far more would have died in the War in the Pacific if it had continued on instead of being ended by the nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I'd almost agree with u there Dave. It was thought that sacrificing a load of Japs would be better than getting their good lads killed. I dont want any1 to be killed but people in uniform 1st please. (ya know I mean soldiers and not firemen or nursing or something:)

Also it was a sign of power to Russia. It was not absolutely necessary, ok there's a case for it but just because the allies were the good guys generally doesnt mean they couldnt have done bad things. The dropping of the atomic bomb has to been seen as the lowest point humanity has ever gone to. Killing eachother is bad enough, but in that manner, inexcusable. They made a moral choice and I definetly dont agree with it but hey, history is written by the winners, and I dont believe my view is "anti-american" in the racist way u imply. I admire many americans but not any person who orders the deaths of innocents, for whatever reason.

seán

Sand

I dont think the Japanese would surrender so readily as perhaps the germans did when it became obvious they couldnt win - even then the german high command fought on to the very last street in Berlin. As for the Japanese they had a completely different culture which regarded kamikazies as national heroes and spiritually pure yada yada, and they despised their enemies who surrendered because it didnt fit with their samurai ehtos they were getting going with their imperialism - why did you think they treated POWs so badly?

The US believed taking Japans mainland would be a nightmare - Saipan, the only Japanese proper island they took by force ended up with the civillians jumping off cliffs rather than be captured. The Japanese milatary had a proven track record of fighting to practically the very last man. The mountainous terrain of Japan would make any invasion all the harder. The whole Japanese honour thing would mean they wouldnt surrender in any fashion which made them lose face - unless they were "shocked and awed" by something as god awful as atomic bombs. An interesting point to note is that the 2nd bomb was dropped after the first and in that time the Japanese did not surrender - it took a second for them to realise they couldnt combat this.

But they were meant to surrender to movie footage ( lies and propaganda no doubt to demoralise us )? Im not to sure thatd happen tbh given the above. As for unconditional surrender? Yes, unconditional surrender is what you look for when you want to prevent the regime continuing in power - why wasnt a conditional surrender arranged for the Germans after D day or the battle of the bulge when it became clear the germans had lost....

Personally the only thing I disagree with about using the bombs is the choice of target - surely a fairly deserted island close to the Japanese coast could have been used a demonstration - but then they didnt surrender after the dropping of the first bomb onto a city so whose to say theyd have been impressed by a deserted island.

Zachary Taylor

I admire many americans but not any person who orders the deaths of innocents, for whatever reason.

I don't understand how anyone can fail to have anything but admiration for Harry Truman or General Marshall, considering their careers as a whole. Hiroshima was unspeakably awful, but knowing what we today know about American ability to fight a land war in Asia, particularly with an army that had just halped to conquer Europe, I think that they made the right decision. I would also consider...

http://www.eppc.org/publications/xq/ASP/pubsID.123/qx/pubs_viewdetail.htm

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
An interesting point to note is that the 2nd bomb was dropped after the first

Sorry, bit this cracked me up.

What...you mean the second bomb wasnt dropped before the first? Gosh

Seriously tho...I think you left out a word or two there...you were (I assume) going to point out that there was 3 days between bombs ?

and in that time the Japanese did not surrender - it took a second for them to realise they couldnt combat this.

Well, in fairness, given that this was a never-before-seen weapon, I think it not unreasonable that it would take time to sit back and first of all say "WTF just happened to our city", "Was this some trick", and "What the hell do we do now".

While we may be used to our leaders reacting to world-events literally within hours, I dont think 3 days was a particularly long time to debate something of this magnitude. Imagine the reaction time of any nation today if it lost a city to a never-before-seen weapon? Even if they knew who was responsible, the impact of the introduction of a new weapon with previously-unheard-of power will force any nation to stop and think.

Also...was the first bombing followed by an ultimatum? Along the lines of "you've just seen what we can do, and we will keep doing this unless you surrender - you have 48 hours"?

Personally the only thing I disagree with about using the bombs is the choice of target - surely a fairly deserted island close to the Japanese coast could have been used a demonstration - but then they didnt surrender after the dropping of the first bomb onto a city so whose to say theyd have been impressed by a deserted island.

Absolutely...but surely the onus is on them to have tried?

The acts of WW2 covered no-one in glory. Both sides abandoned the previous doctrine of avoiding civilian targets. Like children with new toys, both sides revelled in heaping any form of destruction on the other side. I'm not suggesting for a moment that this was the only potential war-crime, nor denying that the losing side comitted more than their fair share.

