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

[Halbard]

No, as they would have won

Chicago, and who the hell are you? I'm guessing you are left wing because you actually think war has rules. Most likely in a country with a weak military hoping 'rules' protect you somehow

Wow, a redneck from the north! That's rare.

Damn proud of being left-wing. I vote for the Left Bloc in Portugal, a democratic socialist party.
And what if the military in Portugal is not as moronically big as in the US? Does it make my point any less valid? And i don't "hope" war has rules. I know that war has rules. You see, i dont think that a gun will solve my problems, and i don't think that authority comes from force.

[Phier]

Wow, a redneck from the north! That's rare.

Damn proud of being left-wing. I vote for the Left Bloc in Portugal, a democratic socialist party.
And what if the military in Portugal is not as moronically big as in the US? Does it make my point any less valid? And i don't "hope" war has rules. I know that war has rules. You see, i dont think that a gun will solve my problems, and i don't think that authority comes from force.

A minor nation. Well have fun with that.

Anyways you cut out the 'logic' part which is ok, just keep doing what you are doing.

[Halbard]

A minor nation. Well have fun with that.

Anyways you cut out the 'logic' part which is ok, just keep doing what you are doing.

A minor nation that has been around 3 times the time the US been around.

A person who votes for the Republican Party has no right to use the word "logic", by the way.

[CamilleBonparte]

A minor nation that has been around 3 times the time the US been around.

A person who votes for the Republican Party has no right to use the word "logic", by the way.

Being around a lot longer but accomplishing far less is really nothing to brag about you know.

[Lord Rahl]

I suggest members stop posting ignorantly about each other. I also suggest, for the nth time, that those who believe the atomic bombings were a war crime distinguish them from the rest of Allied strategic bombing during WWII. Many members, including myself, have brought up this point numerous times without a sufficient response.

[Halbard]

Being around a lot longer but accomplishing far less is really nothing to brag about you know.

Go read some history books. Portugal has achieved quite a lot. Not going to bother list the achievements tough.
And what did the US accomplish? Child obesity? Columbine? Mindless consumerism?

Back on topic: The strategic bombings of the allies were performed using coventional weaponry. And lets use Dresden as an example: It was a highly valuable industrial and military target.
The scarring that the allied conventional bombings caused was nothing, compared to what happened in Hiroshima-Nagasaki.

[Cougar109]

Being around a lot longer but accomplishing far less is really nothing to brag about you know.

Er, Portugal was one of the biggest players in colonizing and exploring the New World and had an Empire spanning from Brazil to Africa and all the way to the Southwest Pacific which lasted hundreds of years. One could argue that Portugal has had just as much if not more of an impact in shaping the modern world than the U.S. has to this point, though that may change in another century. The Earth wasn't created by the founding fathers and history didn't begin in 1776. The US has a long way to go before it matches the historical significance of the major Eurasian powers.

Go read some history books. Portugal has achieved quite a lot. Not going to bother list the achievements tough.
And what did the US accomplish? Child obesity? Columbine? Mindless consumerism?

And this just reeks of the same, if not more, ignorance. The US has had by far the largest cultural, technological, and economic impact of the 20th century.

I suggest members stop posting ignorantly about each other. I also suggest, for the nth time, that those who believe the atomic bombings were a war crime distinguish them from the rest of Allied strategic bombing during WWII. Many members, including myself, have brought up this point numerous times without a sufficient response.

The one area it does differentiate itself from the typical strategic bombing is the fact that science and experimentation played a major part is both target selection and the decision to use and given the Geneva Convention and the precedent established by the allies experimentation of that nature is considered a crime against humanity. Now it did also have a a tangiable and practical strategic value and that alone allows it to be separated from the experimentation committed by the Germans and Japanese, though it can be seen as a rather blurry line.

Anyways, that's where I personally see it separating itself from the mass strategic bombing campaigns and if I were one to push the idea that the nuclear bombings were a war crime that would probably be the direction I'd take. Luckily though I don't subscribe to such as belief.

