Was the use of atomic bombs on Japan by the US a war crime? [Azoth vs Halbard]

[Vanoi]

I will be arguing that the US did not commit a war crime by dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, while Halbard will be arguing that the US did commit war crimes. I'll be making the opening statement.

[Vanoi]

I don't like typing long posts so my opening post is going to be short.

I do not believe the US commited any war crimes by dropping the atomic bombs on Japan in World War II. There was only two options when dealing with Japan at the end of the war those two options were:

1. To invade Japan. This was called Operation Downfall. The predicted casualties for American troops when up to over 500,000 dead and twice the number wounded. Japanese casualties were 5-10 million deaths with a very high number of wounded. This was basically the bloodiest option of the two.

2. Drop atomic weapons on Japan. This second option was the one that was accepted over the bloody invasion of Japan and the bombings would ultimatley killed around 400,000 people. Compared to the predicted casualties from an invasion, this was low. This to me was the better option of the two and ended up possibly saving more lives than it killed.

Atomic weapons were not illegal at the time, nor was bombing enemy cities. World War II was a total war and all sides bombed each other's civilians in their cities. You cannot say that the US commited a war crime by dropping a bomb on a city of innocent people when all sides did it during the war.

Thats my statement.

[Halbard]

"Both sides agree not to bomb civilians" - Washington Post, Sept 3, 1939

Mr. Einstein wrote:
"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

lorem facit legem

-Concerning the legality

On 7 December 1963, in Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State the atomic bombins were the subject of a Japanese judicial review. On the 22nd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the District Court of Tokyo declined to rule on the legality of nuclear weapons in general, but found that "the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war". In the opinion of the court, the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was at the time governed by international law found in Hague Convention of 1907 IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land,and IX - Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War,and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923,and was therefore illegal.

In 2007, a group of intellectuals in Hiroshima established an unofficial body called International Peoples' Tribunal on the Dropping of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On July 16, 2007, it delivered its verdict, stating:

"The Tribunal finds that the nature of damage caused by the atomic bombs can be described as indiscriminative extermination of all life forms or inflicting unnecessary pain to the survivors".
About the legality and the morality of the action, the unofficial tribunal found:
"The use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was illegal in the light of the principles and rules of International Humanitarian Law applicable in armed conflicts, since the bombing of both cities, made civilians the object of attack, using nuclear weapons that were incapable of distinguishing between civilians and military targets and consequently, caused unnecessary suffering to the civilian survivors"

-Concerning the necessity of the bombing

The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey, written by Paul Nitze, concluded that the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. After reviewing numerous documents, and interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, Nitze reported:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his memoir The White House Years:
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

Sorry for taking so long to post, but i wanted to make a nice, long wall of text

[Vanoi]

Both sides agree not to bomb civilians" - Washington Post, Sept 3, 1939

Mr. Einstein wrote:
"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them"?

Considering none of the German leaders who advocated bombing Britan during the Blitz and who advocated the use of the V-1 and V-2 weapons were charged with war crimes, i doubt it. Also we aren't dealing in hypotheticals here.

-Concerning the legality

On 7 December 1963, in Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State the atomic bombins were the subject of a Japanese judicial review. On the 22nd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the District Court of Tokyo declined to rule on the legality of nuclear weapons in general, but found that "the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war". In the opinion of the court, the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was at the time governed by international law found in Hague Convention of 1907 IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land,and IX - Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War,and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923,and was therefore illegal.

So the country who got their cities hit by the atomic bombs thinks it illegal. Who would have thought that? I wonder if you ask them was it legal for Japan to use chemical and biological weapons against China, or their thoughts on the Nanking Massacre and if they would also think those actions are illegal. Consdiering the fact Japan likes to leave out of their hisotry books the massive number of war crimes they commited against other nations.