All I am saying is that it is worrying when a military see the acts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a template to copy (in terms of its impact on the people). If any you see those events as a good use of power, then fair enough...you will no doubt support this, but I cannot.

jc


jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Carpo

It should be noted that the only condition that the Japeneese required for their surrender was the provision that the emporer would be unharmed (a condition which was later granted during thier 'unconditional surrender' anyway). It could be siad that the Japeneese could not surrender without this condition as the emperor was practically seen as akin to a god, and more important than the lives of the Japaneese people.

Now the Under Secretary of State at the time (sorry cant think of his name off the top of my head) had been the ambassador to Japan for 10 years prior to the war and should have known this arguably better than anyone else in America. And yet the part of the Pottsdam Declaration, calling for Japans surrender, that said the emporer would be unharmed was edited out just before it was broadcast.

I find it ironic that the comparison between the current situation and this historical event should be made by someone important to the Bush administration, when back then it would seem that a conscious descision was made to persue a military solution without having a real go at a diplomatic one, which I'm sure many people would feel, bares a striking resemblence to the whats happening now.

DeVore

The Emperor actually WAS seen as a god. In fact is wasnt until later that the Emperor rescinded the traditional claim on Godhood.

DeV
ps: Welcome to Boards Carpo

Carpo

ps: Welcome to Boards Carpo

Thank you

Incidentaly I've just been reading this site about the whole event. Very interesting stuff. If anyone wants to know more about the nuclear bombings they should have a read of it.

m1ke

I can find a certain similarity in the fact that America refused to show the Japanese a test case of their nuclear capabilities to let them preview the massive destruction and loss of life a refusal to surrender would mean, and the surrendering issue terms.

They didn't pursue diplomatic routes or possible alternatives to war which would have saved what - 80,000 innocent civilians (I don't know the exact amount). I would accept the Americans arguments that the nuclear bombs saved more lives in relative terms if I knew they had no other possible alternatives...

This same trait I think can be seen by Americas refusal to exhaust diplomatic avenues in the iraw situation. 'War is just a continuation of policy' has never been more true here, a situation where oil would cost 100 dollars a barrel would be an unacceptable scenario for them.

The initial question though: the atomic bombs dropped on "hiroshima and nagisaki be considered war crimes of some sort??" : Who do you pin it on though, no one would accept responsibility for this - The guys who designed the bomb, the president - who can claim he was acting on the advice of the civil service, the guy flying the aeroplane who actually dropped the bomb.

It's this dethacted and distant sort of warefare that makes it easy for war to be a continuation of policy. No one will be ultimately be responsible for the atrocities that might happen in Iraq if it is carpet bombed with 800 missiles in 48 hours.

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by Zachary Taylor
I don't understand how anyone can fail to have anything but admiration for Harry Truman or General Marshall, considering their careers as a whole.

Huh? Ok, so once u stock up a decent number of "being a good boy" points u dont have to make any moral choices anymore, and furthermore those choices cant be argued against!? This seems such silly logic I'll leave it there coz thats obviously not what u meant to imply.

I would also consider...

http://www.eppc.org/publications/xq/ASP/pubsID.123/qx/pubs_viewdetail.htm

Ya I checked out that site, but I dont think its very balanced.

In a just war, and certainly the Allied cause was just, all military action should be designed to destroy the enemy's capacity and will to continue fighting.
Hmmmmm, this leaves too much open for use, me thinks. 1st of all, every1 fighting a war thinks their side is just, generally, and also, it appears to conclude that no line needs to be drawn as where to stop in achieving your goal.

At the bottom of the website points 1 and 2 simply try state the fact that Japan wasnt thinking of surrendering and the fact they were going to resist invasion. Neither of these justify the use of the atomic bomb in my mind. Think back to the start of the war between these 2 countries and I'm sure both were still true, and if the americans had used them then I'm sure every1 would say it saved the lives of countless Chinese and others, etc. But does the fact 1 immoral thing will prevent some1 else murdering make it right?? I dont think so.......and I would have thought the mindset that "the end justifies the means" would have gone long ago.

The last 3 points are again based on the thinking that if I can do something immoral, that will stop something immoral happening to my side then its ok.

seán

Shinji

The victors always get to write history how they choose, don't they?