[Halbard]

And this just reeks of the same, if not more, ignorance. The US has had by far the largest cultural, technological, and economic impact of the 20th century.

I know that man im just ballbusting I don't care for the guy's attitude.

[Phier]

I suggest members stop posting ignorantly about each other. I also suggest, for the nth time, that those who believe the atomic bombings were a war crime distinguish them from the rest of Allied strategic bombing during WWII. Many members, including myself, have brought up this point numerous times without a sufficient response.

Which is why I think its a silly question.

The only legitimate argument is that we happened to know for sure the Japanese were going to surrender and we did is solely to scare the Russians. The proof of this is circumstantial and weak.

[Lord Rahl]

Again, I don't know what dick-measuring about our countries has to do with this. It's obvious that Texas is the greatest country on Earth.

The one area it does differentiate itself from the typical strategic bombing is the fact that science and experimentation played a major part in both target selection and the decision to use

Why does science and experimentation make the bombing "worse"? Yes, the bombs themselves were different but that's not what we're arguing.

and given the Geneva Convention and the precedent established by the allies experimentation of that nature is considered a crime against humanity.

Please expand on this point.

Now it did also have a a tangible and practical strategic value and that alone allows it to be separated from the experimentation committed by the Germans and Japanese, though it can be seen as a rather blurry line.

What do you mean by "experimentation", exactly? At first I thought you were talking about scientific experimentation in regard to the atomic bomb but now I'm not sure what you mean.

Back on topic: The strategic bombings of the allies were performed using coventional weaponry. And lets use Dresden as an example: It was a highly valuable industrial and military target.

To you, what differences distinguish atomic weaponry and conventional bombs used in WWII? Dresden did have legitimate targets in it...as did Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's why the sites were chosen (Nagasaki being an alternative target).

The scarring that the allied conventional bombings caused was nothing, compared to what happened in Hiroshima-Nagasaki.

And what facts do you have to support this? It seems like a very qualitative and ambiguous. By "scarring" do you mean the terrible and almost absolute destruction the atomic bombs caused?

[conon394]

What a surprise seeing you here

Touché – shall we now retread our well-worn argument? Yes I think so, and neither one of us will be convinced but I think it worth it given how you characterize your arguments.


But let’s just be clear history that was – is a fact. What ‘might have been’ - might have been but it could also have been any number of other things as well...

That’s the problem I have with you arguments Ludicus you can cite any number of counter factual arguments or what people say they said or thought or concluded (even when no actual evidence exist to support those claims), but they are no more valid than other counterfactual arguments.

Like it or not, an official Survey. "It was established for the purpose of conducting an impartial and expert study.. On 15 August 1945, President Truman requested the Survey to conduct a similar study of the effects of all types of air attack in the war against Japan"

That may have been the intention, but that not what Nitze and company produced. The bias of the study and it authors has been well established. I find it troubling that the USSBS is still rolled out as if it some kind perfect study that was produced by disinterested observes who had no stake in how its conclusion would affect their goals for the US military and government.

'Contrary to the survey's counter factual, the war could have continued beyond November 1, and perhaps even after December 31, 1945, without the atom bomb and Soviet declaration of war. Testimony by key Japanese leaders during USSBS postwar interrogations supports this. The survey authors, however, chose not to use this testimony; evidence that challenged their conclusions stayed in their unpublished files' (pg 57)

'Though the central arguments may well continue, it is clear that the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey should not be represented as an unimpeachable authority, as has frequently been done, but as a collection of interpretations, subject to close reading, rigorous scrutiny, and thoughtful challenge.' (pg 79)

Advocacy or Assessment? The United States Strategic Bombing Survey of Germany and Japan : Gian Peri Gentile Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Feb., 1997), pp. 53-79