Here is the source for Japan leaving war crimes out of it's history books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes..._controversies

In 2007, a group of intellectuals in Hiroshima established an unofficial body called International Peoples' Tribunal on the Dropping of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On July 16, 2007, it delivered its verdict, stating:

"The Tribunal finds that the nature of damage caused by the atomic bombs can be described as indiscriminative extermination of all life forms or inflicting unnecessary pain to the survivors".
About the legality and the morality of the action, the unofficial tribunal found:
"The use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was illegal in the light of the principles and rules of International Humanitarian Law applicable in armed conflicts, since the bombing of both cities, made civilians the object of attack, using nuclear weapons that were incapable of distinguishing between civilians and military targets and consequently, caused unnecessary suffering to the civilian survivors"

Why is this evidence that the US commited war crimes? Where are all the groups that thing Germany shoudl eb punished for war crimes for bombing British and Soviet cities? Again i will explain this to you. World War II was a total war. All sides bombed each other's civilians within their cities. You can not hold the US accountable for war crimes without holding all sides that fought in the conflict for war crimes. Total war's aren't nice. There was no internaitonal law at the time that said the US could not use nuclear weapons on civilian cities.

-Concerning the necessity of the bombing

The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey, written by Paul Nitze, concluded that the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. After reviewing numerous documents, and interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, Nitze reported:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Really Is that why Japan had its own plans for defending their home islands called Operation Ketsu-Go? Or how some Japanese military leaders were planning a coup just in case the Japanese leadership was going to accept the Allies request for unconditional surrender? Much of the Japanese military leader except for the Navy minister thought the war should have gone on and were hoping that that the Allies woudl sustain so many casualties that they would accept a condition Peace with the Allies. You can also just look back to the Battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Japanese would fight to the very end before they would be willing to surrender to the allies.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

He is right the Japanese had sued for peace already. Once in 1943 where the terms included Japan get the keep some of the islands they stole from the US and Great Britan, and again in 1945 on a condition they get to keep their government and emperor and not have to get punished for any war crimes. That was a big no to. Also Nimitz is right the atomic bombs did not play a decisive military vicotry against Japan considering they were being used as a psychological weapon. The weapons were supposed to scare Japan into defeat. If we were going to try to use them militarily we would have used them on their actual military instead of cities.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons...

I already showed you this was false as the military leadership in Japan did not want to surrender and already had started planning for an Allied invasion of Japan.

The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

I really don't get why this man's opinion really matters considering what Truman thought about the atomic bombs anyways:

"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans."
("Public Papers of the Presidents: Harry S Truman, 1945", pg. 212).

11/45 Letter to Samuel McCrea Cavert, general secretary of the Federal Council of Churches:

[In response to Cavert's request, "Respectfully urge that ample opportunity to be given Japan to reconsider ultimatum before any further devastation by atomic bomb is visited upon her people.":]
"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.
"When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true." (Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, material quoted from pg. 563).

Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his memoir The White House Years:
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives

I never get why opponets of the atomic bombings post this quote. Eisenhower was the Commander of Allied forces in the European Theatre of War. Why would his opinion really matter on the Pacific Theatre? He did not know how the Japanese fought. I alos bet he didn't know about how the US had planned to invade Japan and how many lives it would have cost. This is not the guy you ask for on his opinion on the atomic bombings since he had really no idea how the Pacific War was being fought, and how determined the Japanese were on not surrendering.

You gave me a bunch of quotes on what people thought about the war. None of this is really evidence for the US commiting a war crime.

[Halbard]

Considering none of the German leaders who advocated bombing Britan during the Blitz and who advocated the use of the V-1 and V-2 weapons were charged with war crimes, i doubt it. Also we aren't dealing in hypotheticals here.

Hypotheticals matter, whatever you say. It's a mental exercise.
And BTW, V-1 and V-2 were conventional weapons.

So the country who got their cities hit by the atomic bombs thinks it illegal. Who would have thought that? I wonder if you ask them was it legal for Japan to use chemical and biological weapons against China, or their thoughts on the Nanking Massacre and if they would also think those actions are illegal. Consdiering the fact Japan likes to leave out of their hisotry books the massive number of war crimes they commited against other nations.

Here is the source for Japan leaving war crimes out of it's history books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes..._controversies

Japan commited several war crimes. True. They executed POW's, etc..
And that's why the US shouldnt have sank to their level of barbarity. Thats the difference between savages and gentlemen.

Why is this evidence that the US commited war crimes? Where are all the groups that thing Germany shoudl eb punished for war crimes for bombing British and Soviet cities? Again i will explain this to you. World War II was a total war. All sides bombed each other's civilians within their cities. You can not hold the US accountable for war crimes without holding all sides that fought in the conflict for war crimes. Total war's aren't nice. There was no internaitonal law at the time that said the US could not use nuclear weapons on civilian cities.

