Why Hiroshima Was the Best of Bad Choices

Discussions on all aspects of the Japanese Empire, from the capture of Taiwan until the end of the Second World War.
Post Reply
Ontological_Warfare
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 09 Oct 2014, 20:41

Why Hiroshima Was the Best of Bad Choices

#1

Post by Ontological_Warfare » 24 Oct 2014, 20:35

I posted the other article a bit ago. This one is in the same vein I think, about that "the atomic sacrifice of two cities, as awful as it is, stands alone as the clearest and brightest solution."

http://theunion4ever.com/1000-centuries ... roshima-2/

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Why Hiroshima Was the Best of Bad Choices

#2

Post by wm » 25 Oct 2014, 14:07

You've written there Hiroshima was a non-military target, but the definition of a non-military target was/is: towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended.
And then: a town, port, village or isolated building shall be considered undefended provided that not only (a) no combatant troops, but also (b) no military, naval or air establishment, or barracks, arsenal, munition stores or factories, aerodromes or aeroplane workshops or ships of war, naval dockyards, forts, or fortifications for defensive or offensive purposes, or entrenchments exist within its boundaries or within a radius of "x" kilometers from such boundaries.
So according to the accepted Laws of War it was a military target.

And because it was a legitimate military target it was up to the Japanese to provide the women and children living there with safety, for example by evacuating them to the countryside. They simply shouldn't have been in Hiroshima.
Unfortunately, as I understand it, they were kept there to fight the effects of enemy bombing raids - a wooden Japanese city required a lot of firefighters, and that's what they were - cheap, disposable firefighters.


glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Why Hiroshima Was the Best of Bad Choices

#3

Post by glenn239 » 25 Oct 2014, 14:30

Your purpose is to generate web traffic to the linked site?

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why Hiroshima Was the Best of Bad Choices

#4

Post by OpanaPointer » 25 Oct 2014, 14:47

wm wrote:You've written there Hiroshima was a non-military target, but the definition of a non-military target was/is: towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended.
And then: a town, port, village or isolated building shall be considered undefended provided that not only (a) no combatant troops, but also (b) no military, naval or air establishment, or barracks, arsenal, munition stores or factories, aerodromes or aeroplane workshops or ships of war, naval dockyards, forts, or fortifications for defensive or offensive purposes, or entrenchments exist within its boundaries or within a radius of "x" kilometers from such boundaries.
So according to the accepted Laws of War it was a military target.

And because it was a legitimate military target it was up to the Japanese to provide the women and children living there with safety, for example by evacuating them to the countryside. They simply shouldn't have been in Hiroshima.
Unfortunately, as I understand it, they were kept there to fight the effects of enemy bombing raids - a wooden Japanese city required a lot of firefighters, and that's what they were - cheap, disposable firefighters.
This. Both cities were the military headquarters for their prefects. One of the bombs went off almost directly over ~5,000 Japanese soldiers lined up for inspection. They were military targets. The confusion here results from their not having been bombed yet, which leads to the supposition that they weren't worth bombing. This is wrong.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

flakbait
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 22 Oct 2013, 02:37

Re: Why Hiroshima Was the Best of Bad Choices

#5

Post by flakbait » 25 Oct 2014, 23:42

Correct me if am wrong but by the Geneva Convention definitions of a legitimate "undefended target", am certain that in addition to being the regional Imperial Army Headquarters, there was a shipyard building, repairing and overhauling smaller Imperial Navy ships, there were several factories building and/ or producing various types of war materials, various military barracks and a very large Imperial Army depot within the city limits, as well as at least 2 airfields very near by along with dozen of AA positions both inside and just outside of the city. IN NO WAY or by any rational `definition` of the Geneva Convention Rules of War were either Hiroshima or Nagasaki "undefended" or "illegal' military targets. The fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT previously attacked (other than mining missions against the surrounding waters) was to provide as much as possible a "pristine" undamaged target for the atomic bomb dropped on it, so as to be able to get an very accurate estimate of the weapons destructive power. Any claim that they (or their alternate targets) were somehow "illegal targets" is simply incorrect...

Post Reply

Return to “Japan at War 1895-1945”