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

[Halbard]

Your spelling is going a bit downhill.

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?

The texts i quoted were not even 40 years old by the end of WW2. And the rebus sic stantibus clauses can be applied in parts of the treaty, not as a whole. So, about the 400 grams projectiles, yes, it may be null. But concerning civilian safety and safeguard, they were still in force. And the safety of civilians was considered a General Principle of International Law.

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.

I've read many cases in which states were convicted by their own courts. My grandfather sued the Portuguese state many times due to some urban planning crap and he won.

The District Court of Tokyo decided based on the laws of the time of the bombings, and considered the actions a crime. The judge followed the law. You seem not to trust the japs courtrooms...

[Vanoi]

Your spelling is going a bit downhill.

Happens when i type too fast. I forgot to fix them thats all.

The texts i quoted were not even 40 years old by the end of WW2. And the rebus sic stantibus clauses can be applied in parts of the treaty, not as a whole. So, about the 400 grams projectiles, yes, it may be null. But concerning civilian safety and safeguard, they were still in force.

And yet no one followed the treaty anymore by that time. So whats the point in enforcing it if no one followed it already? Again no one follows the Hague conventions anymore. All nations now follow the Geneva conventions. The Hague conventions are out-dated and nto enforcable any longer due to no one following them.

I've read many cases in which states were convicted by their own courts. My grandfather sued the Portuguese state many times due to some urban planning crap and he won.

The District Court of Tokyo decided based on the laws of the time of the bombings, and considered the actions a crime. The judge followed the law. You seem not to trust the japs courtrooms_...

Wow really? I doubt it because if the they Japan would be guilty of more war crimes they were not convicted for in WWII. They would be guilty of bombing Chinese cities during the time. Guess what though? They weren't charged for it because no one follows the treaty anymore.

Again the verdict is not surprising considering this was a case in Japan about bombings that happened to Japan. Its obvious they would found them illegal. It would be no different in Great Britan if they found The Blitz by the Germans to be illegal. Or the Germans finding the bombing of their cities by the Allies to be illegal.

[Halbard]

And yet no one followed the treaty anymore by that time. So whats the point in enforcing it if no one followed it already? Again no one follows the Hague conventions anymore. All nations now follow the Geneva conventions. The Hague conventions are out-dated and nto enforcable any longer due to no one following them.

They were in force during WW2.

Wow really? I doubt it because if the they Japan would be guilty of more war crimes they were not convicted for in WWII. They would be guilty of bombing Chinese cities during the time. Guess what though? They weren't charged for it because no one follows the treaty anymore.

Again the verdict is not surprising considering this was a case in Japan about bombings that happened to Japan. Its obvious they would found them illegal. It would be no different in Great Britan if they found The Blitz by the Germans to be illegal. Or the Germans finding the bombing of their cities by the Allies to be illegal.

Hideki Tojo was hanged for war crimes in 1948. Now, why is it that the Japanese and German war crimes are punished and not the crimes commited by the Allies? Oh, thats right! The Allies won!

Any bombing that aims at to destroy civilian targets, with no military relevance, is illegal, indeed.
The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was especially illegal, due to the destructive nature of the devices used. It was unprecedented destruction. It affected not only the victims, but their children, grandechildren, 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.

You seem to have some dislike for international law.

[Halbard]

Some more
The scholar R. J. Rummel instead extends the definition of genocide to what he calls democide, and includes the major part of deaths from the atom bombings in these. His definition of democide includes not only genocide, but also an excessive killing of civilians in war, to the extent that this is against the agreed rules for warfare; he argues that indeed the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, and thus democide. Rummel quotes among others an official protest from the US government in 1938 to Japan, for its bombing of Chinese cities:

"The bombing of non-combatant populations violated international and humanitarian laws."

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP13.HTM

[Vanoi]

They were in force during WW2.

No, they weren't consdiering no nation followed them, no they were not in force.
Do i need to explain to you again all all sides did nto folllow th etreaty and bombed each other's cities?

Hideki Tojo was hanged for war crimes in 1948. Now, why is it that the Japanese and German war crimes are punished and not the crimes commited by the Allies? Oh, thats right! The Allies won!

I don't know you tell me. how many POWS did the Allies mistreat? How many POWS from the Allies died from malnutrition or had their heads got off, or were executed by a firing sqaud for no reaosn? How many undesirables did the Allies put in camps and murder? How many cities did the Allies take over, then presume to rape hundreads of thousands of women and killed up to 300,000 people?