See also the treatment of the USSBS in Truman and the Hiroshima Cult by Newman (pg 33 ff) [or published alone in a journal as Ending the War with Japan: Paul Nitze's "Early Surrender" Counterfactual Robert P. Newman Pacific Historical Review Vol. 64, No. 2 (May, 1995), pp. 167-194]

A treatment reviewed this way:

‘The book under review is one of the two best (the other is Robert J. Maddox's Weapons for Victory) of the dozen or so books to appear during the anniversary, and is a very large credit to its author and publisher. Robert P. Newman is particularly convincing on the flawed nature of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey for the Far East, the conclusions of which for many years have been the basis of much scholarly writing about the end of the Pacific war. The survey maintained that without use of the nuclear bombs Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945, the date scheduled for invasion of Kyushu, the southernmost of Japan's main islands. Newman shows that the survey was dominated by the afterward well-known government official, Paul H. Nitze. The latter did not want to admit that a single new weapon ended the war, and took the position that the U.S. Navy's blockade could have been the decisive factor: the Japanese, he believed, were starving. Nitze ignored the testimony of Japanese high officials, civil and military, that the two bombs and to a lesser extent Russian entry into the war brought the emperor's intervention and the subsequent surrender’

-Robert H. Ferrell The Review of Politics

Poor Ike, Chief of Staff, US Army, and 34th American President, an ignorant liar!

Ok – Yes he is in this a liar. There is nothing absolutely not a thing on record from the time to support Ike’s supposed objections at the time, not anyone else’s memory, no meeting minutes, not transcripts etc. He was so bothered by it you one of his aids or friends might have been able to collaborate a rant or such over drinks etc.

The broader problem before you drag in similar quotes from somebody else is where is there objection to internment, or convention mass air warfare, or unrestricted sub warfare, or blockade and starving women and children – Ike the great humanitarian - he was happy starve a babies to death or allow them to burn to death with normal bombs and firestorms or but killed by a vengeful Russian soldiers, but not an Atom Bomb.

In any case as I said Ike was not an expert on Japan or it wartime government, he was not privy to MAGIC Intel, his track record on prognostication was not exactly wonderful – lets be remember Market Garden, being surprised in the Battle of the Bulge and Kassrine Pass - all under his watch. Yep no fight left in those Germans in 1944 so his supposed statement about Japan must carry a lot of weight.

[Phier]

Back on topic: The strategic bombings of the allies were performed using coventional weaponry. And lets use Dresden as an example: It was a highly valuable industrial and military target.
The scarring that the allied conventional bombings caused was nothing, compared to what happened in Hiroshima-Nagasaki.

Hiroshima....



Dresden (More stone and steel buildings than Hiroshima)



Tokyo after firebombing.

Try again.

[Cougar109]

Why does science and experimentation make the bombing "worse"? Yes, the bombs themselves were different but that's not what we're arguing.

It doesn't make it worse in any way, dead people are dead people no matter how they died, who killed them, or the reasons that caused their deaths. The question was what distinguished them from the mass strategic campaigns and the fact that one of the driving reasons for the targets selections and the ultimate use of the bomb was to see and study what would happen on an immediate, short, and long term scale in a way that could not be produced on a test ground.

That's the distinguishing feature, the strategic bombing campaigns were purely military in nature where as the nuclear bombings were not. They had political and scientific elements attached to their use.

Please expand on this point.

Sure, the Japanese and Germans rounded up civilians and PoW's and conducted military related experiments on them, the Japanese bombarded Chinese towns and cities with various experimental chemicals. At Nuremberg and Tokyo those who conducted and ordered said experiments were tried and if found guilty punished for crimes against humanity, thus setting the precedent that any forced military oriented experimentation on civilians and PoWs is indeed a crime against humanity. So now that we've established that little tidbit it's a matter of finding that line.

What do you mean by "experimentation", exactly? At first I thought you were talking about scientific experimentation in regard to the atomic bomb but now I'm not sure what you mean.

