Most heinous use of WMD in history

[KMFJD]

I believe the conditions were to keep some of their military and have no harm done to the emperor.

Would have been fine to do the same thing in Germany right? I read somewhere that Hitler wanted peace and was ready to surrender if the Allies in winter of 1945 if they would leave him in power, that's reasonable isn't it?

 

[Linflas]

Would have been fine to do the same thing in Germany right? I read somewhere that Hitler wanted peace and was ready to surrender if the Allies in winter of 1945 if they would leave him in power, that's reasonable isn't it?

We, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.

We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated.

We hereby command all Japanese forces wherever situated and the Japanese people to cease hostilities forthwith, to preserve and save from damage all ships, aircraft, and military and civil property, and to comply with all requirements which may be imposed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by agencies of the Japanese Government at his direction.

We hereby command the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters to issue at once orders to the commanders of all Japanese forces and all forces under Japanese control wherever situated to surrender unconditionally themselves and all forces under their control.

We hereby command all civil, military, and naval officials to obey and enforce all proclamations, orders, and directives deemed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to be proper to effectuate this surrender and issued by him or under his authority; and we direct all such officials to remain at their posts and to continue to perform their non-combatant duties unless specifically relieved by him or under his authority.

We hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government, and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith, and to issue whatever orders and take whatever action may be required by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers or by any other designated representative of the Allied Powers for the purpose of giving effect to that declaration.

We hereby command the Japanese Imperial Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters at once to liberate all Allied Prisoners of War and civilian internees now under Japanese control and to provide for their protection, care, maintenance, and immediate transportation to places as directed.

The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the State shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate these terms of surrender.

Signed at TOKYO BAY, JAPAN at 09.04 on the SECOND day of SEPTEMBER, 1945

Bolding added. There was an article regarding a small piece of this in the Washington Post last week regarding the status of the Emperor and how radically it has changed post WWII.

 

[chedrz]

...Seriously?

Did the A-Bombs kill lots of people? Yes.

Did firebombing Japan kill more people? Yes.

Would an invasion of Japan have resulted in more combined military casualties than the number of civilians killed by the A-bombs? Based on casualty counts from Pacific battles and the Japanese belief/will to fight to the death and not surrender, yes. (Bushido was still followed to an extent by the military)

Was Japan going to surrender before we dropped the a-bombs? No; this answer is obvious since Japan did not surrender before we dropped them.

Does innocence exist in total war?

 

[M0RPH]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Thus, the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency: that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that was needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost. The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll — nearly twice the total of U.S. dead in all theaters in the Second World War — is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly, the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb "spared millions of American lives."[/FONT] (Ralph Raico)

Seems like some of you are taking your history lessons from George Bush. How sad.

 

[mugs]

...Seriously?

Did the A-Bombs kill lots of people? Yes.

Did firebombing Japan kill more people? Yes.

Would an invasion of Japan have resulted in more combined military casualties than the number of civilians killed by the A-bombs? Based on casualty counts from Pacific battles and the Japanese belief/will to fight to the death and not surrender, yes. (Bushido was still followed to an extent by the military)

Was Japan going to surrender before we dropped the a-bombs? No; this answer is obvious since Japan did not surrender before we dropped them.

Does innocence exist in total war?

It even took two atomic bombs to force the surrender.

We were willing to accept an unconditional surrender. Japan was willing to offer a conditional surrender. Those two positions are incompatible with each other. We made the terms of the surrender clear, we made the consequences of refusal clear, and we gave Japan time to act. Japan did not accept our terms. They accepted the consequences. We compelled Japan to accept our terms.

Someone criticized the US earlier in the thread for valuing the lives of Americans above the lives of the Japanese. That position is absurd. We were forced into the war by Japanese aggression. Japan valued its imperial aspirations above American and Japanese lives. Expecting us to sacrifice more American lives than necessary to end the war is absurd.

 

[BoomerD]

It even took two atomic bombs to force the surrender.

