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

[Vanoi]

So using Chemical warfare on civilians in wrong, firebombing civilians isn't?

chemical warfare was illegal at the time by international law. Bombing cities wasn't. Besides it was a total war and civilians became targets. I explained this four times already.

[Cougar109]

chemical warfare was illegal at the time by international law. Bombing cities wasn't. Besides it was a total war and civilians became targets. I explained this four times already.

But you haven't explained away the hypocrisy and naivety of your statements. Both sides slaughtered civilians by the tens of thousands through rather brutal methods, one through it's ground forces the other through the air, yet you seem bent on setting one side was so much worse than the other. In regards to the international "laws of war", every side had their fair share of violations. Hell the U.S. broke several such as the Cruisers Rule by ordering unrestricted submarine warfare yet I highly doubt you're going to proclaim Roosevelt or any of the high ranking Naval officers should have been tried.

Both sides committed horrible atrocities and both sides broke these so called laws of war. Both sides were in a state of total war fueled by nationalism and both sides did what they saw as utterly necessary in order to achieve victory and control, be it legal or not.

[Halbard]

Yep, but they knew the invasion was the more bloody choice here, and they chose to use the atomic bombs and only kill 400,000 people instead of killing up to 10 million people with an invasion.

There was NO NEED to invade Japan. It's like a 4 year old kid trying to hit an adult. You are not going to pummel them with all your might. You just push them back a bit, keep your distance, and wait until the kid tires itself out. A large scale blockade would suffice to strangle Japan.

And the plan is exactly what it is: a plan. A mere prediction, subject to errors. So pick up another argument instead the invasion plan and the US estimates.

It being the lesser evil isn't an argument against it being a warcrime though. The debate isn't what was the best solution, it's whether the bombing was a warcrime.

Exactly. The best solution here is secondary. The key argument is whether the bombing was or was not, a war crime. And i think that i've proven that it was indeed.
But not to worry, im sure that the US will never have to answer for this in a court of law

[Vanoi]

But you haven't explained away the hypocrisy and naivety of your statements. Both sides slaughtered civilians by the tens of thousands through rather brutal methods, one through it's ground forces the other through the air, yet you seem bent on setting one side was so much worse than the other. In regards to the international "laws of war", every side had their fair share of violations. Hell the U.S. broke several such as the Cruisers Rule by ordering unrestricted submarine warfare yet I highly doubt you're going to proclaim Roosevelt or any of the high ranking Naval officers should have been tried.

Both sides committed horrible atrocities and both sides broke these so called laws of war. Both sides were in a state of total war fueled by nationalism and both sides did what they saw as utterly necessary in order to achieve victory and control, be it legal or not.

Can you post a source for the un-restricted submarine warfare?

Also your getting off-topic here, but ill reply anyways. Gas weapons (the chemical weapons Japan use don china ) were banned in the 1920s. However bombing your enemies cities was not. The use bombed Japanese cities to reduce enemy morale, and it worked. The Doolittle raid did almost no damage, but severely affected the morale of Japanese civilians. it showed that tthe US could bomb Japan. The later bombings that begna in 1944 were aiming at their industry, and effecting enemy morale. The fire bombing of Tokyo was more of a psychologicla vicotyr for the US if anything. It kept showing the Japanse populace that the war is lost and that they should surrender. This is different from reverting basically back to WWI and using gas to attack enemy soldiers in war which again was banned in 1929. Call it hypocrpisy all you want, this was a Total War. It was the worst war in the history of man. I don't think the US is proud that they got to killed hundreads of thousands of people by bombing their cities. The US wanted the war to end quickly though instead of just doing something like blocakding them for up to a year. The bombings of Japan helped achieve that.

There was NO NEED to invade Japan. It's like a 4 year old kid trying to hit an adult. You are not going to pummel them with all your might. You just push them back a bit, keep your distance, and wait until the kid tires itself out. A large scale blockade would suffice to strangle Japan.

And the plan is exactly what it is: a plan. A mere prediction, subject to errors. So pick up another argument instead the invasion plan and the US estimates.

There WAS a need to invade Japan. A large scale blockade was alreayd in effect and it would have taken a year. 1 year of more civilians and POWS dieing under Japan's oppressive polices. You liek to ignore that though.