One of the primary reasons for the use of the Atomic bombs was in nature scientific. They wanted to see what the bombs would do to an urban environment, how far outside the blast radius effects would be seen to structure and life, both the short and long term effects to the area and it's survivors, what it's social effect would be. No one really knew the answers to any questions surrounding it's use on actual targets, there had been hypothesizes but no one knew for certain and there was only one real tangible way to determine it. In other words one of the driving reason the bombs were dropped was for scientific evaluation and experimentation.

Target selection was based on finding the most ideal "test sites" rather than the most logical military targets; sites which were compact urban environments and had been untouched by the strategic bombing campaign, detonation time was to be during the respected cities rush hour in order to maximize the number of people in the streets (Little Boy hit the mark, Fat Man missed due to weather). This ultimately turned the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more into lab rats rather than military targets and "supposedly" turning civilians or PoW's into lab rats for murderous military experimentation is a crime against humanity.

So again, it's looking to see whether the line of turning the cities and the people into controlled environments and experiments rather than causalities of war was crossed with the nuclear bombings, if it was than it is by the precedent established by the Allies a crime against humanity, ergo a war crime. Personally I don't believe it did, like I said I believe there was enough strategic value in their use to outweigh the scientific motivation.

[Halbard]

Hiroshima....



Dresden (More stone and steel buildings than Hiroshima)



Tokyo after firebombing.

Try again.

The last one is hiroshima...

Noob.
And the scarring i meant was not just the immediate destruction that was caused. The damage that radiation caused to the land and people still affect the zone nowadays.

[Demetrios of Messene]

I read the debate and then I browsed through this discussion thread. I believe that the matter at hand is impossible to answer unanimously:

Ethical and lawful are different. Laws are supposed to be based on ethics, but it’s not always the case. It can happen that a lawful thing is unethical. Deaths of unprotected civilians are generally unethical, but can be “justified” at special circumstances. From our distant stand-point we could agree that any atomic bombing of cities is unethical due to the mass casualties and the on-going side-effects to civilians, who have no means of warning or protection. You cannot justify the ethics of the destruction of a city by saying that they saved more lives (hypothetical) or shortened the war. You could argue that it was a necessary evil or that it was for the best interest of the allies, but not that it was ethical.

Was it lawful then? By today’s international laws and treaties the atomic bombing would be clearly illegal. But you cannot apply such laws retroactively.

However, the spirit of such laws and treaties is fairly the same regardless of the time-period. Just as any targeting of defenseless civilians is a war crime, same can be said for the atomic bombings. The fact that there were some military targets in the vicinity of the explosion is a ridiculous argument to be used that the A-bombs were aiming to destroy military infrastructure. The A-bombs were clearly in violation of the spirit of any military law and treaty including the ones applied (even if only paper) during WWII.


Another issue is that since city bombings with conventional weapons were not prosecuted, why are A-bombs different? Well, they are not in my opinion. If one crime is not punished, this does not mean that no crimes should be punished at all. IMO carpet bombing or V1 and V2 rockets or flammable bombs on cities are a crime. The A-bombs is more horrible because of its longer term effects, therefore if punishment is to be applied it should be stricter (if there are such margins).

An interesting question is whether the spirit of military treaties keeps applying to those who are already violating it? If I am away and my housed is broken into, I can file charges. I am not entitled to do the same or worse to the burglar. That’s because the State has the power to enforce the law and trial the burglar for proper “punishment”. If there was no State what would any of us do??? Yes, an eye for an eye or worse. There is no such thing as a hyper-State to enforce the military law between countries. Why should the USA bound themselves to the spirit of the military treaties against an enemy that was clearly tramping on them? Why would the USA risk not using every possible means of destroying an enemy that seemed to show little mercy to the defeated (chinese, pows)? Then again, the issue of dropping A-bombs came up when the USA had almost won, i.e. the bombs were not vital for the allied victory. However, the bolded question is there for anyone who wants to answer. I bet we can have varied opinions.