"the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war". In the opinion of the court, the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was at the time governed by international law found in Hague Convention of 1907 IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land,and IX - Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War,and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923,and was therefore illegal.

We can replace the "Naval" for "Aerial", since it's in essence, the same.

Really Is that why Japan had its own plans for defending their home islands called Operation Ketsu-Go? Or how some Japanese military leaders were planning a coup just in case the Japanese leadership was going to accept the Allies request for unconditional surrender? Much of the Japanese military leader except for the Navy minister thought the war should have gone on and were hoping that that the Allies woudl sustain so many casualties that they would accept a condition Peace with the Allies. You can also just look back to the Battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Japanese would fight to the very end before they would be willing to surrender to the allies.

Another 6-12 months of blockade and Japan would have run out of supplies, and popular uprising would start against the military. No war can be conducted against the will of the people.

I really don't get why this man's opinion really matters considering what Truman thought about the atomic bombs anyways:

"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans."
("Public Papers of the Presidents: Harry S Truman, 1945", pg. 212).

11/45 Letter to Samuel McCrea Cavert, general secretary of the Federal Council of Churches:

[In response to Cavert's request, "Respectfully urge that ample opportunity to be given Japan to reconsider ultimatum before any further devastation by atomic bomb is visited upon her people.":]
"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.
"When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true." (Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, material quoted from pg. 563).

I never get why opponets of the atomic bombings post this quote. Eisenhower was the Commander of Allied forces in the European Theatre of War. Why would his opinion really matter on the Pacific Theatre? He did not know how the Japanese fought. I alos bet he didn't know about how the US had planned to invade Japan and how many lives it would have cost. This is not the guy you ask for on his opinion on the atomic bombings since he had really no idea how the Pacific War was being fought, and how determined the Japanese were on not surrendering.

You gave me a bunch of quotes on what people thought about the war. None of this is really evidence for the US commiting a war crime.

First of all: Eisenhower was a high ranking officer of the US military, and thus, his opinion matters. The underlined part, im quite sure that, given he was one of the most influential people in the world at that time, he certainly was very well informed. Being Commander in Europe does not preclude him from knowing the Pacific situation.

about Pearl Harbour

Various parties high in the U.S. and British governments knew of the attack in advance and may even have let it happen or encouraged it in order to force America into war via the "back door." I believe that the US knew the japs were coming. Thats why most of the good ships were not in Pearl Harbour that day.

Lets see the PH american human casualties:
MILITARY_____CIVILIAN
2.400 _______ 57 KILLED
1247 ________35 WOUNDED


“ The atomic bomb was more than a weapon of terrible destruction; it was a psychological weapon. ”

—Former US Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, 1947

I think there is a name for this...
Terrorism?

I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb... It is an awful responsibility which has come to us... We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes.
—President Harry S. Truman, August 9, 1945

This Truman phrase is one of the most ridiculous things i ever read. So, he orders the death of almost 250.000 then he turns to God?

[Vanoi]

Hypotheticals matter, whatever you say. It's a mental exercise.
And BTW, V-1 and V-2 were conventional weapons.

I only mentioned the V-1 and V-2 weapons because some people consider their use to be war crimes.

Japan commited several war crimes. True. They executed POW's, etc..
And that's why the US shouldnt have sank to their level of barbarity. Thats the difference between savages and gentlemen.

The US didn't do anything that it wasn't already doing. More people died in the fire bombing of Tokyo by the US than the atomic bombings. We did not sink to any level. Bombings cities is what the US had been doing since 1942.

"the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war". In the opinion of the court, the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was at the time governed by international law found in Hague Convention of 1907 IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land,and IX - Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War,and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923,and was therefore illegal

We can replace the "Naval" for "Aerial", since it's in essence, the same.[/QUOTE]
Sorry but again there is no ducment stating the US of atomic bombs on cities as being illegal. Again all sides bombed each other cities during the war. Again World War II was a total war and total wars aren't nice. You do know what total wars are right? Its a war where nations do not simply aim to kill the other nation's soldiers anymore. The enemie's civilians, cities and industry become targets as weel. This is what a total war is and thats what World War II was. You can keep quoting that all day but if we followed the above quote's logic then both Both the Axis and Allies are responsible for war crimes.