Any bombing that aims at to destroy civilian targets, with no military relevance, is illegal, indeed.
The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was especially illegal, due to the destructive nature of the devices used. It was unprecedented destruction. It affected not only the victims, but their children, grandechildren, 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.

I hate repeating myself, so i am not. go back a few pages or on this page itself and look at where i said World War II was a total war, and how all sides did not follow the Hague Conventions banning bombing civilian cities and how neither side was convicted of war crimes for doing such. I get tired of repeating myself.

You seem to have some dislike for international law.

No i like international law that is relevant like the UN charters or the Geneva Conventions. Not laws that were out-dated or laws that no one followed in the first place. May as well call up the Hauge right now if the world was still following old war laws. They would have thousands and thousands of cases ot sift through consdiering how many nations have violated those laws.

Some more
The scholar R. J. Rummel instead extends the definition of genocide to what he calls democide, and includes the major part of deaths from the atom bombings in these. His definition of democide includes not only genocide, but also an excessive killing of civilians in war, to the extent that this is against the agreed rules for warfare; he argues that indeed the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, and thus democide. Rummel quotes among others an official protest from the US government in 1938 to Japan, for its bombing of Chinese cities:

"The bombing of non-combatant populations violated international and humanitarian laws."

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP13.HTM

And yet they were not charged for it like everyone else at the end of the war. Those laws also couldn't be enforced. Its the main reason no one followed them in the first place.

[Halbard]

No, they weren't consdiering no nation followed them, no they were not in force.
Do i need to explain to you again all all sides did nto folllow th etreaty and bombed each other's cities?

They were. The Hague convention had been signed 38 years before the end of the war. Curiously, it was suggested by an american president.

I don't know you tell me. how many POWS did the Allies mistreat? How many POWS from the Allies died from malnutrition or had their heads got off, or were executed by a firing sqaud for no reaosn? How many undesirables did the Allies put in camps and murder? How many cities did the Allies take over, then presume to rape hundreads of thousands of women and killed up to 300,000 people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

American soldiers in the Pacific often deliberately killed Japanese soldiers who had surrendered. According to Richard Aldrich, who has published a study of the diaries kept by United States and Australian soldiers, they sometimes massacred prisoners of war. Dower states that in "many instances ... Japanese who did become prisoners were killed on the spot or en route to prison compounds." According to Aldrich it was common practice for U.S. troops not to take prisoners. This analysis is supported by British historian Niall Ferguson, who also says that, in 1943, "a secret [U. S.] intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days leave would ... induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese."
Ferguson states such practices played a role in the ratio of Japanese prisoners to dead being 1:100 in late 1944. That same year, efforts were taken by Allied high commanders to suppress "take no prisoners" attitudes,[62] among their own personnel (as these were affecting intelligence gathering) and to encourage Japanese soldiers to surrender. Ferguson adds that measures by Allied commanders to improve the ratio of Japanese prisoners to Japanese dead, resulted in it reaching 1:7, by mid-1945. Nevertheless, taking no prisoners was still standard practice among U. S. troops at the Battle of Okinawa, in April–June 1945.[63]
Ulrich Straus, a U.S. Japanologist, suggests that frontline troops intensely hated Japanese military personnel and were "not easily persuaded" to take or protect prisoners, as they believed that Allied personnel who surrendered, got "no mercy" from the Japanese. Allied soldiers believed that Japanese soldiers were inclined to feign surrender, in order to make surprise attacks. Therefore, according to Straus, "Senior officers opposed the taking of prisoners on the grounds that it needlessly exposed American troops to risks..." When prisoners nevertheless were taken at Gualdacanal, interrogator Army Captain Burden noted that many times these were shot during transport because "it was too much bother to take him in".
Ferguson suggests that "it was not only the fear of disciplinary action or of dishonor that deterred German and Japanese soldiers from surrendering. More important for most soldiers was the perception that prisoners would be killed by the enemy anyway, and so one might as well fight on."
U. S. historian James J. Weingartner attributes the very low number of Japanese in U.S. POW compounds to two important factors, a Japanese reluctance to surrender and a widespread American "conviction that the Japanese were "animals" or "subhuman'" and unworthy of the normal treatment accorded to POWs. The latter reason is supported by Ferguson, who says that "Allied troops often saw the Japanese in the same way that Germans regarded Russians—as Untermenschen."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...anese_war_dead

Think twice before saying that the Allies were angels.