Another question: Is it lawful for the victor to pardon his own crimes and only prosecute the defeated? On top of that is it hypocrisy (i.e. unethical)? I would guess that even though we could not agree on the law-part, we would mostly agree that it is hypocritical (the apologists would of course justify the hypocrisy by arguing that some hypocrisy is not such a big deal specially considering the uncalled for suffering of the victor as was the case with USA in WWII).


To a third viewer the answer whether the use of A-bombs by the USA on Japan may be straightforward: both sides committed war crimes (whether in direct violation of the military law or its spirit), so both should be punished regardless who started first, who did the worse or who won. A crime should be punished no matter what. Such a third viewer’s feeing is usually enhanced by mixing the ethical and lawful.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Our American friends should know the feeling, since my impression is that this is how most of them (and most people regardless for that matter including myself sometimes) see outside conflicts: is Rwanda in a terrible civil war which causes both parties to commit war crimes? Well, every Rwandese has some responsibility for the war crimes and the misery and suffering the country goes through is the natural punishment for their crimes. We do not care to be bothered more. Serbians are winning and impose the victor's "justice" by killing muslims. Both parties commit war crimes, but the Serbians far outdo the muslims. It is decided that NATO should intervene and everyone is now anti-Serb. Never mind the details, the Serbs are killing innocent muslims, so they had it coming to be punished by throwing the most powerful military machine against them and that is all I need to know. And so on and so forth...

My humble opinion is that, even though I consider the use of Atomic bombs unethical, I would not hold any American accountable to an international or national court of justice given the circumstances of WWII.

Sorry for the long post.

[Halbard]

I read the debate and then I browsed through this discussion thread. I believe that the matter at hand is impossible to answer unanimously:

Ethical and lawful are different. Laws are supposed to be based on ethics, but it’s not always the case. It can happen that a lawful thing is unethical. Deaths of unprotected civilians are generally unethical, but can be “justified” at special circumstances. From our distant stand-point we could agree that any atomic bombing of cities is unethical due to the mass casualties and the on-going side-effects to civilians, who have no means of warning or protection. You cannot justify the ethics of the destruction of a city by saying that they saved more lives (hypothetical) or shortened the war. You could argue that it was a necessary evil or that it was for the best interest of the allies, but not that it was ethical.

Was it lawful then? By today’s international laws and treaties the atomic bombing would be clearly illegal. But you cannot apply such laws retroactively.

However, the spirit of such laws and treaties is fairly the same regardless of the time-period. Just as any targeting of defenseless civilians is a war crime, same can be said for the atomic bombings. The fact that there were some military targets in the vicinity of the explosion is a ridiculous argument to be used that the A-bombs were aiming to destroy military infrastructure. The A-bombs were clearly in violation of the spirit of any military law and treaty including the ones applied (even if only paper) during WWII.


Another issue is that since city bombings with conventional weapons were not prosecuted, why are A-bombs different? Well, they are not in my opinion. If one crime is not punished, this does not mean that no crimes should be punished at all. IMO carpet bombing or V1 and V2 rockets or flammable bombs on cities are a crime. The A-bombs is more horrible because of its longer term effects, therefore if punishment is to be applied it should be stricter (if there are such margins).

An interesting question is whether the spirit of military treaties keeps applying to those who are already violating it? If I am away and my housed is broken into, I can file charges. I am not entitled to do the same or worse to the burglar. That’s because the State has the power to enforce the law and trial the burglar for proper “punishment”. If there was no State what would any of us do??? Yes, an eye for an eye or worse. There is no such thing as a hyper-State to enforce the military law between countries. Why should the USA bound themselves to the spirit of the military treaties against an enemy that was clearly tramping on them? Why would the USA risk not using every possible means of destroying an enemy that seemed to show little mercy to the defeated (chinese, pows)? Then again, the issue of dropping A-bombs came up when the USA had almost won, i.e. the bombs were not vital for the allied victory. However, the bolded question is there for anyone who wants to answer. I bet we can have varied opinions.