Another 6-12 months of blockade and Japan would have run out of supplies, and popular uprising would start against the military. No war can be conducted against the will of the people.

Got any evidence of this considering the blockade would have been hurt real bad if the Japanese had planned to use the thousands of Kamikazes they had on the blockade. Besides Japanese civilians were just as fanatical as the soldiers were and would tno give up so easily.

First of all: Eisenhower was a high ranking officer of the US military, and thus, his opinion matters.

In the european thatre. He had no expierence whatsoever with the Pacific Theatre and did not know the enemy that the US was fighting.

The underlined part, im quite sure that, given he was one of the most influential people in the world at that time, he certainly was very well informed. Being Commander in Europe does not preclude him from knowing the Pacific situation.

I would say not really. He did not have any expierence with the Pacific Theatre. I would rather listen to someone like General Macarthur on how to defeat the Japanese since he had been fighting them since the war began and knew what the enemy was capabale of unlike Eisenhower.

about Pearl Harbour

Various parties high in the U.S. and British governments knew of the attack in advance and may even have let it happen or encouraged it in order to force America into war via the "back door." I believe that the US knew the japs were coming. Thats why most of the good ships were not in Pearl Harbour that day.

First off your going off-topic. Second they knew the Japanese was going to attack the US late in 1941, but they were not sure where until the last minute. I really don't have time to argue with you on another one of your conspiracy theories so please keep on topic.

“ The atomic bomb was more than a weapon of terrible destruction; it was a psychological weapon. ”

—Former US Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, 1947

I think there is a name for this...
Terrorism?

psychological warfare

n (Military) (Psychology) the military application of psychology, esp to propaganda and attempts to influence the morale of enemy and friendly groups in time of war

ter·ror·ism

   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

They are not the same. There is a big difference between fighting your enemy in war with psychological warfare than blowing yourself up in a crowded market. The bombs were used to end the most bloody conflict in the hisotry of man. Thsi cannot be compared to what small groups of people do to get what they want by murdering innocent people for their own gain.

I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb... It is an awful responsibility which has come to us... We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes.
—President Harry S. Truman, August 9, 1945

This Truman phrase is one of the most ridiculous things i ever read. So, he orders the death of almost 250.000 then he turns to God?

He was a Chrisitian and i guess he believes he was doing the right thing? Truman didn't like having to use the bomb. He really didn't and this is evident in the korean War when McArhtur requested its use and Truman said no. He didn't want to start another wolrd War and his choice was a good one.

[Halbard]

Im struggling to find the point of this discussion. We will not be able to determine a winner.

V1 and V2 is offtopic.

And by the way, that Operation Downfall, was also an hypothesis. Just as valid as what Einstein said.
Japan was, and still is, completely dependant on food imports. A blockade and continued conventional bombing was also on the table.
A long term blockade, along with disencouraging propaganda would suffice, in my opinion.

[Vanoi]

Im struggling to find the point of this discussion. We will not be able to determine a winner

You were supposed to prove that the bombings were a war crime.

V1 and V2 is offtopic.

I know it is. But so was your thing about Peral Harbor.

And by the way, that Operation Downfall, was also an hypothesis. Just as valid as what Einstein said.

Not really. It was more like a plan that was ready to be implemented. Hell the US even made 500,000 Purple Heart medals for the number of casualties they would have because of the invasion. I don't knwo about you, but if your country si alreayd planning to invade a country and makes 500,000 medals in advance, i wouldn't call it a hypothesis. I would clal it a plan ready for action.

Japan was, and still is, completely dependant on food imports. A blockade and continued conventional bombing was also on the table.

So you support the US bombing Japanese cities full of innocent people instead of the atomic bombings? That kinda makes no sense considering the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombings did.

Also the blockade would have take more than a year to achieve success. Don't believe me? Look at the Battle of Iwo Jima. The Japanese forces there were short on food, and very short on water. Yet they managed to cause the US mroe casualties than they recieved themselves. Everyday the war dragged on was a day Chinese soldiers, Chinese civilians, British, American, Indian, Australian, New Zeland soldiers and POWs would die. That to me is not acceptable and the war needed to be ended now, not in 6 months to a year.

A long term blockade, along with disencouraging propaganda would suffice, in my opinion

It would take a long time though, and the Japanese people are not people that give up so easily.

[Halbard]

You were supposed to prove that the bombings were a war crime.

