In article ,
"Rats" wrote:

"cypher745" wrote in message
m...
Your statement makes it seem like you think that the use of the atomic
bombs
by the US should be considered war crimes. As such, my original question
is
valid. Do you think that the greater loss of life on both sides, that
would
have
resulted from a direct invasion of Japan would have a been a better
alternative?

I eagerly await your reply.

How many soldiers did you kill with the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki?

Does one of the last major IJ Naval bases, and an army division with
headquarters count?

I also notice that you have conveniently left the part out
about carpet bombing, napalm and agent orange in Vietnam.

Note Ed Rasimus' post elsewhere in this thread. (If you don't care to,
the digest answer is, you have no argument.)

Yes, the use of nuclear weapons is a war crime.

It wasn't at the time, which is what counts. Ex post facto, and all that.

Again, you dodged the question: Do you *really* think that the planned
direct invasion of the Japanese home islands, with attendant *far*
greater loss of Japanese, American, British and other Commonwealth
lives, is preferable to what actually happened?

Meanwhile, the Japanese Army was still active in China, with roughly
10,000 Chinese deaths daily, until the Emperor told them to stand down...

One hopes you don't respond with either evasion nor knee-jerk "anything
is better than nuclear", because it is an unsupportable position.