What do you think about the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Should it be considered a war crime?

Answer 1

Nope, not all. Japan refused to agree to the Geneva Convention when they tortured, killed and ate American, Australian POWs nor have they agreed to the Geneva Convention in Rape of Nanking, Unit 731, Bataan Death March, Chinese and Korean sex slaves, hundred thousand dead in the Pacific. So Japan was not protected by the Geneva Convention, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both major military targets and Japan promised us a fight to the last man so all Japanese were enemy combatants.   

Answer 2

The UN and The Hague approve 

Answer 3

No Eating Australian Troops was Dropping the Bombs just ended the war

Answer 4

Who would you prosecute for that?  All the principles involved have long-since died off and are buried.

Answer 5

Wasn't considered one then, it was a legitimate act of war against a military nation that wouldn't surrender. Regardless of battles, invasions of outlying islands, an unprecedented massive aerial bombing campaign as well as a submarine and naval and aerial mining campaign that all but cut off the home islands.

Answer 6

Why? Yes, using any nuke is cruel, but such did save many lives didn't it?

Answer 7

was for pearl harbor

Answer 8

The bombs are not what caused Japan to surrender. At the Tehran Conference in November 1943, Russia agreed to enter the war against Japan after Germany was defeated, time was running out and Japan wanted no part of a divided Japan with Russia ruling half the country under Stalin.

Answer 9

No, that was a long time ago and we were in a world war.  Also, I don't really think the idea of a "war crime" is a legitimate concept because it is not really enforced.  I mean to say there's no laws governing interstate conflicts.

Answer 10

nope, they started it and we just finished it ................................