No i like international law that is relevant like the UN charters or the Geneva Conventions. Not laws that were out-dated or laws that no one followed in the first place. May as well call up the Hauge right now if the world was still following old war laws. They would have thousands and thousands of cases ot sift through consdiering how many nations have violated those laws.

Like i said, they were not outdated. And the principle of the safeguard of civilians is absolute.

And yet they were not charged for it like everyone else at the end of the war. Those laws also couldn't be enforced. Its the main reason no one followed them in the first place.

Only the losers get charged with war crimes.

[Vanoi]

They were. The Hague convention had been signed 38 years before the end of the war. Curiously, it was suggested by an american president.

And yet no one followe dit for the 5th or 6th time. No one followed that law up to that time any longer mostly becauise it couldn't be enforced. Infact may laws of war were ignored up to the end of WWII because they couldn't be enforced. All sides ignored or didn't follow the Hague conventions. Neither sides were charged with war crimes. again if we sitll follwoed the Hague convention and out-dated or laws that were never followed in the firts place, than most of the world would be guilty of war crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes.

All seem to just be massacres. Nothign to charge the USG with but the soldiers should have been charged. Also the article says its un-balanced to certain viewpoints.

American soldiers in the Pacific often deliberately killed Japanese soldiers who had surrendered.

This is disputing really since few Japanese did surrender. And sometime when they did "surrender" they would running up to the American soldiers and pull a grenade pin out and kill themselves along with the American soldiers. In the Pacfic thatre frew sides took prisonsers so must of the time it was a fight to the death.

According to Richard Aldrich, who has published a study of the diaries kept by United States and Australian soldiers, they sometimes massacred prisoners of war. Dower states that in "many instances ... Japanese who did become prisoners were killed on the spot or en route to prison compounds."

Which is bad, the soldiers should have been charged. You alos need to source this.

According to Aldrich it was common practice for U.S. troops not to take prisoners. This analysis is supported by British historian Niall Ferguson, who also says that, in 1943, "a secret [U. S.] intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days leave would ... induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese."

Wow i really want all of this sourced too. Considering the main reason there was not many Japanese prisoners in the first place is because they never surrendered and instead fougth to the death.

Ferguson states such practices played a role in the ratio of Japanese prisoners to dead being 1:100 in late 1944. That same year, efforts were taken by Allied high commanders to suppress "take no prisoners" attitudes,[62] among their own personnel (as these were affecting intelligence gathering) and to encourage Japanese soldiers to surrender. Ferguson adds that measures by Allied commanders to improve the ratio of Japanese prisoners to Japanese dead, resulted in it reaching 1:7, by mid-1945. Nevertheless, taking no prisoners was still standard practice among U. S. troops at the Battle of Okinawa, in April–June 1945.[63].

Source this.

Ulrich Straus, a U.S. Japanologist, suggests that frontline troops intensely hated Japanese military personnel and were "not easily persuaded" to take or protect prisoners, as they believed that Allied personnel who surrendered, got "no mercy" from the Japanese. Allied soldiers believed that Japanese soldiers were inclined to feign surrender, in order to make surprise attacks. Therefore, according to Straus, "Senior officers opposed the taking of prisoners on the grounds that it needlessly exposed American troops to risks..." When prisoners nevertheless were taken at Gualdacanal, interrogator Army Captain Burden noted that many times these were shot during transport because "it was too much bother to take him in".

Source all of this. This seems to contradict many claims by the US and the Japanese military itslef considering the Japanese military itself told its soldiers never to surrender and thats the reason so few Japanese soldiers were brought in.

Ferguson suggests that "it was not only the fear of disciplinary action or of dishonor that deterred German and Japanese soldiers from surrendering. More important for most soldiers was the perception that prisoners would be killed by the enemy anyway, and so one might as well fight on."
U. S. historian James J. Weingartner attributes the very low number of Japanese in U.S. POW compounds to two important factors, a Japanese reluctance to surrender and a widespread American "conviction that the Japanese were "animals" or "subhuman'" and unworthy of the normal treatment accorded to POWs. The latter reason is supported by Ferguson, who says that "Allied troops often saw the Japanese in the same way that Germans regarded Russians—as Untermenschen.

So the Japanese and Americans hated each other and generally killed eahc other rather than be take them prisoner? You act is if the Americans are the only ones that decided not to take prisoners. Many Japanese thought it was dis-honorable to take prisoners and many times when an American was surrendering kileld them on the spot. I wonder why Japan was never charged with war crimes for killing surrendering Americans? Maybe because it was an common occurance between both sides?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...anese_war_dead

Think twice before saying that the Allies were angels.