We were willing to accept an unconditional surrender. Japan was willing to offer a conditional surrender. Those two positions are incompatible with each other. We made the terms of the surrender clear, we made the consequences of refusal clear, and we gave Japan time to act. Japan did not accept our terms. They accepted the consequences. We compelled Japan to accept our terms.

Someone criticized the US earlier in the thread for valuing the lives of Americans above the lives of the Japanese. That position is absurd. We were forced into the war by Japanese aggression. Japan valued its imperial aspirations above American and Japanese lives. Expecting us to sacrifice more American lives than necessary to end the war is absurd.

Yep...Japan started the war...it wasn't over until we said it was over...and on OUR terms.

 

[RedCOMET]

Can we make it old school and talk about European settlers giving small pox ( or other type of disease) infected goods to native American Indians while the north American continent was being settled?

SInce this an early form of using biological material against a group.

Or was this already discussed in the thread.

 

[RedCOMET]

Double post

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Forcing Japan to surrender was more about keeping the Soviet Union out of Japan than saving American lives.

 

[Drako]

Forcing Japan to surrender was more about keeping the Soviet Union out of Japan than saving American lives.

You actually think the Chinese would have let that happen?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

You actually think the Chinese would have let that happen?

Russia had already invaded Manchuria and did their own rape and pillaging of the area. They were poised to strike into Korea/mainland Japan. There'd be a south and north Japan if we didn't make them surrender when they did.

 

[0roo0roo]

This helps put it in perspective:


Way more would have died during an invasion. Not only that, I don't think we would have the same relation we have with Japan now if we were forced to invade and kill millions before they surrendered. It would have affected both countries' psych.

Also take a look at civilian casualties of countries that were invaded (France, China, Russia and Germany). Kind of surprised by the 1.5-2.5 million dead in India, didn't know of any fighting going on there. Britain vs Japan?

yup, cost anywhere from a lot, to a f*ckload of casualties, britain would have been broken trying to help us on that one as well.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

REMAIN. As in, 110 million deaths waiting to happen, not even counting those already dead.


http://www.unicef.org/graca/mines.htm

I think you win the thread, while not often thought of as WMDs, land mines are capable of inflicting massive trauma on a wide scale, especially when the people that lay them just forget about them after the conflict is over... truly heinous...

 

[DestinyKnight]

WMD = weapons of mass destruction

I guess the most heinous use of WMD was by the United States in 1945 when it dropped two nuclear bombs over Japan killing approximately 200,000 people. Have there been any other uses of WMD anywhere near as bad as this in history?

(I'd also like to mention how ironic it is that we are now the moral police of the world in regards to WMD, given that we were responsible for the most heinous use of WMD in history, and still to this day possess more WMD than any other country.)

I would say the 47 gas chambers used by the Nazis to kill 3.8 - 4 million people was the most "heinous" use of WMDs in the modern era. The USA's use of nukes pales in comparison.

Edit, post above about unexploded mines is the correct answer...truly horrific.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Can we make it old school and talk about European settlers giving small pox ( or other type of disease) infected goods to native American Indians while the north American continent was being settled?

SInce this an early form of using biological material against a group.

Or was this already discussed in the thread.

Already mentioned...

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Can we make it old school and talk about European settlers giving small pox ( or other type of disease) infected goods to native American Indians while the north American continent was being settled?

SInce this an early form of using biological material against a group.

Or was this already discussed in the thread.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege#Chinese_and_Mongols

"Another Mongol tactic was to use catapults to launch corpses of plague victims into besieged cities. The disease-carrying fleas from the bodies would then infest the city, and the plague would spread allowing the city to be easily captured, although this transmission mechanism was not known at the time. In 1346 the bodies of Mongol warriors of the Golden Horde who had died of plague were thrown over the walls of the besieged Crimean city of Kaffa (now Feodosiya). It has been speculated that this operation may have been responsible for the advent of the Black Death in Europe. The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30% – 60% of Europe's population."

They did it better. For the most part, explorers didn't have to try to spread it to the natives, and giving some blankets away is pretty damn lame.

 

[manimal]

would you consider disco a WMD in the 70s?