A lot of the points made about Hiroshima and Nagasaki on both sides here are valid. However, let's not pretend that the Japanese were the only people with imperialist intentions in the Asia Pacific area at the time; the British, the French, the Russians and most of all the Americans had serious expansionist policies in the region. War was just about inevitable; and in reality, there weren't any "good guys", just as there were no "good guys" during the first world war in Europe. In the Pacific, there were horrific atrocities and human rights abuses on both sides - the Japanese were barbaric in their savage treatment of prisoners of war and of the native populations in areas they invaded, but the Americans were terrifyingly complacent about millions of deliberately planned civilian deaths.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the only Japanese cities razed to the ground; they just go down in history because they were the first uses of nuclear weapons in wartime. Casualties in Tokyo were actually higher; on a single warm summer night, the Americans dropped sticks covered in burning tar from a height on the entirely wooden-built residential districts of the city in a circle, so that the flames would spread inwards and nobody would be left alive. There was no military target in the area and the dead were almost entire women, children and the elderly.

The suggestion that the Japanese would never have surrendered because of their culture of Samurai honour is one that's only really made by people who don't understand the Japanese mindset but like to make flippant comments regardless. The fact is that the atomic weapons may have speeded up the Japanese surrender, but it would have occured regardless. In fact, it's a self defeating argument; you say the Japanese would never have surrendered even in the face of overwhelming odds, but yet in the face of overwhelming odds in the form of nukes, they, er, surrendered - proving that however proud, arrogant and brave they may have been, they weren't stupid.

Besides which, I don't honestly believe that protecting the lives of soldiers is a valid excuse for the cold-blooded slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Maybe that's just me, eh? Or maybe the thinking of those defending the act isn't a million miles off the thinking of those who ordered it; namely, that they're only nips, so who cares really?

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by daveirl
Going OT: But its generally accepted that far more would have died in the War in the Pacific if it had continued on instead of being ended by the nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Perhaps
But they would have more than likely be military deaths and not innocient civilians...

yellum

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
Perhaps
But they would have more than likely be military deaths and not innocient civilians...

Uhm, why are soldiers not innocent anymore. Trained killers they may be but jesus a lot of em were drafted or pressured or brainwashed into fighting for their country. All life is equally precious surely, or are some more equal than others ?

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by yellum
Uhm, why are soldiers not innocent anymore. Trained killers they may be but jesus a lot of em were drafted or pressured or brainwashed into fighting for their country. All life is equally precious surely, or are some more equal than others ?

yes actually

Men(only males are conscripted unless you're an israeli) are expendable. Females and Children aren't. They can produce more members of society while men jsut help to build it...

Soldiers whether conscripted or not are going to be attacking YOU(the traditional enemy). Civilians will not be. Soldiers aren't innocient. They are part of a collective force that is aimed at your destruction.
Civilians just have views.

Chaos-Engine

And another thing.

I would have prefared twice as much soldiers to have died in WW2 than to have seen the hateful attacks on Japan with the use of the Atomic Bomb... Indiscriment Killing ...

Men, Women, Children, Hospitals, schools.. an entire city ffs

Pearl habour was a Military base!!

Moriarty

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
yes actually

Men(only males are conscripted unless you're an israeli) are expendable. Females and Children aren't. They can produce more members of society while men jsut help to build it...

Uhm... No. Im no less valuable than a woman or child, thanks very much. Children are not some other-wordly lifeform that suddenly metamorphose into nasty adults. I see no difference between men and women in the terms we are talking about either. Note: I am not saying that children are valid targets in war, im simply saying that no person is expendable, be it man woman or child. I would suggest that your thinking is antiquated.

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
Soldiers whether conscripted or not are going to be attacking YOU(the traditional enemy). Civilians will not be. Soldiers aren't innocient. They are part of a collective force that is aimed at your destruction.
Civilians just have views.

This is cods-wollop. During the draft in the US/UK, any man not in a protected industry (mining, etc) was forced to take up arms. When a draft is in effect the difference between the majority of the armed forces and civilians is blurred at best. Please remember that every able-bodied person contributed to the overall war effort. All the women began working in factorys, public transport and all the other previously male-dominated areas, fueling the war economy. Civilians had far more than views, they actively participated in the continuation of the war on both sides.

Many soldiers that were drafted hated the very idea of going to war, but according to your thinking, simply because their government forced them to participate they are no longer innocent.

There is no black and white, only varying shades of grey.

Moriarty

whoops, forgot this reply and too lazy to edit it in..

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
And another thing.

I would have prefared twice as much soldiers to have died in WW2 than to have seen the hateful attacks on Japan with the use of the Atomic Bomb... Indiscriment Killing ...

Men, Women, Children, Hospitals, schools.. an entire city ffs

Pearl habour was a Military base!!

