Your mind has it wrong, at least according to international law. The Srebrenica genocide was just 20 days long, but it still counts due to intent and methodology. I don't think the nuclear bombings were genocidal, because there wasn't specific intent by American leadership to literally eliminate every single Japanese from the areas they were bombing. The intent in this case is debatable but I think most rational people know that it was a senseless killing to facilitate a show of force against the Soviet Union.
Well, I don't think you've actually contradicted anything I said. The dropping of the nuclear bombs consisted of two specific events a couple days apart, what I would refer to as two specific terrorist attacks. Anything that takes place over 20 days is already a sustained effort over a longer period than the US nuclear bombings of Japan. But more important than the time frame is the idea of a sustained effort at all. Maybe a sustained effort over 3 days could count as a genocide too, but I think dropping 2 bombs on 2 cities in a country with... well, a lot more than 2 cities can hardly be considered a serious effort at genocide.
And anyway as you say we know the intent: terrorism, not genocide.
Again, you're just implying that time frame has any bearing on genocide. When this isn't true, not by any definition of genocide. Sabra and Shatila was a genocidal massacre that took place over just 48 hours. Does it stop being genocidal because of how little time it took? What if they did it faster? Would they get away with it then? I don't see any meaning in assigning time limits to genocide.
I’m not sure I’d go so far as to call it genocide (in my mind you need a sustained effort over a longer time frame than that)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what this means, but it reads to me like you're saying that for it to count as genocide that it needs to span over a certain time frame, am I misconstruing this? Are you of the mind that it should count as 2 separate genocides if the nuclear bombs dropped more than a few days apart from each other? This is a very strange point.
Frankly comrade I have no idea what you're talking about or how you could possibly have derived what is in this comment from any of my comments, so I'm simply going to disengage.
because there wasn’t specific intent by American leadership to literally eliminate every single Japanese from the areas they were bombing.
I'm pretty sure after nuclear tests they knew people would literally evaporate so dropping that bomb was with intent to eliminate every single Japanese there. And same with the firebombings btw, the devastating effect on the population living in entire cities built mostly out of wood and paper was known.
Your mind has it wrong, at least according to international law. The Srebrenica genocide was just 20 days long, but it still counts due to intent and methodology. I don't think the nuclear bombings were genocidal, because there wasn't specific intent by American leadership to literally eliminate every single Japanese from the areas they were bombing. The intent in this case is debatable but I think most rational people know that it was a senseless killing to facilitate a show of force against the Soviet Union.
Well, I don't think you've actually contradicted anything I said. The dropping of the nuclear bombs consisted of two specific events a couple days apart, what I would refer to as two specific terrorist attacks. Anything that takes place over 20 days is already a sustained effort over a longer period than the US nuclear bombings of Japan. But more important than the time frame is the idea of a sustained effort at all. Maybe a sustained effort over 3 days could count as a genocide too, but I think dropping 2 bombs on 2 cities in a country with... well, a lot more than 2 cities can hardly be considered a serious effort at genocide.
And anyway as you say we know the intent: terrorism, not genocide.
Again, you're just implying that time frame has any bearing on genocide. When this isn't true, not by any definition of genocide. Sabra and Shatila was a genocidal massacre that took place over just 48 hours. Does it stop being genocidal because of how little time it took? What if they did it faster? Would they get away with it then? I don't see any meaning in assigning time limits to genocide.
No, I'm not actually. My comment was about how it does not.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what this means, but it reads to me like you're saying that for it to count as genocide that it needs to span over a certain time frame, am I misconstruing this? Are you of the mind that it should count as 2 separate genocides if the nuclear bombs dropped more than a few days apart from each other? This is a very strange point.
Frankly comrade I have no idea what you're talking about or how you could possibly have derived what is in this comment from any of my comments, so I'm simply going to disengage.
Same, maybe my English isn't good enough, or maybe we're on completely different planes. No worries comrade, disengaged.
I'm pretty sure after nuclear tests they knew people would literally evaporate so dropping that bomb was with intent to eliminate every single Japanese there. And same with the firebombings btw, the devastating effect on the population living in entire cities built mostly out of wood and paper was known.