I think i already did.

I know it is. But so was your thing about Peral Harbor.

Do you know what causality nexus is?

Not really. It was more like a plan that was ready to be implemented. Hell the US even made 500,000 Purple Heart medals for the number of casualties they would have because of the invasion. I don't knwo about you, but if your country si alreayd planning to invade a country and makes 500,000 medals in advance, i wouldn't call it a hypothesis. I would clal it a plan ready for action.

It's a plan. It's an hypothesis of what would happen. An estimate. Since when is that definitive? Napoleon also had comemorative medals of the invasion of Britain made already.

So you support the US bombing Japanese cities full of innocent people instead of the atomic bombings? That kinda makes no sense considering the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombings did.

Also the blockade would have take more than a year to achieve success. Don't believe me? Look at the Battle of Iwo Jima. The Japanese forces there were short on food, and very short on water. Yet they managed to cause the US mroe casualties than they recieved themselves. Everyday the war dragged on was a day Chinese soldiers, Chinese civilians, British, American, Indian, Australian, New Zeland soldiers and POWs would die. That to me is not acceptable and the war needed to be ended now, not in 6 months to a year.


It would take a long time though, and the Japanese people are not people that give up so easily.

In the documentary The Fog of War, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara recalls that General Curtis LeMay who relayed the Presidential order to drop nuclear bombs on Japan, said,

"'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"

As the first military use of nuclear weapons, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent to some the crossing of a crucial barrier. Peter Kuznik director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, wrote of President Truman: "He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the
species. It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity."


The mayor of Nagasaki declared in an ICJ session:
"It is said that the descendants of the atomic bomb survivors will have to be monitored for several generations to clarify the genetic impact, which means that the descendants will live in anxiety for [decades] to come. [...] with their colossal power and capacity for slaughter and destruction, nuclear weapons make no distinction between combatants and non-combatants or between military installations and civilian communities [...] The use of nuclear weapons [...] therefore is a manifest infraction of
international law."

And dont try to me. The casualties of the bombings of Tokyo were not even half of the casualitis of the nukes.

[Vanoi]

It's a plan. It's an hypothesis of what would happen. An estimate. Since when is that definitive? Napoleon also had comemorative medals of the invasion of Britain made already.

Difference is Napolean had no real Navy they could help him invade, the US did. If the 2 atomic bombins wouldn't have worked the US would have invaded anyways. Like i said it was a plan ready for action.

In the documentary The Fog of War, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara recalls that General Curtis LeMay who relayed the Presidential order to drop nuclear bombs on Japan, said,

"'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?".

This would mean something if it was possible at all. There is no wya the Japanese could have prosecuted US leaders as war criminals even if the US lost the war, which would be highly un-likley considering Japan did not have the power to fight the US. I wonder if the Japanese though the same when they decided to use chemical and biological weapons against the Chinese?

As the first military use of nuclear weapons, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent to some the crossing of a crucial barrier. Peter Kuznik director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, wrote of President Truman: "He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the
species. It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity."

Oh look a quote by some guy who didn't like the atomic bombings. How did this prove the US commited war crimes? Lets ignore though how nuclear weapons have os far prevented another major war like World War II from happening.

The mayor of Nagasaki declared in an ICJ session:
"It is said that the descendants of the atomic bomb survivors will have to be monitored for several generations to clarify the genetic impact, which means that the descendants will live in anxiety for [decades] to come. [...] with their colossal power and capacity for slaughter and destruction, nuclear weapons make no distinction between combatants and non-combatants or between military installations and civilian communities [...] The use of nuclear weapons [...] therefore is a manifest infraction of
international law."

Oh look the mayor of one of the cities we bombed. I bet he has a non-biased opinion of the bombs.... oh wait he doesn't. I like how he ignores the fact those bombs prevented a bloody invasion that would have cost Japan up to 10 million lives instead of 400,000 but whatever. Again quotes by people who didn't support the atomic bombings prove nothing.

And dont try to me. The casualties of the bombings of Tokyo were not even half of the casualitis of the nukes

Well your right. The final estimates foe the atomic bomb attacks for people killed are more than the fire bombings. They don't actually know how many people died in the Tokyo firebombings though. Japan has said 100,000, but historians think that is a low number consdiering they had an average of 100,000 people living per square mile, and the bombings burnt over 50% of Tokyo down. Lets just said the firebombings were initially worse than the atomic bombings.

