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

>There is a game of semantics going on here. The United States imposed Terms. Those terms were originally to be accepted without Condition. That is the terms were to be accepted by the Japanese, and the United States would accept no terms or conditions in return. To repeat, you did not impose conditions, you imposed terms which you told the Japanese had to be accepted unconditionally or the war would continue.

>The Japs accepted Postsdam, but asked for assurances about the Emperor to be agreed, i.e they accepted but with conditions, and Truman took that as a rejection. [Which as he himself admits, he knew they would].

>After Nagasaki the Japanese again asked for conditions, i.e. the treatment of the Emperor

>After Nagasaki the Japanese again asked for conditions, i.e. the treatment of the Emperor but this time as Stimson makes clear the form of words in the US reply made clear there was an implicit acceptance of the Japanese concerns.

>Of course as the victorious power, the United State in the person of MacArthur, retained the ultimate sovereignty and sanction to depose the Emperor. It would have been strange indeed if it had been the other way round. But the US made it clear it was not their intention to depose, humilliate or molest the Emperor, which was enough for Hirohito to win over his war cabinet and order the instrument of surrender.

>Truman himself admits he expected Potsdam not to result in an end to the war. What was his game?

>Why did he not allow the Stimson form of words that could have ended the war straight away?

>The basic Japanese condition to the surrender Terms was the same after Nagasaki as it was at Potsdam, but after the uranium and plutonium bombs Truman accepted, why?

**The war was over. We knew it.
Europe knew it. Hitler knew it.
Japan knew it. In fact, many
of the remaining Japanese soldiers
were busy committing suicide, for
they had disgraced their ancestors
by their failure
**Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
highly populated cities as were
the surrounding areas; chock
full of women, children, infants
**These were not vital tactical target
sites bombed by the US. The war
was over. There were no bases
here for munitions, no harbors full
of enemy ships and armed forces.
**There was no rationale as to
why these two cities must be
destroyed.
**On the other hand, there may
have been ... a very smart move
on the part of the US to strengthen
our "position at the bargaining table"
as the Allied Forces began to divide
the spoils of WWII.
**The Soviet Union did not possess
such a bomb. Nor did any other of
the Allied Forces. The USA were the
strongest, we had the "upper
hand" - we could have things
"our way"
**Was that worth what was done
to those two Japanese cities?? Was
it worth the after effects, and the
after, after effects of the radiation,
the poisoning, the burning, the
deformities. Many people were
literally atomized, blessedly blown
into oblivion... these were the lucky
ones. Scores of others lived,
suffering, dying, burning, surviving
for hours,days,weeks,months.What a
ghastly sight that must have been.[/b][/i][/color]

If u wish to question whether a crime was committed,
u shoud indicate which law u r asking about,
that allegedly was violated.

I am not aware of any crime that was committed
by nuking either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.





David

When was that law written?

Also, I don't see how any international law can be enforced against the US.

Bush is guilty of breaking both domestic and international laws, and he's still a free man.

Our use of napalm bomb or similar types of firebombs in Iraq makes us guilty of most international laws.

Also, I don't see how any international law can be enforced against the US.

If u wish to question whether a crime was committed,
u shoud indicate which law u r asking about,
that allegedly was violated.

I am not aware of any crime that was committed
by nuking either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.





David

Rule 14. Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.

http://intraspec.ca/customary_law.php

Oralloy - as far as Japan, informal assurances were given about the status of the Emperor, on the condition that his position be somehow confirmed by the people; this was not a problem as the Emperor said that he wouldn't contemplate staying on any other terms, firm in his (justified) belief that the people of Japan wanted him to remain.

As to international law, you are correct, it supersedes US (and any other domestic) law as long, of course, as the country has signed and ratified said international legislation. Certainly penalties can be levied for breaches of law, and enforced against any country, though sometimes they are negotiable.

Why bring up Clinton? I wrote:

Quote:

Also, I don't see how any international law can be enforced against the US.

What's your point, if any?

Bush is guilty of breaking both domestic and international laws, and he's still a free man.

oralloy wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

If u wish to question whether a crime was committed,
u shoud indicate which law u r asking about,
that allegedly was violated.

I am not aware of any crime that was committed
by nuking either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.





David

Quote:

Rule 14. Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.

http://intraspec.ca/customary_law.php

1 ) I have no idea of any reason
that we shoud copy the customs of other nations.

Violating a custom is not a crime.

General MacArthur, in his own memoirs, gives the version I just posted, and adds that the talks were informal (ie not set out in writing) but clearly agreed by both sides. I myself heard his widow confirm this, as well as her late husband's assurances that he never disobeyed any orders, contrary to what Truman claimed. Her contempt for Truman was palpable, even in the 1960s (when I met the lady while acting as interpreter for a general visiting her to pay his respects).

"The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers...."

http://www.international.ucla.edu/eas/documents/jpnsurrender.htm

No historian claims that Truman had any understanding of what long-term effects the nuclear weapons would have for the people targeted - at least other forms of bombing have casualties which are known immediately.