Compared to what the Japaneseand what the Nazis did? They pretty much were. Also your getting off-topic again. The American mutilaiton thing wasn't commonly practiced and only a few soldiers did it. You know where they got it from? They got it from the Japanese doing the same to American soldiers hence why American soldiers never really like the Japanese.

Like i said, they were not outdated. And the principle of the safeguard of civilians is absolute.

No, it wasn't. The law was never really followed up to that time. Using your logic the world should still be following many old and out-dated treaties and laws no one follows anymore like the Washington Naval Treaty or the St. Petersburg Declaration.

Only the losers get charged with war crimes.

thats pretty obvious.

[Halbard]

No, it wasn't. The law was never really followed up to that time. Using your logic the world should still be following many old and out-dated treaties and laws no one follows anymore like the Washington Naval Treaty or the St. Petersburg Declaration.

Go learn what a rebus sic stantisbus clause is, then come talk to me. You have no juridical sense whatsoever. Treaty law is very complex, and you dismiss it, even tough you dont know what you are talking about.

Principles dont need to be specified. They are general clauses.

And i will say again: THE LAW DOES NOT NEED TO BE FOLLOWED TO EXIST, except the rebus sic stantibus case, which does not apply in the matters of civilian protection.

And those old treaties that you mean, like the Washington Naval Treaty. This treaty concerns the tonnage of the ships of France, US, UK, Italy and Japan's navies. Now, this, is not a principle of international law. It's an agreement.

If you think that a treaty concerning war ships' tonnage has the same value as a treaty concerning civilian safety, then there's no point in continuing this.
And like i said, there was, and still is, the international custom of safeguarding civilian lives during war.

Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War, Amsterdam, 1938.

Art. 6. The use of chemical, incendiary or bacterial weapons as against any State, whether or not a party to the present Convention, and in any war, whatever its character, is prohibited.
(We can include Nuclear weapons here, given their nature)


The protection of civilians is a COSTUMARY PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

[Vanoi]

And i will say again: THE LAW DOES NOT NEED TO BE FOLLOWED TO EXIST, except the rebus sic stantibus case, which does not apply in the matters of civilian protection..

Nope a law needs ot be followed and be able to eb enofrced. The Hague convention laws were NOT follwoed and no one coudl enforce them so ever nations ignored them. Even nations today ignore laws by the Hague Conventions. Are thye guilty of war crimes? No since no one followed the ?Hague Conventions ot begin with.

And those old treaties that you mean, like the Washington Naval Treaty. This treaty concerns the tonnage of the ships of France, US, UK, Italy and Japan's navies. Now, this, is not a principle of international law. It's an agreement.

Ill make a btter example. In the 1907 Hague Convention they banned dum dum bullets. Guess what? That is now ignored. I can buy dum dum bullets at my local gun store. The US military currently uses dum dum bullets in some of thier guns. The point is there is no point in following out-dated laws,and/or laws that could not be enforced and were not followed in the first place.

And like i said, there was, and still is, the international custom of safeguarding civilian lives during war.[/QUOTE

Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War, Amsterdam, 1938.

Art. 6. The use of chemical, incendiary or bacterial weapons as against any State, whether or not a party to the present Convention, and in any war, whatever its character, is prohibited.
(We can include Nuclear weapons here, given their nature)


The protection of civilians is a COSTUMARY PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

This law was ignored and not followed by either side during WWII and could not be enforced just like the Hague Conventions. Infact i think they replaced this law with a League of Nations law in 1938 saying you couldn't bomb civilians but again League of Naiton laws were not enforeable and not followed by the same people wo suggested them. The US was also not a member of the League of Nations. The nations who were convicted of war crimes at the end of WWII were done by new UN and Geneva Convention Laws, not old Hague and League of Nations laws.

[Halbard]

A law needs ot be followed and be able to eb enofrced. The Hague convention laws were NOT follwoed and no one coudl enforce them so ever nations ignored them. Even nations today ignore laws by the Hague Conventions. Are thye guilty of war crimes? No since no one followed the ?Hague Conventions ot begin with.

You are wrong. If the law is not revoked, either directly or indirectly, the law is in force, even tough people do not follow it and there is no sanction. It's an innefectual law, but it does not in any way harm it's validity.

