Was it a war crime when US nuked Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

Setanta wrote:

No offense, gentlemen, but i don't think either of you are getting anywhere with this discussion.

I agree, in much more contemplation and study than we will achieve here I have yet to be able to get behind a conclusion on the legality of the acts.

But hey, even if we haven't a destination the ride has been both informative and fun.

Quote:

Finally, as Joe and so many others here have pointed out, the intentional bombing of civilian population centers was common in this war, right across the globe, and fire-bombing, in the East End of London, in Hamburg, in Dresden and in more than 60 cities in Japan, was a far more destructive and horrible set of events than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I agree, but I believe that the element of "poisoning the well", "scorched earth" and cross-generational effects are significant differentiating factors insofar as the moral and legal case for the nukings go.

0 Replies

Quite a thorough post, Craven. I commend you for your effort.

That being said, my profound lack of interest in the subject has little, if anything, to do with the absence of available resources, so while offering book titles or links may provide an incentive for others to explore this topic, it is just so much wasted effort on my behalf.

Craven de Kere wrote:

I don't think permanent is the factor so much as punitive measures against subsequent generations. Surely measures that have a direct and acute effect on unborn generations are to be frowned upon.

I'm not so sure. War certainly has an acute effect on unborn generations, since killing parents and would-be parents is not really a nice thing to do to the kiddies and would-be kiddies. I suppose that targeting the unborn would be frowned upon, but I've never seen anyone take up this line of argument.

Craven de Kere wrote:

The radioactive fallout, for the most part, did not fall onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki's hypocenters.

I'm getting sleepy. Very sleepy.

Craven de Kere wrote:

So Joe, I'm not sure that permanent scorched earth is the only acceptable criteria.

I wouldn't say that either. It is, however, a useful analogy.

0 Replies

You've never seen anyone argue that targeting the unborn is wrong or that the use of nuclear weapons constitutes targeting the unborn?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

You've never seen anyone argue that targeting the unborn is wrong or that the use of nuclear weapons constitutes targeting the unborn?

Nope.

0 Replies

That's not true Joe, for it to be true you would need to replace "you've" with "you'd".

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I agree, but I believe that the element of "poisoning the well", "scorched earth" and cross-generational effects are significant differentiating factors insofar as the moral and legal case for the nukings go.

The Trinity test was a very, very recent event in August, 1945--no one necessarily knew that this was likely. You'd play hell proving malice aforethought . . . .

0 Replies

Yeah, earlier I said that I do not know what degree of foreknowlege about the effects existed at the time of the bombings.

I am pretty sure some did, as my recollection tells me that radioactivity was already feared to some degree.

But I do not know the scope.

0 Replies

Quote:

What health effects have been seen among the children born to atomic-bonb survivors?

This was one of the earliest concerns in the aftermath of the bombings. Efforts to detect genetic effects were begun in the late 1940s and continue to this day. Thus far, no evidence of genetic effects has been found. Recent advances in molecular biology may make it possible to detect genetic changes at the gene (DNA) level at some time in the future. RERF scientists are working to preserve blood samples that can be used for such studies as suitably powerful techniques are developed (see Repository of biological materials). Monitoring of deaths and cancer incidence in the children of survivors also is continuing

Also from the same source, the The Radiation Research Foundation , considered by most to be both authoritative and fairly objective (it essentially is Japanese funded and run) are available charts and tables detailing studies relating to post-bomb effects on survivors. Apart from those most immediately affected and dead within months of the blasts, the overall incidence of cancer is not markedly higher among survivors who were 1Km or more from the epicenters at the time of the blasts than for the general population. Interestingly, the site also notes that background radiation both at Hiroshima and Nagaski currently is somewhat below the average for Japan as a whole.

0 Replies

I do hope you realize that (the part about kids) excludes somatic mutation and speaks exclusively about germ cell mutation, perhaps the least studied.

0 Replies

The site goes into that some, and there too is the question of trans-generational effects, which yet are to be determined. Some evidence exists that those in utero and at close proximity to the blast epicenters exhibited anomolously high rates of birth defects. There is yet much to be learned. One thing that has been learned is that the most dire, hysterical conjectures so far have borne little to no fruit.

0 Replies

What hysterical conjectures?

And btw, to say that there is "some evidence" as to the in utero cases is misleading. Those are about as definitively illustrated as anything in their studies.

0 Replies

Just realized you'd already referenced RERF ... guess I wasn't payin' attention.

