Was the use of the atomic bomb on Japan in WW2 a crime agaist humanity?

kennethamy wrote:

The question is whether there is an objective analysis of the term.Then, we can see what (if anything) the term applies to. One thing is clear, though, the killing of one child, however evil and bad it might be, would not be a "crime against humanity". The word is not that vague. After all, the term is a technical term, and was not in general use before it was invented in a particular context. So, I suppose that the legal meaning would be central. Otherwise, people will call anything they please, a "crime against humanity", and it will begin to lose its meaning, like "The Holocaust". A term that can mean anything quickly begins to mean nothing much. It is to prevent people from using the term just for their own purposes, that we have to pay attention to an objective analysis of the term.

You keep claiming what is not "a crime against humanity".
Do you have a definition to offer about what the criteria for "a crime against humanity"is?

I mean if vaporizing a few hunderd thousand people in a few seconds with a single weapon dropped from a single plane is not a "crime against humanity" what is?

Aedes wrote:

Not according to international law. Maybe according to basic human decency it is, but you'd better define your terms if you want us to answer this one. Remember, at Nuremberg they specifically had separate charges for "Crimes against peace" (like unjustified invasions, violation of treaties, attacking noncombatant states), "war crimes" (like killing prisoners of war, failing to protect civilians), and "crimes against humanity" (genocide, ethnic cleansing).

Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg
(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

One could argue it was "an inhumane act committed against a civilian population."

One could also argue it was "the wanton destruction of a city, town or village devastation not justified by "military necessity"

But overall it seems a little like the state departments careful avoidance of the term "genocide" for Rawanda, and the Bush teams careful avoidance of the term "torture" in discussing interrogation techniques. The legal technicalities miss the larger moral question.

Aedes wrote:

But then you run into the conundrum of arbitrariness. FAR more cities were destroyed by land warfare than air bombing during WWII, at least in the European theater of operations. And far more people were killed in air attacks using conventional weapons. 40,000 civilians in Stalingrad, 50,000 in London, hundreds of thousands in Dresden, Munich, Tokyo, Osaka, etc.

I hear you, but I still have to ask why we're talking about particulars without getting the general principle straight.

To me it would seem the general principle is
When the target becomes the civilian population and the goal is
To terrorize and demoralize the civilian population you have crossed the line.

The line was crossed by both sides in the war and on multiple occasions.

The inadvertent deaths of civilians in attempting to strike at targets of legitimate military value like factories, rail lines, airports, command centers, is one thing but the deliberate carpet bombing of civilian population centers constitutes a "war crime" and a "crime against humanity".

I think the deliberate destruction and targeting of civilian population centers versus the targeting of "military targets or military support facilities" is a rational criteria and saying that "civilians" are a target of military value" does not wash.

That is also primarily the criteria used in the "legal" definitions of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki had strategic military value -- that's not even questioned -- though by August 1945 the targets of greatest military strategic value had already been attacked, and to make the most dramatic demonstration of the bombs they did choose large urban targets rather than, say, a small military base. There is no evidence that they were targeted specifically to kill civilians, and they rejected targets like Kyoto that were of zero military value and extreme cultural importance.

More people died in one night in Dresden than died in Hiroshima. So I'm not sure the "ease" of Hiroshima's destruction is in comparison to such overwhelming difficulty destroying cities by conventional means.

But in retrospect we understand the radiation effects, the increasingly terrible magnitude of newer nuclear weapons, and the existential implications of nuclear armament, of which Hiroshima was the prelude.

One of the justifications to drop the bomb was the Japs had committed horrendous war crimes on the USA and so they deserved what they got.

But the bombs were dropped on specially selected cities for the density of urban population for the most shock and horror effect (Hiroshima and Nagasaki)

They were not dropped on military or industrial targets and it is this fact that makes the whole event more horrifying

Was the use of the atomic bomb on Japan in WW2 a crime agaist humanity?

Of course it was. So was Pearl Harbour.

Of course it was.

Were not mostly civilians killed?
Are you arguing, then, that Pearl Harbour,
was not a crime against humanity because it was a military target?

That's correct, but I hate to justify the killing of people.

I think our definition of crime, especially when it occurs on a mass scale, is very broad.

Were not mostly civilians killed?

Are you arguing, then, that Pearl Harbour, was not a crime against humanity because it was a military target?

JLNobody wrote:

Are you arguing, then, that Pearl Harbour,
was not a crime against humanity because it was a military target?

Pearl Harbor was an act of war.
I 'm not at all sure that it was a crime of any kind.

They attacked before war was declared. Perhaps that was an accident, but it was Japan's duty to ensure that we had received their war declaration before they attacked.