Another question: Is it lawful for the victor to pardon his own crimes and only prosecute the defeated? On top of that is it hypocrisy (i.e. unethical)? I would guess that even though we could not agree on the law-part, we would mostly agree that it is hypocritical (the apologists would of course justify the hypocrisy by arguing that some hypocrisy is not such a big deal specially considering the uncalled for suffering of the victor as was the case with USA in WWII).


To a third viewer the answer whether the use of A-bombs by the USA on Japan may be straightforward: both sides committed war crimes (whether in direct violation of the military law or its spirit), so both should be punished regardless who started first, who did the worse or who won. A crime should be punished no matter what. Such a third viewer’s feeing is usually enhanced by mixing the ethical and lawful.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Our American friends should know the feeling, since my impression is that this is how most of them (and most people regardless for that matter including myself sometimes) see outside conflicts: is Rwanda in a terrible civil war which causes both parties to commit war crimes? Well, every Rwandese has some responsibility for the war crimes and the misery and suffering the country goes through is the natural punishment for their crimes. We do not care to be bothered more. Serbians are winning and impose the victor's "justice" by killing muslims. Both parties commit war crimes, but the Serbians far outdo the muslims. It is decided that NATO should intervene and everyone is now anti-Serb. Never mind the details, the Serbs are killing innocent muslims, so they had it coming to be punished by throwing the most powerful military machine against them and that is all I need to know. And so on and so forth...

My humble opinion is that, even though I consider the use of Atomic bombs unethical, I would not hold any American accountable to an international or national court of justice given the circumstances of WWII.

Sorry for the long post.

Never be sorry for a well phrased and well structured post. I agree especially in the underlined part.

[Phier]

The last one is hiroshima...

Noob.
And the scarring i meant was not just the immediate destruction that was caused. The damage that radiation caused to the land and people still affect the zone nowadays.

Sorry Tokyo.

You mean that same radiation we kept exposing our own troops to for years before anyone understood DNA damage (you know because they had no idea how DNA worked? ).

[Lord Rahl]

It doesn't make it worse in any way, dead people are dead people no matter how they died, who killed them, or the reasons that caused their deaths. The question was what distinguished them from the mass strategic campaigns and the fact that one of the driving reasons for the targets selections and the ultimate use of the bomb was to see and study what would happen on an immediate, short, and long term scale in a way that could not be produced on a test ground.

Understood. The atomic bombings can be distinguished from the conventional strategic bombing of the Allies because it was a new weapon of incredible destructive power. And yes, target selection was purposeful. They chose cities that were relatively, and purposefully, untouched by bombing, among other factors such as number of civilians, geography, and military targets. This is one reason why I don't understand why some consider them to be indiscriminate bombings. The targets were chosen for the atomic bombs. They weren't just dropped anywhere as to say, "Let's kill a lot of people," even though that's much of what the conventional bombing was doing anyway.

That's the distinguishing feature, the strategic bombing campaigns were purely military in nature where as the nuclear bombings were not. They had political and scientific elements attached to their use.

I agree with you entirely about the scientific elements but conventional strategic bombing had a political role as well. The goal, against both Germany and Japan, was to bomb their civilian populations into submission. It was believed killing many of them and literally destroying their cities, leaving millions homeless, would reduce their morale enough to bring a quicker end to the war. For the most part this did not happen. When Britain's cities were being bombed they became more staunch in their resistance. When German cities were being obliterated the people showed no signs of capitulation. In many ways the same can be said of Japan. Hundreds of thousands had died from conventional bombing previous to the atomic bombs. One point that has been left out of this debate is that conventional bombing continued after both atomic bombs were dropped.

However, we can both agree that the political elements attached to their, the atomic bombs, use was much more than the conventional bombing.