This is simply nonsensical. If twice as many soldiers had died, those same people and citys that you would be saving from nagasaki and hiroshima would die and be destroyed many times over, with possibly even more cities being leveled with the continuation of conventional warfare.

Men(only males are conscripted unless you're an israeli) are expendable. Females and Children aren't. They can produce more members of society while men jsut help to build it...

In World War 2, under american forces, in Japan there were women serving within the armed forces. Nurses & Doctors, are part of the army too. Soldiers have just as much right to life as any other person in the world. Just because they wear a uniform, doesn't make them any less human.

I would have prefared twice as much soldiers to have died in WW2 than to have seen the hateful attacks on Japan with the use of the Atomic Bomb... Indiscriment Killing ...

You got to be joking. With that comment you're judging the worth of the lives that these soldiers led, before & after the war.

Pearl habour was a Military base!!

Pearl Harbour was a military base set into a populated area, during peacetime. Any attack on the area, would be guaranteed to deal damage to civilian areas. Just as the bombings of London, and Berlin did.

Back to the main thread subject ---

The main objective was not just to disable Iraq's fighting capacity but to leave the population dispirited and unwilling to support Saddam's regime.

Obviously Bush has never read any books about Stalingrad. Hitler had a similiar idea, using artillery (both ground and airbourne), to batter the city into surrender, and then sent troops in. I think we all know what happened. Its quite plausible that a similiar result could happen to american forces sent into that area.

One other point.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," a Pentagon official told America's CBS News after a briefing on the plan. "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before."

Do they realise just how many civilians will die as a result, & do they care? I wonder will, if this goes badly wrong, will any country out there have the balls to indict Bush & his administration for war-crimes? (for this could easily turn into a blood-bath)

Victor

The concept of "shock and awe" is right, however I'm not sure if it will work in this case. Deprive me of food, water, sewage removal, electricity and my net connection for a week and I would suffer hugely, someone without these would not suffer their loss. I don't think the doctrine appreciates this.

However, something similar did work in 1991. The Iraqi front lines were bombed for a month. Damage and injury were of secondary purpose. The main objective was to disrupt communication, deprive sleep and instill fear. In this type of scenario "shock and awe" has / could work.
The docudrama Hiroshima was on TV3 last week. It appeared to be quite balanced and went into a lot of the different “why”s and “whynot”s.

Originally posted by Sand
Personally the only thing I disagree with about using the bombs is the choice of target - surely a fairly deserted island close to the Japanese coast could have been used a demonstration - but then they didnt surrender after the dropping of the first bomb onto a city so whose to say theyd have been impressed by a deserted island.

They were afraid if they told the Japanese were informed of the target in advance (1) an effort would have been made to counter the attack (2) the Japanese would have moved POWs to the site and (3) they were afraid if the attack failed they would look foolish and have provided the Japanese with enough uranium / plutonium for their own bomb.

Originally posted by Carpo
It should be noted that the only condition that the Japeneese required for their surrender was the provision that the emporer would be unharmed (a condition which was later granted during thier 'unconditional surrender' anyway). It could be siad that the Japeneese could not surrender without this condition as the emperor was practically seen as akin to a god, and more important than the lives of the Japaneese people.

There were factions, particularly in the Army (the Navy faction having lost much of it's military strength), that also wanted other conditions, like no occupation and that the Japanese would disarm themselves.

Originally posted by m1ke
They didn't pursue diplomatic routes or possible alternatives to war which would have saved what - 80,000 innocent civilians (I don't know the exact amount).

Diplomatic routes were pursued, but the Americans misunderstood a posture statement along the lines of "we didn't hear your (the American) offer" (in the hope of a better offer) directed by the Japanese leadership at the Japanese Army. The Russians (not at war with Japan) also led the Japanese along as a possible mediator, all the while planning to breach their (USSR-Japan) non-aggression treaty.

Originally posted by m1ke
This same trait I think can be seen by Americas refusal to exhaust diplomatic avenues in the ira[q] situation. 'War is just a continuation of policy'

Perhaps, the precedence threshold is too low with the Americans. War is almost "normal" to them.

Originally posted by m1ke
The initial question though: the atomic bombs dropped on "hiroshima and nagisaki be considered war crimes of some sort??" : Who do you pin it on though, no one would accept responsibility for this - The guys who designed the bomb, the president - who can claim he was acting on the advice of the civil service, the guy flying the aeroplane who actually dropped the bomb. It's this dethacted and distant sort of warefare that makes it easy for war to be a continuation of policy. No one will be ultimately be responsible for the atrocities that might happen in Iraq if it is carpet bombed with 800 missiles in 48 hours.