Did you even both to read Operaiton Downfall? This was more than a prediction. They had troops transports ready, they had plane,s ready, they had troops, ready, they already made 500,000 medals for the casualties. They had predicted casualties. They predicated how long the invasion would take and the year the US would have full occupied Japan. They were breifing troops in Europe about the possible invasion of Japan and how they could be apart of it. This thing was not subject to erros, your just to blind to accept this is what would have happened if the US hadn't chosen to use the bombs, or if the bombs hadn't worked.

Exactly. The best solution here is secondary. The key argument is whether the bombing was or was not, a war crime. And i think that i've proven that it was indeed.
But not to worry, im sure that the US will never have to answer for this in a court of law

You posted a bunch of quotes about what people thought about the bomb while i posted facts and how the bombs saved millions of lives and how World War II was a total war and why bombing cities was nto a war cimre. But you keep ignoring it. Anyways keep on replying with the same arguments with no solid evidence to back up your claims.

[Cougar109]

Can you post a source for the un-restricted submarine warfare?

Here's a brief wiki on the subject. The gist of it was Submarines were supposed to operate under the so called Cruiser Rules per the London Naval Treaty and reinforced by the Second London Naval Treaty, both of which the U.S. were signatories of, and the particular clause became known as the London Submarine Protocol. It forced submarines to give warning to the enemy merchant crew and allowing them to abandon ship before firing and once the target was sunk the submarine had to rescue the survivors which qualified by meeting certain standards, IE. giving them a life boat wasn't going to cut it. Impractical, but so were many of the laws which every nation broke during WWII.

Donitz was charged and found guilty for the order and for violating the clause, though he wasn't punished for that exact guilty charge. No nation there could punish him for it with a straight face.

Also your getting off-topic here, but ill reply anyways. Gas weapons (the chemical weapons Japan use don china ) were banned in the 1920s. However bombing your enemies cities was not. The use bombed Japanese cities to reduce enemy morale, and it worked. The Doolittle raid did almost no damage, but severely affected the morale of Japanese civilians. it showed that tthe US could bomb Japan. The later bombings that begna in 1944 were aiming at their industry, and effecting enemy morale. The fire bombing of Tokyo was more of a psychologicla vicotyr for the US if anything. It kept showing the Japanse populace that the war is lost and that they should surrender. This is different from reverting basically back to WWI and using gas to attack enemy soldiers in war which again was banned in 1929. Call it hypocrpisy all you want, this was a Total War. It was the worst war in the history of man. I don't think the US is proud that they got to killed hundreads of thousands of people by bombing their cities. The US wanted the war to end quickly though instead of just doing something like blocakding them for up to a year. The bombings of Japan helped achieve that.

I apologize for taking it off topic, I'll make this final comment and shut up.

Mind you I don't find what the U.S. did as wrong, they did what at the time they saw as necessary to achieve victory and I have no problem with that, and whether they were legal by various international treaties was irrelevant because at the end of the day the only ones punished for violating said treaties are the losers. Calling the acts of Japan atrocities while calling the acts of the Allies as necessary "psychological attacks" or sugar coating it by saying their primary targets were industry (Already went over that with you in this thread) is simply naive. They both slaughtered civilians because it was a "Us or them, and we're better then them" mentality fueled by that excessive nationalism that was swirling around the world in the 30's and 40's. They both did it with the desire to achieve the same goal, breaking the enemies morale in order to end the respective war as quickly as possible.

[Vanoi]

Here's a brief wiki on the subject. The gist of it was Submarines were supposed to operate under the so called Cruiser Rules per the London Naval Treaty and reinforced by the Second London Naval Treaty, both of which the U.S. were signatories of, and the particular clause became known as the London Submarine Protocol. It forced submarines to give warning to the enemy merchant crew and allowing them to abandon ship before firing and once the target was sunk the submarine had to rescue the survivors which qualified by meeting certain standards, IE. giving them a life boat wasn't going to cut it. Impractical, but so were many of the laws which every nation broke during WWII.

Donitz was charged and found guilty for the order and for violating the clause, though he wasn't punished for that exact guilty charge. No nation there could punish him for it with a straight face. .

Thanks. I always knew the US was really big on submarine warfare in the Pacific but i didn't know it was un-restricted. Though i think the US onyl aimed for Japanese ships. I don't think many nations were trading wiht Japan in World War II, so i don't think we hit any neutral ships.

I apologize for taking it off topic, I'll make this final comment and shut up.

