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

[SPECTREtm]

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.

Should be a good discussion, at the very least it's a debate where there isn't an obvious answer.

Since there were no laws forbidding the use of atomic weapons, then I can hard see why it would be back then. If we are to judge it by modern standards, then just about every engagement of that war could be consindered a warcrime.

[Halbard]

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.

This is reveals your ignorance of the general principles of Law. A nuclear bombing at the time did not violate the law's letter, but it DID violate the law's spirit. Read my post on the previous page.

Since there were no laws forbidding the use of atomic weapons, then I can hard see why it would be back then. If we are to judge it by modern standards, then just about every engagement of that war could be consindered a warcrime.

The Hague Convention was in force. And it banned the use of many weapons. Nulcear weapons were not specified because they did not exist. But, like i said, the use of a nuke violated the spirit of the law, not it letter. And the spirit prevails over the letter.

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.

The alternative is irrelevant to our discussion. We are debating whether the atomic bombing was or was not legal.

[Cougar109]

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.

Doesn't that argument seem a little strange to you or any others? That Japan was willing to put up with a total blockade and mass strategic bombing which was causing far more destruction and death than the nuclear attacks and fight to the death, but quickly surrendered after the two nuclear bombs? It just doesn't follow the logic that a nation which was willing to so blindly accept extinction over surrender and up to this point tolerated so much more than the two bombs caused, would just give up. Wouldn't logic dictate that there was more to the surrender than the two bombs?

I'd think determining the absolute necessity and usage of the weapon would be critical in determining the validity of it's use wouldn't it?

[Halbard]

I'd think determining the absolute necessity and usage of the weapon would be critical in determining the validity of it's use wouldn't it?

No. Not in this case. The safety of civilians is one of the most important rules in warfare. And the US violated it, by using a weapon of unusual destructive power on 2 cities with little military significance.

And in my opinion, the japs would surrender soon, without the bomb. Japan was and still is extremely dependant of food imports, along with oil and coal. They would soon run out of food and fuel.
Most people in Japan were not as fanatical as the Americans paint them.

[Fenwayb]

This is reveals your ignorance of the general principles of Law. A nuclear bombing at the time did not violate the law's letter, but it DID violate the law's spirit. Read my post on the previous page.

however the letter of the law is all that matters.

[Halbard]

however the letter of the law is all that matters.

No... It's not. ALL jurists agree that the spirit prevails over the letter of the law.

And ill prove how dumb you are.

Lets read the US Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Does this mean that women dont go in the package? According to your idiot logic, yes. But an intelligent, trained person, has to see beyond the letter of the law, and see it's spirit. And clearly, the word "men" here refers to the human species, not to the male gender.

[Fenwayb]

No... It's not. ALL jurists agree that the spirit prevails over the letter of the law.

And ill prove how dumb you are.

Lets read the US Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Does this mean that women dont go in the package? According to your idiot logic, yes. But an intelligent, trained person, has to see beyond the letter of the law, and see it's spirit. And clearly, the word "men" here refers to the human species, not to the male gender.

Firstly there is no need to be rude, so you can stop the name-calling. Secondly...

man1    
[man] Show IPA
noun, plural men, verb, manned, man·ning, interjection
–noun
1.
an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
2.
a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man.
3.
the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind: Man hopes for peace, but prepares for war.

That's not interpretation, beyond what meaning of the word "man" is used.

[Halbard]

Firstly there is no need to be rude, so you can stop the name-calling. Secondly...


That's not interpretation, beyond what meaning of the word "man" is used.

That is the literal interpretation, yes. But the point i was trying to make is that the Spirit of the Law prevails over the Letter of the Law. Go read basic law textbooks, and when you get to the intepretation of the law, they will all tell you that the Spirit prevails.

And so, gas, chemical and bacteriological weapons were banned. The spirit of this law seeked to ban weapons of extraordinary deadlyness, altough it's letter did not refer to nuclear weapons. Now, if we consider that the spirit prevails over the letter, which the majority of jurists agree, the use of nuclear weapons was also banned.

Read this. Any neutral tribunal would have reached the same conclusion.

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

or the full decision

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ryuich...._v._The_State

[Søren]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
- Mahatma Ganhdi

Or it can stop the person from poking your other eye out.

[Fenwayb]

That is the literal interpretation, yes. But the point i was trying to make is that the Spirit of the Law prevails over the Letter of the Law. Go read basic law textbooks, and when you get to the intepretation of the law, they will all tell you that the Spirit prevails.

And so, gas, chemical and bacteriological weapons were banned. The spirit of this law seeked to ban weapons of extraordinary deadlyness, altough it's letter did not refer to nuclear weapons. Now, if we consider that the spirit prevails over the letter, which the majority of jurists agree, the use of nuclear weapons was also banned.

Read this. Any neutral tribunal would have reached the same conclusion.

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

or the full decision

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ryuich...._v._The_State

What makes you say you can include nuclear weapons in that category of "extraordinary deadliness"?Considering, as has been stated before, that the firebombing of Tokyo was deadlier than both nuclear attacks combined.

[Halbard]

What makes you say you can include nuclear weapons in that category of "extraordinary deadliness"?Considering, as has been stated before, that the firebombing of Tokyo was deadlier than both nuclear attacks combined.

The firebombing of Tokyo was nowhere nearly as deadly and traumatic as the atomic bombings. The Firebombing caused an estimate of 100k dead +50k serious wounded. The nuclear bombings cause around 200.000 dead within a week, and many other thousands of scarred people due to radiation. Even today, the effects of the atomic bombings can be witnessed.

[The Stig]

Or it can stop the person from poking your other eye out.

There's only one person.

[Lord Rahl]

People who harp on the atomic bomb do so because it's more scary than conventional bombing. So, it's legitimate to kill tens of thousands of civilians using thousands upon thousands explosive and incendiary bombs but if you use one then the latter is a war crime.

[Himster]

So, it's legitimate to kill tens of thousands of civilians using thousands upon thousands explosive and incendiary bombs

Nope.

[Lord Rahl]

Could you expand on your reply?

[Boyar Son]

Civilians are a military asset.

So I did my patriotic duty and voted *no*.

[Jaketh]

They should thank us for only using two bombs in my opinion

[Basil II the B.S]

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.

This.
And since ''being the lesser evil'', which is generally the main argument to defend the bombing, isn't valid, it's a warcrime, end of the story.
Ironically, ''worse evil'' may have not been a warcrime.

They should thank us for only using two bombs in my opinion

And it's because of idiotic comments like this, that it should be recognized as a warcrime.

[Himster]

Could you expand on your reply?

There's no point: it should be obvious. If it's not obvious then it's likely you could suffer from some form of psychopathy in which case my elaboration would be dismissed as "irrational", but then again practically all human interaction is "irrational" to a psycopath.

So either way lies futility.

Boyar Son
Civilians are a military asset.
So I did my patriotic duty and voted *no*.

Jakreth
They should thank us for only using two bombs in my opinion

So mass murder is easily permissible in war-time in your opinions? Would the holocaust have been ok if bombs had been used instead of gas and bullets and death-marches?

[Vanoi]

Just curious Himster, what do you think the US should have done on this situation? Do you still think the US should have used the bombs, or done something else?