Actually everyone from a government down to the lowest officer is responsible for a war crime they have been involved in. They are all meant to be able to make the distinction (this onus does not rest on NCOs and ordinary soldiers).

Originally posted by Shinji
The victors always get to write history how they choose, don't they?

Usually, yes.

Originally posted by Shinji
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the only Japanese cities razed to the ground; they just go down in history because they were the first uses of nuclear weapons in wartime. Casualties in Tokyo were actually higher; on a single warm summer night, the Americans dropped sticks covered in burning tar from a height on the entirely wooden-built residential districts of the city in a circle, so that the flames would spread inwards and nobody would be left alive. There was no military target in the area and the dead were almost entire women, children and the elderly.

I understand they were actually a bit lower at 85,000 - not that that is acceptable either. The argument equally applies to Dresden (considered a 'safe' city where there was an agreement whereby the British wouldn't bomb Dresden and the Germans wouldn't bomb Cambridge(?), due to their historical merits – the Americans didn’t feel bound by this). It raises the question is one incident of 1,000 being killed worse than 1,000 incidents of 1 person being killed.

Originally posted by Shinji
The suggestion that the Japanese would never have surrendered because of their culture of Samurai honour is one that's only really made by people who don't understand the Japanese mindset but like to make flippant comments regardless.

Actually, there was a split among the Japanese as to what to do. Many military officers were gung-ho and some even tried to stage a coup. However, others recognized that an early surrender would have allowed them get better terms and allow them retain the army and parts of the empire.

Originally posted by Shinji
Besides which, I don't honestly believe that protecting the lives of soldiers is a valid excuse for the cold-blooded slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

All to often war “economics” is down to saving lives, not taking them, unfortunately all to often it is only saving lives of your own that is taken into account.

Originally posted by klaz
In World War 2, under american forces, in Japan there were women serving within the armed forces. Nurses & Doctors, are part of the army too.

The nurses and doctors generally would have worn the Red Cross and not carried or used weapons (personal / self defence may be another matter).

Originally posted by klaz
Soldiers have just as much right to life as any other person in the world. Just because they wear a uniform, doesn't make them any less human.

Fair point, but if hypothetically you had the “choice” of having to have one of the following shot at (someone must be shot at), which would you choose? A male soldier, a male Red Cross worker, an elderly civilian, a civilian male adult, a civilian female adult, a child, a pregnant civilian female (the list would be my order of priority). However, two soldiers are worth more than one child.

Originally posted by klaz
Pearl Harbour was a military base set into a populated area, during peacetime. Any attack on the area, would be guaranteed to deal damage to civilian areas. Just as the bombings of London, and Berlin did.

Well the rules of war say you shouldn’t have military forces in a civilian area. Pearl Harbor is a huge sprawling area and most of the damage was to military targets. The harbour wasn’t the only thing attacked either, several airfields were attacked. The Americans were aware of the Japanese declaration of war at the time of the attack.

http://ww2archives.net/images/maps/map-pearl-harbor.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/pearl-harbor-fig3.gif

Originally posted by klaz
Any attack on the area, would be guaranteed to deal damage to civilian areas. Just as the bombings of London, and Berlin did.

At Pearl Harbor the Japanese were attacking military targets, they were not engaged in the nighttime, carpet-bombing of a city or civilian port.

Originally posted by klaz
Obviously Bush has never read any books about Stalingrad. Hitler had a similiar idea, using artillery (both ground and airbourne), to batter the city into surrender, and then sent troops in. I think we all know what happened. Its quite plausible that a similiar result could happen to american forces sent into that area.

Quite possible yes, but hopefully they will learn from Hitler’s mistakes (fighting too many battles at the same time, bombing whole cities instead of selected targets).

Originally posted by klaz
Do they realise just how many civilians will die as a result,

They will have estimates, but these will have huge variations.

Originally posted by klaz
& do they care?

Only partly.

Originally posted by klaz
I wonder will, if this goes badly wrong, will any country out there have the balls to indict Bush & his administration for war-crimes?

Unlikely, but you never know.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

The nurses and doctors generally would have worn the Red Cross and not carried or used weapons (personal / self defence may be another matter).

Actually, the US, along with most nations at that time had doctors, nurses, & priests as part of their armies. Priests served on the frontline with regiments. weapons were not part of their uniforms, however they drew army wages, and wore the uniform of their respective nations/armies

Fair point, but if hypothetically you had the “choice” of having to have one of the following shot at (someone must be shot at), which would you choose? A male soldier, a male Red Cross worker, an elderly civilian, a civilian male adult, a civilian female adult, a child, a pregnant civilian female (the list would be my order of priority). However, two soldiers are worth more than one child.