Sure, the Japanese and Germans rounded up civilians and PoW's and conducted military related experiments on them, the Japanese bombarded Chinese towns and cities with various experimental chemicals. At Nuremberg and Tokyo those who conducted and ordered said experiments were tried and if found guilty punished for crimes against humanity, thus setting the precedent that any forced military oriented experimentation on civilians and PoWs is indeed a crime against humanity. So now that we've established that little tidbit it's a matter of finding that line.

One of the primary reasons for the use of the Atomic bombs was in nature scientific. They wanted to see what the bombs would do to an urban environment, how far outside the blast radius effects would be seen to structure and life, both the short and long term effects to the area and it's survivors, what it's social effect would be. No one really knew the answers to any questions surrounding it's use on actual targets, there had been hypothesizes but no one knew for certain and there was only one real tangible way to determine it. In other words one of the driving reason the bombs were dropped was for scientific evaluation and experimentation.

Target selection was based on finding the most ideal "test sites" rather than the most logical military targets; sites which were compact urban environments and had been untouched by the strategic bombing campaign, detonation time was to be during the respected cities rush hour in order to maximize the number of people in the streets (Little Boy hit the mark, Fat Man missed due to weather). This ultimately turned the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more into lab rats rather than military targets and "supposedly" turning civilians or PoW's into lab rats for murderous military experimentation is a crime against humanity.

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure what you meant exactly in the original statement. So you're saying because the use of the atomic bombs were in part a scientific experiment, and that Axis individuals were tried because they performed scientific experiments, the atomic bombs should or could be put under the same criticism?

So again, it's looking to see whether the line of turning the cities and the people into controlled environments and experiments rather than causalities of war was crossed with the nuclear bombings, if it was than it is by the precedent established by the Allies a crime against humanity, ergo a war crime. Personally I don't believe it did, like I said I believe there was enough strategic value in their use to outweigh the scientific motivation.

An interesting take on the bombings, a take I've never really thought about. It's a difficult matter to contemplate because the atomic bombs themselves were unprecedented, let alone their use.

And the scarring i meant was not just the immediate destruction that was caused. The damage that radiation caused to the land and people still affect the zone nowadays.

It's interesting, my grandfather says he was at Hiroshima two weeks after it was dropped (I think that's what he said). My grandad actually helped work on the A-bomb. We didn't know until after he died of cancer and the government sent a letter to my grandma explaining it.

Damnit, didn't see Demetrios of Messene's post. Maybe I'll respond to it later.

[Lord Rahl]

Sorry for the bump/double post but my friend, or for some of us our friend, Wild Bill Kelso posted this video on Facebook. In it McNamara talks about the firebombing and nuclear bombing of Japan around the 30 minute mark.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...KF-QaYt-ynBg&q

[removeduser_4536284751384]

The fact that the US were not punished does not mean that what they did not constitute a war crime.
Governing authority here is irrelevant. Multiple treaties and INTERNATIONAL CUSTOM clearly consider the indiscriminate attack on civilian targets a war crime.

Of course it is.

But in WWII hardly any of the inhabitants of belligerent countries were civilians. Anyone who contributed anything to the economy contributed to the war effort. Very few strategic bombing campaigns during WWII were indiscriminate attacks on civilians. They were attacks on the enemy's ability to sustain and replace their army.

You can fight the enemy constantly, but if they are at maximum effectiveness and are able to replace every single loss you inflict before it matters, you will never get anywhere.

And using a weapon of unprecedented destructive power over 2 large civilian cities, scarring its land and population for decades is not a war crime? The firebombings were performed using conventional weaponry.
Im willing to bet my penis that if the Germans had dropped it on an American city, and the allies still won the war, man, wouldnt the germans be accused of war crimes in the post war trial.

The German bombing of the UK was no a war crime. Only their pointless bombings of places like Warsaw was a war crime.