Ill make a btter example. In the 1907 Hague Convention they banned dum dum bullets. Guess what? That is now ignored. I can buy dum dum bullets at my local gun store. The US military currently uses dum dum bullets in some of thier guns. The point is there is no point in following out-dated laws,and/or laws that could not be enforced and were not followed in the first place.

Expanding bullets are banned for military use. sure, you can buy them at your local store. But the US army cannot use hollow pointers in battle.

This law was ignored and not followed by either side during WWII and could not be enforced just like the Hague Conventions. Infact i think they replaced this law with a League of Nations law in 1938 saying you couldn't bomb civilians but again League of Naiton laws were not enforeable and not followed by the same people wo suggested them. The US was also not a member of the League of Nations. The nations who were convicted of war crimes at the end of WWII were done by new UN and Geneva Convention Laws, not old Hague and League of Nations laws.

The Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War, Amsterdam, 1938 was appliable to the USA. This convention was an extension of the Pact of Paris of 27 August 1928, in which the US participated.

The League of Nations has nothing to do with this. For the members of the League of Nations, the Hague convention was replaced. But for the US, it was not. The US were bound to the Hague Convention, while the League of Nations Members were bound to the replacing treaty, which was even more restrictive than the Hague Convention.

And I will say again: The Hague Convention of 1907 WAS in force. At the very least, the section concerning the safeguard of civilians was not subject to tacit revocation by rebus sic stantibus, given it's essentiality.

[Vanoi]

You are wrong. If the law is not revoked, either directly or indirectly, the law is in force, even tough people do not follow it and there is no sanction. It's an innefectual law, but it does not in any way harm it's validity.

The law was nto enforcable and the law was not followed bya ny nations. Hence the law is null and void. Again if we followed your logic on old war laws than almost all countrys today would be guilty of one war crime or another.

Expanding bullets are banned for military use. sure, you can buy them at your local store. But the US army cannot use hollow pointers in battle.

Nope, the US army currently employs expanding bullets in their arsenal. I don't see why the US has to follow an old law like that anyway that applys to weapons from 1907. Its an old and out-dated law that is not enforceable.

The Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War, Amsterdam, 1938 was appliable to the USA. This convention was an extension of the Pact of Paris of 27 August 1928, in which the US participated.

Thats cool, its too bad the law was not enforceable and not followed by either side in WWII.

The League of Nations has nothing to do with this. For the members of the League of Nations, the Hague convention was replaced. But for the US, it was not. The US were bound to the Hague Convention, while the League of Nations Members were bound to the replacing treaty, which was even more restrictive than the Hague Convention.

The Hague convention were not followed by either side in WWII and was not an enforceable law. Thus it is null and void. Refer to my arguement at the top of the page.

And I will say again: The Hague Convention of 1907 WAS in force. At the very least, the section concerning the safeguard of civilians was not subject to tacit revocation by rebus sic stantibus, given it's essentiality..

And i will say again. No one followed the law and the law was not enforceable. Thus the law is null and void.

[/QUOTE]

[Halbard]

The law was nto enforcable and the law was not followed bya ny nations. Hence the law is null and void. Again if we followed your logic on old war laws than almost all countrys today would be guilty of one war crime or another.

Nope, the US army currently employs expanding bullets in their arsenal. I don't see why the US has to follow an old law like that anyway that applys to weapons from 1907. Its an old and out-dated law that is not enforceable.

Thats cool, its too bad the law was not enforceable and not followed by either side in WWII.

The Hague convention were not followed by either side in WWII and was not an enforceable law. Thus it is null and void. Refer to my arguement at the top of the page.

And i will say again. No one followed the law and the law was not enforceable. Thus the law is null and void.

You have no juridical culture whatsoever. You really don't. Your first paragraph is riddled with juridical mistakes.

Just because the law is not followed, does not mean it's not valid.

A treaty cannot be null a posteriori. The nullity is a original characteristic of the rule. A treaty cannot become null.

And yet again, i will ask: Do you even know what a principle is? Or what costumary international law is?

About the hollow point bullets: I think the US is the only country signatary to Hague 1899 to use hollow points in their military. The US are pros at violating International Law and walking away clean.

[Vanoi]

You have no juridical culture whatsoever. You really don't. Your first paragraph is riddled with juridical mistakes.

Just because the law is not followed, does not mean it's not valid.

Again you are ignoring one thing i am saying the Hague Conventions were not enforceable and they were not follwoed by either side during WWII. Does that not make a law null and void?

And yet again, i will ask: Do you even know what a principle is? Or what costumary international law is?.