This is totally based on the perceptions & culture from which you're from. Every person will have a different answer, excepting that the child should be saved, since most cultures believe that children are the future. However every person you listed in that list has an equal right to life, regardless of the occupation that they have.

but if hypothetically you had the “choice” of having to have one of the following shot at (someone must be shot at),

I suppose i should answer, since you asked. I'd probably choose the elderly civilian. Who would you choose, knowing that each of them would continue their lives, performing the "greater good", if they weren't to be shot?

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
You got to be joking. With that comment you're judging the worth of the lives that these soldiers led, before & after the war.

No - what he's saying is that war is supposed to be between the warriors. It is not supposed to be about winning by bringing the general populace to its knees.

While there is some degree of justification for inflicting civilian casualties whilst attacking a military objective, there is nothing which can excuse any military attacking civilians.

In fact, in most recent threads here which have questioned what terrorism is, the general consensus is that it is the deliberate targetting of civilian rather than military targets.

In this respect, I would much rather have seen more soldiers and fewer civilians dieing - it would have meant that even though the world was at war, it had still held on to some of his higher principles.

However, one must also consider with many nations exercised some form of mandatory enlistment or Draft, and thus its soldiers were no more involved in the war by choice then the civilians were.

Pearl Harbour was a military base set into a populated area, during peacetime. Any attack on the area, would be guaranteed to deal damage to civilian areas.

Sure, but at least there was a valid military target which was being attacked. Again, this is what definitely clarifies the distinction between an operation designed to inflict military losses, and an operation designed to subjugate and terrorise the people.

Put simply, if you live near a military installation, you must accept that you are a prime "sideline casualty" suspect in the event of military action. This is not true of someone living in a regular flat in a regular street in a regular city.

Also, was it not the Americans who bombed state buildings containing creche's in Eastern Europe (or was it the Middle East?), and taking the line that "human shields" could not be used to deter a military strike against a valid target. This is hte same nation who condemned 9/11, Palestinian bombings etc. as cowardly attacks on a populace by those who are too craven to be willing to engage in anything but terrorist activities.

If this is the US line, then the only conclusion is that the bombing on Pearl Harbour was justified as a first-strike manouever, which attacked a military target and was not deterred by the Human Shield of residential area around it. The firebombing of Tokyo, and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on the other hand, are not justifiable in the same way.

Back to the main thread subject ---

Cough....good idea. I'd better do the same before Gandalf gives out to me (again) for going off topic.

Do they realise just how many civilians will die as a result, & do they care? I wonder will, if this goes badly wrong, will any country out there have the balls to indict Bush & his administration for war-crimes? (for this could easily turn into a blood-bath)

The question of civilian deaths is such an ambiguous one that no-one can "realise" how many deaths there will be. There are so many factors in how this war may run, all of which will affect the casualty rate, that it is effectively impossible to make accurate predictions. But I would imagine that the US government have the best estimations of these figures of anyone on the planet, and if they think the cost is low enough for them to achieve their goal before the world cries foul...then I can only hope they are right, and that it doesnt turn into a bloodbath, cause God knows nothing is likely to stop the war from happening.

As for indicting on war-crimes...someone more than likely will try, but it will be vetoed by the US in the UN security council, and that will be that.

jc

Borzoi

Originally posted by m1ke
the nuclear strikes on japan were an act of pure malice, coldy calculated

1. The option of contacting japan and showing japanese scientists a test version of bomb, and saying surrender or we'll use this on you was debated and dropped.

So America could have avoided dropping the Bomb but they just wanted a fast and easy way out. Infact I think simply showing Japanese scientists a nuke go off in the Nevada desert(or wherever they do it) would be enough to secure their surrender.

mmmm, bear in mind that there was a number of days between Nuclear strikes PRECISELY for this reason - to show the destructiuve power and to force a surrender.

also bear in mind that no-one at the time had any idea of what the long term consequnces of the weapons would be.

bear in mind that military and cilivilian US leader took the view that the bombs would shorten the war, and avoid an troop invasion of the Japenese mainland, and thtat this ultimately whould save US lives. Thier prime responsibility being to the US people

GavinS

Lads, lads, lads

War is war is war.

Its a brutal horrible thing that has gone on for a very long time. In war, nothing is out - that is why it is called war. :-)

Sure, it is the victors who write the history books, but no matter what happens in war, it is justifiable - not to you or me - but to the nature of humanity.