Mind you I don't find what the U.S. did as wrong, they did what at the time they saw as necessary to achieve victory and I have no problem with that, and whether they were legal by various international treaties was irrelevant because at the end of the day the only ones punished for violating said treaties are the losers. Calling the acts of Japan atrocities while calling the acts of the Allies as necessary "psychological attacks" or sugar coating it by saying their primary targets were industry (Already went over that with you in this thread) is simply naive. They both slaughtered civilians because it was a "Us or them, and we're better then them" mentality fueled by that excessive nationalism that was swirling around the world in the 30's and 40's. They both did it with the desire to achieve the same goal, breaking the enemies morale in order to end the respective war as quickly as possible.

Thats the unfortunate reality of a total war. I know the US's bombing campaign wasn't soley for attacking industry, but you have to admit the US was aiming for it. Though at the same time the US was bombing cities to break the enemys morale. this didn't work in Germany, but it was working with Japan. Hopefully something like this will never happen again. With today's technology if we fought a war like this again, the deaths from bombings would be in the millions. Anyways though back on-topic.

[Halbard]

There WAS a need to invade Japan. A large scale blockade was alreayd in effect and it would have taken a year. 1 year of more civilians and POWS dieing under Japan's oppressive polices. You liek to ignore that though.

Did you even both to read Operaiton Downfall? This was more than a prediction. They had troops transports ready, they had plane,s ready, they had troops, ready, they already made 500,000 medals for the casualties. They had predicted casualties. They predicated how long the invasion would take and the year the US would have full occupied Japan. They were breifing troops in Europe about the possible invasion of Japan and how they could be apart of it. This thing was not subject to erros, your just to blind to accept this is what would have happened if the US hadn't chosen to use the bombs, or if the bombs hadn't worked.

It seems like the US army was big on astrology then. They knew exactly what was going to happen

And i say again: the japs were ready to surrender. There just had to be more time.



You posted a bunch of quotes about what people thought about the bomb while i posted facts and how the bombs saved millions of lives and how World War II was a total war and why bombing cities was nto a war cimre. But you keep ignoring it. Anyways keep on replying with the same arguments with no solid evidence to back up your claims.[/QUOTE]

I posted many quotes, true. I quoted Einstein, many high ranking US officers. They surely had some knowledge of this matter. And i also quoted many international conventions and laws, like the Hague convention. And the use of nuclear weapons, especially on a clearly civilian target was a war crime. whether it was necessary or not, it's a secondary matter.

You just dont want to see it, i reckon. Was your grandfather the guy who dropped one of the bombs? 'Cause i dont blame him

[Vanoi]

It seems like the US army was big on astrology then. They knew exactly what was going to happen

And i say again: the japs were ready to surrender. There just had to be more time.

Again your just nto egtting ti are you? If the atomic bombs were not going to be used there would have been an invasion. The US didn't want to wait 6 months ot a year for a blockade to work. They would have luanched Operation Downfall and then there would have possibly been 10 million less Japanese who survived the war.

You posted a bunch of quotes about what people thought about the bomb while i posted facts and how the bombs saved millions of lives and how World War II was a total war and why bombing cities was nto a war cimre. But you keep ignoring it. Anyways keep on replying with the same arguments with no solid evidence to back up your claims.

I posted many quotes, true. I quoted Einstein, many high ranking US officers. They surely had some knowledge of this matter.

They were opinions really. I posted quotes by President Truman who supported the bombings. He is pretty high up in the US government. If you want i can post quotes from military officers who supported the bomb like MacArthur.

And i also quoted many international conventions and laws, like the Hague convention. And the use of nuclear weapons, especially on a clearly civilian target was a war crime. whether it was necessary or not, it's a secondary matter.

Really? you mind sourcing that document that existed pre-1945 that says the use of atomic weapons on cities is forbidden?

You just dont want to see it, i reckon. Was your grandfather the guy who dropped one of the bombs? 'Cause i dont blame him

No, my grandfather fougth in Korea. One of my great-grandfathers died in a Japanese POW camp after they slit his throat.

[Halbard]

They were opinions really. I posted quotes by President Truman who supported the bombings. He is pretty high up in the US government. If you want i can post quotes from military officers who supported the bomb like MacArthur.

Einstein>Any US government member. At least in my book. The man was unbiased.

Really? you mind sourcing that document that existed pre-1945 that says the use of atomic weapons on cities is forbidden?