'
First asnwer this: Whats the point in following a law that is not enforceable and was not followed in the first place?

About the hollow point bullets: I think the US is the only country signatary to Hague 1899 to use hollow points in their military. The US are pros at violating International Law and walking away clean.

Doesn't matter anyway since dum dum bullets to me shouldn't be banned. The law applied to weapons from that time. Weapons are a lot different now. The Hague conventions from 1907 are out-dated.

[Halbard]

Again you are ignoring one thing i am saying the Hague Conventions were not enforceable and they were not follwoed by either side during WWII. Does that not make a law null and void?

It does not make it void and invalid, no. Enforceable means that the perpetrator can face a penalty. I has nothing to do with the rule's validity. The use of the nuclear weapons over civilian targets constitutes a war crime, according to the applicable rules of war at that time. There is no way around it.

First asnwer this: Whats the point in following a law that is not enforceable and was not followed in the first place?

Dura lex sed lex go look it up.

Doesn't matter anyway since dum dum bullets to me shouldn't be banned. The law applied to weapons from that time. Weapons are a lot different now. The Hague conventions from 1907 are out-dated.

Hollow points should be banned, yes. They are unnecessarily deadlier than regular bullets. But we are getting sidetracked here.

[Vanoi]

It does not make it void and invalid, no. Enforceable means that the perpetrator can face a penalty. I has nothing to do with the rule's validity. The use of the nuclear weapons over civilian targets constitutes a war crime, according to the applicable rules of war at that time. There is no way around it.

If a country makes a law that makes it mandatory for their citizens to attend church on Sundays but no one follows the law and the country has no means of enforcing it, does that not pretty much make the law null and void?

Again there was no law at the time that says using nuclear weapons over a civilian target was illegal. And the laws that prohibited the bombing of civilians were nto enforceable and nto followed thus they are null and void.

Dura lex sed lex go look it up.

I did, but that does not answer the quesiton and really i don't consider that phrase to have any effect on our debate.

Hollow points should be banned, yes. They are unnecessarily deadlier than regular bullets. But we are getting sidetracked here.

Doesn't the military want their weapons to be more deadlier? tell me whats the difference from dying from a regular bullet and a hollow point? Is it one has a btter chance of killing you than the other?

[Halbard]

Again there was no law at the time that says using nuclear weapons over a civilian target was illegal. And the laws that prohibited the bombing of civilians were nto enforceable and nto followed thus they are null and void.

I've explained to you many timed now that there is such thing as the Spirit of the Law. Go read the other posts attentively. If you still don't understand, then i can't be arsed to argue with you.

I've also explain that a law CANNOT ->BECOME<- NULL. It's either null from the start, or it never is.

Doesn't the military want their weapons to be more deadlier? tell me whats the difference from dying from a regular bullet and a hollow point? Is it one has a btter chance of killing you than the other?

Hollow points increase the internal damage caused by the fragmentation of the projectile. Regular bullets tend to make "cleaner" wounds.

[Vanoi]

I've explained to you many timed now that there is such thing as the Spirit of the Law. Go read the other posts attentively. If you still don't understand, then i can't be arsed to argue with you.

Or your just not understanding that a law has not effect if it is nto enforceable or is not followed by even those who made the law. If you don't want to debate with me than stop replying.

I've also explain that a law CANNOT ->BECOME<- NULL. It's either null from the start, or it never is.

You may be confused of what i mean by "null."

Hollow points increase the internal damage caused by the fragmentation of the projectile. Regular bullets tend to make "cleaner" wounds.

So? Isn't that the goal? To kill your enemy? Besides hollow points are only used by the heavier weapons in the US arsenal. They are not employed to regular infantry weapons.

[Halbard]

Or your just not understanding that a law has not effect if it is nto enforceable or is not followed by even those who made the law. If you don't want to debate with me than stop replying.

I think i'll stop. You are not the right person to discuss this with. You lack juridical knowledge to have a good argument.

You may be confused of what i mean by "null."

Null in a juridical way, is what i mean. And it's the way that matters to our discussion

[Vanoi]

I think i'll stop. You are not the right person to discuss this with. You lack juridical knowledge to have a good argument.

Your lack of even trying to listen to another person's arguments isn't helping either. good bye.

Null in a juridical way, is what i mean. And it's the way that matters to our discussion.

What i mean by a law being null and void is that the law is pretty much jack and doesn't really matter.

[Darth Red]

Bump. You guys done here or shall I leave this open?