We are the ones who are not yet mature enough to survive without armed conflict - so we just have to live with a whole crapload of horrible things.

Gav

Its a brutal horrible thing that has gone on for a very long time. In war, nothing is out - that is why it is called war. :-)

Atcually thats not strictly true, since during the 1500-1900's there was a code of conduct when it came to fighting where civilians were involved. Its only from WW1 onwards that warfare has included Civilians since Air-power could now target Industrial Areas (areas where there were civilians by default).

Sure, it is the victors who write the history books, but no matter what happens in war, it is justifiable - not to you or me - but to the nature of humanity.

Again i disagree. Maybe that was so 500 years ago, however with the advent of International Communications, and closeness of countries to one another, makes such an outcome unlikely. Should America/Britain defeat Iraq, they'll write up their own history, However, so will the countries not involved in the conflict.

We are the ones who are not yet mature enough to survive without armed conflict - so we just have to live with a whole crapload of horrible things.

I'm one of those people who don't believe that the Human Race will ever give up warfare. Grand we'll get more & more destructive, however i do believe there will come a time, if we survive that warfare will not be so destructive & wasteful of life.
(However thats a thread for Humanities or Sci-Fi, not Politics).

Hellrazer

There are a lot of valid arguments here about whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets.And whether the US was guilty of crimes against humanity and should be tried accordingly but Im not going to comment on those arguments---You all know my slight Anti-US views.

BUT
The subject line of the thread reads""like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima" - Americas Iraq Attack Plan".

What would peoples opinions be if the US DID use atomic weapons in Iraq?????Would that be considered a warcrime or is any attack on Iraq a war crime seeing as the Iraqis have no weapons,no decent medical system and the people have been worn into the ground due to the UN sanctions.
In my opinion any attack on Iraq in its current situation where it could not defend itself is a crime against humanity.
Richie

Victor

Originally posted by Hellrazer
seeing as the Iraqis have no weapons

They have lots of weapons (although the possession of WMD is open to debate).

Originally posted by Hellrazer
In my opinion any attack on Iraq in its current situation where it could not defend itself is a crime against humanity.

No, it isn't. Please look up the definition of "crime against humanity".

Please look up the definition of "crime against humanity".

As time goes by, what is considered as being a "crime against Humanity" will change considering what is being done.

What would peoples opinions be if the US DID use atomic weapons in Iraq?????

My personal feeling is that its a concept left alone. I don't mean not to be discussed but for the americans not to do. Its like "Pandoras Box". Lets face it, America has been walking over countries over the past few years whenever Nuclear warfare is mentioned. For them to use it themselves, would be like a thumbs up to the use of nuclear weapons whenever theres a conventional war. I'm against its use. Not so much because for the life that would be lost in Iraq, but for the possiblities of it being used more often by more than one country.

In my opinion any attack on Iraq in its current situation where it could not defend itself is a crime against humanity.

In this i disagree. If Iraq can't defend itself, then the war would be over quickly. iraq can defend itself against current conventional weapons. However if America used nuclear weapons, i have a feeling that all the Arab Nations would rise against the US. Most european countries would suddenly turn away from the US, and the UN would find itself united against a country that has used Nuclear weapons.

Question though; was the sept 11 attack a crime against humanity in your eyes, or was it just a terrible day for the world?

Hellrazer

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellrazer
seeing as the Iraqis have no weapons

---

Quote "They have lots of weapons (although the possession of WMD is open to debate)."


What type of defence have the Iraqis against carpet bombs,cluster bombs and depleted uranium weapons.They may not have weapons of mass destruction but do they even have weapons with which to defend themselves against a US onslaught?????


quote:

---

Originally posted by Hellrazer
In my opinion any attack on Iraq in its current situation where it could not defend itself is a crime against humanity.

---

Quote"No, it isn't. Please look up the definition of "crime against humanity"."

Victor I did say "In my opinion"Im not strictly using the UN defination of "war crime/crimes against humanity".Its an opinion thats all and Im asking for other peoples"opinions"


***Edit****
Klaz.Sept 11 WAS a crime against humanity but also a sad day for the world.Any attack where the target is/was civilians is a crime against humanity.Or any attack designed to bring a whole country to its knees or take the heart out of the people is also a crime against humanity.Basically taking the humanity out of the people to the point where even their dignity is gone is a war crime.And this is what the US plan on doing to Iraq in the coming weeks.
Richie

Borzoi

Originally posted by Hellrazer

The subject line of the thread reads""like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima" - Americas Iraq Attack Plan".