"Hysterical conjectures" would include, among others, the "poisoning of the well" notion you already showed to be hyperbole, and chronic/widespread mutation/birth defects, re which again you cited contraindicative evidence. As to unborn generations, well, that remains to be seen. My point there was that in this particular situation, the "worst case" scenarios were not realized. Of course, in just about any situation, neither worst nor best case scenarios ever are realized; things rarely are as bleak as some fear nor as satisfactory as some wish.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Just realized you'd already referenced RERF ... guess I wasn't payin' attention.

I believe that every single thing I'd mentioned is either research by RERF or referenced by the RERF. They are a pretty impressive institution and I share your take on their objectivity.

Quote:

"Hysterical conjectures" would include, among others, the "poisoning of the well" notion you already showed to be hyperbole, and chronic/widespread mutation/birth defects, re which again you cited contraindicative evidence.

"Poisoning the well" was a reference to a concept in war. I don't assert that Hiroshima or Nagasaki or their watersupplies are untenable for habitation at the time I do think that a big reason nuclear weapons hold such sway over the average person is that the threat it represents is both the 'boom bang' kind and the 'creepy science' kind and more importantly there is prolonged death spreading the excess deaths over a far longer period.

As Setanta and others have noted the firebombing was left people, and more of them, just as dead.

I contend that the radioactive fallout constitutes a differentiating factor. In sheer numbers it doesn't represent much. But the conceptual difference in acute death and excess death is present regardless of the number of clear examples of it and I contend that this makes is significantly different.

I'll be dammned if I have any idea on whether it would pose a legal difference at all, and for this reason I remain undecided on the legality but I do think the conceptual differences in the infliction of death from nuking is inherently and significantly different.

Quote:

As to unborn generations, well, that remains to be seen.

By unborn I meant unborn at the time of the bombings.

I note that my use of "cross-generational" to describe in utero exposure is not accurate. In utero exposures are cosidered survivor cases.

So my use of "cross-generational" is confusing. In that the in utero victims were a subsequent generation to the generation waging war is correct, but their exposure should be considered direct and cross-generational imples genetic transfer after germ cell mutation. Since the case for that is at best undetermined and at worst negligible I think it best to clarify that I was thinking of somatic mutation from in utero exposure when I mentioned cross generational excess death.

Quote:

My point there was that in this particular situation, the "worst case" scenarios were not realized. Of course, in just about any situation, neither worst nor best case scenarios ever are realized; things rarely are as bleak as some fear nor as satisfactory as some wish.

I usually read/respond at the same time and was about to say that 'worst case' is rarely realized when I saw you beat me to it.

0 Replies

CdK wrote:

... I usually read/respond at the same time and was about to say that 'worst case' is rarely realized when I saw you beat me to it.

I know just how that feels Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

In 1946, the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission was established in accordance with a US presidential directive from Harry S. Truman to the US National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council to undertake long-term investigations of the late medical and biological effects of radiation among the atomic-bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As I said it was just an experiment, irrelevant to the defeat of Japan

0 Replies

Steve, Your point is well taken. Actually, the US put US military in harms way by exposing them to atomic bomb blasts. Some experiment, heh?

0 Replies

this is to reply to the original question, yes it very much was a crime against humanity. It was their goddam racial attitudes, sure they deserved revenge for pearl harbour but the japanese didn't vaporize close to 200,000 civilians. They did it to the germans to (eg Dresden) and they raped pillaged and killed innocent german people, they literally beat ground them into the dirt and spit on them. Also to japan.

-Hans

0 Replies

This thread had gone to a conversation on the legal matter re a crime, as described, I gather, aforehand, or ... maybe not.

Some of us, me for one, responded shortly but emotionally. I can barely talk about these matters, so any post is a step forward from my own pov.

Emotionality is not a winner in the debate situation requiring sides to present defense and offence; well, let me not get into the nuances of debate. Mostly I listen, since I am interested in the hows of debate.

But, as we all know, emotions pack power. Mostly when people are attacked, if even with what, a punch, they tend to carry grudges. Rarely does bombing, including firebombing, win pals. Japan seems to be separate to me, as having room afterwards - and I don't know, was that all the people or 5 persons? - to engage the bomber, given the populace's apparent point of view before the bombing occasions. This complexity has probably been addressed for decades but I haven't read about it myself.

I do know there are people out there who hate whole populations as a unit, but this must become quaint as an idea, mustn't it, as the internet shows we are all not some monolith?

0 Replies

You can get an eyeful here, if interested.
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KOO2.html

0 Replies

BTW, when I was in the US Air Force in the last half of the fifties, I worked with nukes, but we were never required to be exposed to a blast. We saw a bunch of training films, and I'm sure some of it was taken at Bikini.

0 Replies

Was it a war crime when US nuked Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know