Please psot some solid evidence that the US commited a war crime other than posting quotes of what people think. I could do the same for people who did support the atomic bombings but it wouldn't prove that the US didn't commit a war crime would it?

[Halbard]

You still have not said if the ACT of the bombing the cities is or is not a war crime. Nothing else matters. According to International Law, one can extract from many documents, including the Hague Convention of 1907, that the use of nuclear weapons is, constitutes a war crime. Just because it doesnt say "atomic weapons", you have to look into the spirit of the law.

Pardon me for asking, but what is it you do for a living and what did you study, so i can know the background of my opponent?
I study Law at the University of Lisbon.

[Vanoi]

You still have not said if the ACT of the bombing the cities is or is not a war crime. Nothing else matters. According to International Law, one can extract from many documents, including the Hague Convention of 1907, that the use of nuclear weapons is, constitutes a war crime. Just because it doesnt say "atomic weapons", you have to look into the spirit of the law.

The bombings of cities in WWII is nto a war crime. All sides did it, and all sides were nor charged for it.
Unless the Hague convention of 1907 specifcally states the use of nuclear weapons on cities is illegal then your argument is null and void.

Pardon me for asking, but what is it you do for a living and what did you study, so i can know the background of my opponent?
I study Law at the University of Lisbon.

I work with a family member at their construciton business. I plan on studying Criminal Justice to get into some sort of law enforcement.

[Halbard]

The bombings of cities in WWII is nto a war crime. All sides did it, and all sides were nor charged for it.
Unless the Hague convention of 1907 specifcally states the use of nuclear weapons on cities is illegal then your argument is null and void.

There is a difference between the letter of the law and it's spirit. it's an understandable mistake. most people dont grasp it. you see, the nuclear bombing does not violate the letter of the law, but it does violates its spirit. you have to perform an extensive interpretation of the law. Therefore, you dont have to be spefic when you create the law. the law's spirit has to be understandable, and in this case, the law's spirit is to safeguard civilians, therefore, a nuclear bombing is also in violation of the convention.

Hague Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923

Article 22: Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing civilian population, of destroying or damaging private property not of military character, or of injuring non-combatants is prohibited.

I think that Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State is of critical importance to our discussion. I ask the forum members that are following our discussion to express themselves on the matter in the commentary thread for this debate. We could also incorporate a poll.

I work with a family member at their construciton business. I plan on studying Criminal Justice to get into some sort of law enforcement.

A sound choice. I'm also considering going into the Portuguese Judiciary Police (our FBI). But ill probably end up lawyerwing for the €€.

[Vanoi]

Hague Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923

Article 22: Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing civilian population, of destroying or damaging private property not of military character, or of injuring non-combatants is prohibited.

You finally post some real evidence. Heres the thing though, no one followed the Hague conventions at the time. Infact almost all nations now do not follow the Hague convention any longer. All nations now follow the Geneva Conventions instead of the Hague conventions. If that rule was still in effect than most nations around the world would have to be held accountable for war crimes. Every naiton of Wolrd War II would have to be held accountable for bombing cities. Sorry this was a very good document that proves a point. but when no one actually follows the document anymore, its kinda useless.

Also its hard to make out something like the atomic bombings a war crime when they saved more people than they killed.

I think that Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State is of critical importance to our discussion. I ask the forum members that are following our discussion to express themselves on the matter in the commentary thread for this debate. We could also incorporate a poll.

I'll make a poll now.

A sound choice. I'm also considering going into the Portuguese Judiciary Police (our FBI). But ill probably end up lawyerwing for the €€ .

Not sure what i plan on doing. I don't want to be a regular police officer, that is just boring to me. ill have to decide when i start studying.

[Halbard]

You finally post some real evidence. Heres the thing though, no one followed the Hague conventions at the time. Infact almost all nations now do not follow the Hague convention any longer. All nations now follow the Geneva Conventions instead of the Hague conventions. If that rule was still in effect than most nations around the world would have to be held accountable for war crimes. Every naiton of Wolrd War II would have to be held accountable for bombing cities. Sorry this was a very good document that proves a point. but when no one actually follows the document anymore, its kinda useless.