What would peoples opinions be if the US DID use atomic weapons in Iraq?????

As far as I understand it the US has a stated poliicy:
They will not use a Weapon of Mass Destruction in a first strike
attack.

But the only WMDs they have are nukes.

So if Saddam was to use WMD's intheatre, the US response could include nukes.

My opinion is that this is unlikely - on either side, and the scenario would really dictate the response.

But interesting question:)

Victor

Originally posted by Borzoi
But the only WMDs they have are nukes.

No they are not. http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/wmd_state.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm

The Saint

Every time the US has a military campaign the commit crimes against humanity. Cutting off water and electricity supplies is akin to biological warefare. This was done in the last gulf war and it caused multiple thousands of deaths. They plan on doing this again this time which will lead to massive civilian deaths. This a crime against humanity.

Clintons Cat

this article from USAWC in 1994 might help to explain the concept of Shock and Awe better,the acceleration of the tactics since the first gulf war,from a prolonged airwar offensive to overwhelming localised attacks.
It seems hard to remember but during the airwar phase of Afganistan and Kosovo there was considerable consternation that the airwar was failing to deliver results and public opinion was begining to "wobble".
Shock and Awe seems to be a development to refine the delivery of the perfect Soundbite War

There is, however, one lesson at this early phase of discovery about CNN war that policymakers and military commanders, and those who would advise and inform them, should learn. They must communicate the goals of policies and the objectives of military operations clearly and simply enough so that the widest of audiences can envision the ways and the means being used to reach those goals. This understanding needs to extend from the President down to the average citizen and the most junior soldier. The operational ways and means must be clear and simple--how the operation is happening--so individuals can understand how they personally are being affected. The policy goals and motives for the operation need to be equally clear and simple, but also compelling, so that citizens and allies alike will want to be a part of these operations, while our adversaries will feel powerless to escape the inevitable outcome if they oppose our goals. If policymakers and military leaders draw these pictures and convey this strategic understanding, they should have little fear of video on the battlefields of future CNN wars. The operations, tactics, and images of future CNN wars will follow from these visions. Soldiers, civilians, even enemies, will know why and how we do what we must. We can let them tell the story. And that is how to win CNN wars.

Winning CNN Wars

One thing that can be sure of is plenty of Nice neat cutaway graphics of the latest refinement of the A10 or daisy cutter and full colour wallcharts to plot the positions for the folks back home.

DriftingRain

So winning the war for the good guys should excuse any atrocities comitted? This is effectively what you're trying to argue here.

So what you are saying that the pre-meditated, sneaky tactics that japan used to attack all the innocent people at Pearl Harbor, (btw the US wasn't even in the WW2 then) isn't an atrocy? There were nurses, doctors, lawyers, and even innocent childern on that island. So are they gonna get tried for a war crime?

Its a brutal horrible thing that has gone on for a very long time. In war, nothing is out - that is why it is called war. :-)

Thank you for saying that. I totally agree. If iraq pointed a big ol missle (that they say they have distroyed) at Ireland wouldn't you wanna Shock and Awe them too?

Let's just put it this way. America has never had much bloodshead on it's homeland and we really don't wanna see that happen. I have personally seen enough of it to last a lifetime from 9-11. Countries have got to learn to get along and have peace. We have got to quit fighting for land, money, and damed oil! I know this is never possible but I wish it were. I don't wanna see anyones home torn apart, or see anyones brother or sister die at the concept of war. It's such a touchy subject to be placed on a post, But don't blame the US for everything that has happened, it is just as much our fault as it is Germanys and Englands, and Frances....ect.... War is War...it's dirty and it's ulgy and no one like it! Let's just leave it at that!

Moriarty

Originally posted by Victor
No they are not.

Yes, they are. The US is a signatory of both the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (which prohibits the development, production and stockpiling of biological and toxin weapons) and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The US ceased offensive research into and production of chemical and biological weapons in 1969. All biological stockpiles were destroyed by May 1972. Under congressional mandate, all US chemical weapon stockpiles are being systematically destroyed, to be completed by 2004.

DriftingRain

The US ceased offensive research into and production of chemical and biological weapons in 1969. All biological stockpiles were destroyed by May 1972. Under congressional mandate, all US chemical weapon stockpiles are being systematically destroyed, to be completed by 2004.

QUOTE]Yes, they are. [/QUOTE]


I agree with you!
I live less than 60 miles from the Anniston Army Depot. They are destroying them as we speak. We have the "code" thing going on here, in case of an accident occuring while the depot is destroying these wepons.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.