Were the crew of the Enola Gay war criminals?

[not nom]

so? how often do we get to hear "tough ****, that's war" -- ?

that IS war. the other is war crime. it's not that complicated.

[Revoltingest]

Originally Posted by Apex

You also need to take into account that in one method, not only would enormously large amounts of Japanese been killed, but American soldiers as well. This was the dilemma the commanders faced, use nukes and possibly end the war with no more American casualties, or continue a conventional war and lose many more American lives.

Now you've done it! You've made the issue more complex & harder to judge.

[Terrywoodenpic]

Bombing of civilians was an accepted tactic for all participants of the WW2.
This of course does not make it right. But it breached no rules of war.

It was established as a useful terror tactic over london in the first world war (using Zeppelins), and was perfected by German and Italian squadrons in the Spanish civil war.

It has been used in virtually all wars since.
The scale of deaths, by the atomic bombs was nearly matched in horror by the fire bombing of Dresden and Coventry.

[sandandfoam]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

Bombing of civilians was an accepted tactic for all participants of the WW2.
This of course does not make it right. But it breached no rules of war.

It was established as a useful terror tactic over london in the first world war (using Zeppelins), and was perfected by German and Italian squadrons in the Spanish civil war.

It has been used in virtually all wars since.
The scale of deaths, by the atomic bombs was nearly matched in horror by the fire bombing of Dresden and Coventry.

It seems to me that Dresden and Coventry were also criminal. Killing civilians is the reason NATO went after Gadaffi - why was it acceptable before and not now?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by stephenw

It seems to me that Dresden and Coventry were also criminal. Killing civilians is the reason NATO went after Gadaffi - why was it acceptable before and not now?

Why did they wait so long to go after Gadaffi if it was not acceptable?

[sandandfoam]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Why did they wait so long to go after Gadaffi if it was not acceptable?

Perhaps because they were selling him lots of tanks?

[Willamena]

"Abduction or, as it is also often called, Inference to the Best Explanation is a type of inference that assigns special status to explanatory considerations."

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by stephenw

It seems to me that Dresden and Coventry were also criminal. Killing civilians is the reason NATO went after Gadaffi - why was it acceptable before and not now?

I suspect it was always known to be abhorrent.
However it take more than ethics to change laws
I can not remember when international law, came down on the side of civilians in terms of bombing, but such a ban is clearly not yet accepted by all administrations.

Syria has been attacking and blowing up its own people for years, and we have gone as far as saying they are naughty boys, and have taken our bats and balls home.

The world never was a safe place for civilians.

[Majikthise]

Originally Posted by stephenw

I was watching a documentary about Hiroshima last night. I found it very disturbing and it left me wondering - were the crew of the Enola Gay war criminals?

I think they were.

War crime?
You mean like Japan bombing Pearl and notifying us of their declaration of war afterwards?
Or the tens of thousands of Chinese civilians they slaughtered?
Or the Batan march?
Think.

[sandandfoam]

Originally Posted by Majikthise

War crime?
You mean like Japan bombing Pearl and notifying us of their declaration of war afterwards?
Or the tens of thousands of Chinese civilians they slaughtered?
Or the Batan march?

Do you understand that I refute the criminality of any of the above?

Think

About what?