Even tough they did not follow the Law, the law was still there. Like i said, legem statuit victor "the victor decides the law"
Remember, we are discussing the legality of the bombings, not whether it was the best option or not.

We must follow the law of that time, and i think that Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State is a key factor to our discussion. The court ruled that the bombings were indeed, a crime.

Link to the wikipedia article on the case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryuichi...a_v._The_State

[Vanoi]

Even tough they did not follow the Law, the law was still there. Like i said, legem statuit victor "the victor decides the law"

World War II was a total war here. All sides bombed each other's cities during the war yet neither side was charged with war crimes. Infact if the world again still followed that same law then msot of the world would need ot be charged wiht war crimes because i am sure a lot of private property as been destroyed by aircraft throughtout the world. There is no point in following that law if it is outdated.

It would be like still following the St. Petersburg Declration of 1868 banning projectiles that weighed mroe than 400 grams. It would be like sitll following the Kellog-Briand Pact. Or following the Washington Naval Treaty. There is little point in following out-dated treatys.

We must follow the law of that time, and i think that Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State

is a key factor to our discussion. The court ruled that the bombings were indeed, a crime.

Wow the same country that got hit by the atomic bombs found the bombings illegal. This isn't a biased declaration at all.

[Halbard]

World War II was a total war here. All sides bombed each other's cities during the war yet neither side was charged with war crimes. Infact if the world again still followed that same law then msot of the world would need ot be charged wiht war crimes because i am sure a lot of private property as been destroyed by aircraft throughtout the world. There is no point in following that law if it is outdated.

It would be like still following the St. Petersburg Declration of 1868 banning projectiles that weighed mroe than 400 grams. It would be like sitll following the Kellog-Briand Pact. Or following the Washington Naval Treaty. There is little point in following out-dated treatys.

Wow the same country that got hit by the atomic bombs found the bombings illegal. This isn't a biased declaration at all.

A treaty is in force unless it is revoked, or the circumstances drastically change, this is a rebus sic stantibus clause. This is what you meant, im just polishing it.
Still, the safeguard of civilian lives is a fundamental principle in the rules of war. The evolution of warfare cannot, in any way, trample this fundamental principle.
Obviousely, the ban on the use of projectiles over 400gr is not in force due to a rebus sic stantibus clause.

The Court is unbiased. They just wanted to assert the legal status of the US actions. Ryuchi Shimonda knew that he was not entitled to an indemnity due to the court's lack of jurisdiction.

[Vanoi]

A treaty is in force unless it is revoked, or the circumstances drastically change, this is a rebus sic stantibus clause. This is what you meant, im just polishing it.
Still, the safeguard of civilian lives is a fundamental principle in the rules of war. The evolution of warfare cannot, in any way, trample over this fundamental principle.

Then man i better call up the Hague. Might as well tell them about every single nation that as ever violated tretays from 100 years ago. Man the US is in so much trouble for violating the Washington Naval Treaty. Britan, France, China, and Italy are in trouble too for doing the same. The US is also now using dum dum rounds which were banned in the 1907 Hague convention. They are in trouble for that too. Infact most of any country that has fought a war using anytime of aircraft and has violated the Hague convention is also guilty of war crimes by damaging private property. I can't imagine how many nations have commited war crimes by using projectiles in artilllery that weighted more than 400 grams.

Get what i am saying? There is little point in convicting nations for war cimres for treatys no one followed at the time, and that no one follows anymore./

[Halbard]

Get what i am saying? There is little point in convicting nations for war cimres for treatys no one followed at the time, and that no one follows anymore./

That does not, in any way, make their actions legal.
Did you read my full post? Or did you simply not understand. It's the underlying principle that matters here.

Here's a link from Wikisource for the case: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ryuich...._v._The_State

[Vanoi]

That does not make the actions legal.
Did you read my full post? Or did you simply not understand. It's the underlying principle that matters here.

A treaty has no effetc if no one follows it anymore. thats the same idea wiht the Hague Convention one. no one followed it anymore. Seriously. Rea dmy psot. If we sitll did follow the stupid treaty then msot of the world would eb charged with war crimes. Or are you nto getting that there is no poitn in following out-dated treatys that no one followed in the first place?

Here's a link from Wikisource for the case: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ryuich...._v._The_State

I have already explained how this case is kinda biased considering the same country who got hit by the atomic bombs ruled that it was illegal.