I already replied to this on the main thread

No, my grandfather fougth in Korea. One of my great-grandfathers died in a Japanese POW camp after they slit his throat.

I also have a great-great uncle who was KIA in Timor while helping the australians. One of the few portuguese people who participated in WW2.
True. Japan's treatment of POW's was criminal. But 2 wrongs dont make a right.

[Vanoi]

Einstein>Any US government member. At least in my book. The man was unbiased.

The man wasn't un-biased. He felt guilt for helping create a bomb that killed thousands of people. Anyone would really.

I also have a great-great uncle who was KIA in Timor while helping the australians. One of the few portuguese people who participated in WW2.
True. Japan's treatment of POW's was criminal. But 2 wrongs dont make a right.

Who says the reason i support the bombings is because the Japanese killed my great-grandfather? I support it because it saved more lives than it killed.

[Leonidas The Lion]

Guys only the losers get charged with war crimes.

Keep that in mind.

[Halbard]

To the people that are casting their vote on the poll, bear in mind: we are debating whether the bombing was or was not a war crime. Not whether it was necessary or not, or whether it was or not the best course of action. Our discussion concerns the legality of the bombing. Also, after voting, if you would, please add a comment, im sure Azoth, like myself, is curious about people's opinions.

The fact that WW2 was a total war is fairly secondary, since this is a legal matter.

By the way, Az, we should decide a date for finish the poll, wouldn't you agree? maybe until the end of next Tuesday?

[Vanoi]

To the people that are casting their vote on the poll, bear in mind: we are debating the legality of the bombing. Not whether it was necessary or not, or whether it was or not the best course of action. We base our discussion in the legality of the bombing.

By the way, Az, we should decide a date for finish the poll, wouldn't you agree? maybe until the end of next Tuesday?

First off if we are just discussing its legality then again this isn't a war crime. Both sides again bombed each other cities in world War II but neither sides was charged for the war crimes. Maybe they all decided that during World War II that the bombings were legal since it was a total war?

Also no. Lets just leave the poll up as long as possible. no point in stoping it really.

[Halbard]

First off if we are just discussing its legality then again this isn't a war crime. Both sides again bombed each other cities in world War II but neither sides was charged for the war crimes. Maybe they all decided that during World War II that the bombings were legal since it was a total war?

It is a crime, since it violates the 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. It does not go against the letter of the law, but it does violate it's spirit. Hence, and extended interpretation is in order, which leads us to conclude that it is, in fact, a crime.

Here is a quick explanation on the Spirit VS Letter of the Law:
The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording.
"Law" originally referred to legislative statute, but in the idiom may refer to any kind of rule. Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language. Following the letter of the law but not the spirit is also a tactic used by oppressive governments.

[Vanoi]

It is a crime, since it violates the 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. It does not go against the letter of the law, but it does violate it's spirit. Hence, and extended interpretation is in order, which leads us to conclude that it is, in fact, a crime.

Here is a quick explanation on the Spirit VS Letter of the Law:
The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording.
"Law" originally referred to legislative statute, but in the idiom may refer to any kind of rule. Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language. Following the letter of the law but not the spirit is also a tactic used by oppressive governments.

I already have my answer to this on the main thread.

[Halbard]

Guys only the losers get charged with war crimes.

Indeedly!

It's this all over again:

Einstein:
"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?

In the documentary The Fog of War, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. 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?"

[Vanoi]

Indeedly!

It's this all over again:

Einstein:
"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?

In the documentary The Fog of War, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. 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?"

I already refuted those claims either in this thread a page back or the main thread. Anyways the debate is in the main thread, not here.

[TheDarkKnight]

The alternative, the invasion of Japan, would have been far worse. The Japanese were ready to fight to the death on the beaches. Continuing the war would have led to the annihilation of *FAR* more Japanese people than the two bombs could have ever done.

[Vanoi]

The alternative, the invasion of Japan, would have been far worse. The Japanese were ready to fight to the death on the beaches. Continuing the war would have led to the annihilation of *FAR* more Japanese people than the two bombs could have ever done.

Yes but according to Halbard we are arguing whenever using the bomb was legal or not.

[TheDarkKnight]

Yes but according to Halbard we are arguing whenever using the bomb was legal or not.

Fair enough.


The weapon was new. It had not been "outlawed" by any international convention or anything of the sort.


Therefore, if it wasn't illegal, it was technically legally used by the United States to end a war that had lasted for years so as to save lives.