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

Thanks, Setanta. Folks who debate a question absent background bug me. My dad, already a veteran of 3 island campains - Guadalcanal, Tarawa, and Okinawa, was involved in the operational planning for Olympic/Coronet (together codenamed "Downfall"), and would have been part of the 1st Marine Division's assault on Tokyo itself. Follwing the surrender, he was among the occupation troops. A lawyer by trade, and as he could speak, read, and write Japanese, he naturally was involved in the after-war analysis and in the eventual War Crimes Prosecutions. He had a helluva lot of background. It was his firm conviction that every hour between the in-theater availability of the bombs and their actual deployment was a crime. I must credit him for much of the detail material I used in that earlier essay.

Semper Fi, Dad ... where ever you are.

0 Replies

Great stuff timber

0 Replies

Illegal, war is illegal but that never stopped anyone from waging it. It is amazing how those who have never come close to the business end of a rifle or have known anyone that has believes that wars can be fought like a gentleman's game.

0 Replies

War is not illegal.

Japan was not after world domination. All Japan wanted was SE Asia.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

He who delivers the first blow can not complain when that blow is returned many fold. Our do unto others as they have done unto you. Does anyone remember the rape of Nanking or the Bataan death march or the many other Japanese atrocities.

The dropping of the bomb was to break the Japenese spirit, will to fight and continue the war. It was entirely justified and within the rules under which WW2 was fought.

That says nothing about legality Au.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I agree. They started the whole thing with the US; their goal was world domination.

That says nothing about the legality of the act.

Quote:

They deserved whatever we had to do to defend ourselves--and we gave them fair warning.

Complete unmitigated bull.

Quote:

How anyone can argue about our 'response' to such an unprovoked attack is highly questionable, to me. I suppose Japan's behavior is more justifiable?

Your feelings on it and Japans behavior both share the quality of having nothing whatsoever to do with the legality.

Perhaps the morality, not the legality.

0 Replies

Craven
Is there anything legal about war? The dropping of the atomic bomb was no different from how the rest of the war was fought. Both in the West and the East. IMO it's use saved millions of lives especially American ones. And yes they were more important to me than those of the enemy and I dare say the reverse is true. As far as I am concerned no excuses are due for it's use. I doubt you will find an American or national of any of the allied nations at that time that did not cheer it's use since it brought an end of the war.
This may not sit well with you but as they say you had to be there.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Craven
Is there anything legal about war?

Yes, war itself is not illegal.

For example, the declaration of war on Japan was perfectly legal. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was not and was a war crime.

Quote:

The dropping of the atomic bomb was no different from how the rest of the war was fought.

Well, in terms of it being the only use of atomic weaponry it was different but if your point was that there was a lot of war crimes to go around I agree.

Quote:

Both in the West and the East. IMO it's use saved millions of lives especially American ones. And yes they were more important to me than those of the enemy and I dare say the reverse is true. As far as I am concerned no excuses are due for it's use. I doubt you will find an American or national of any of the allied nations at that time that did not cheer it's use since it brought an end of the war.
This may not sit well with you but as they say you had to be there.

I did not make any mention of the morality of the use of the nukes. Quite frankly I am currently undecided on that.

0 Replies

Craven
By what standards is war legal. In particular one that was started with a sneak attack?
Was the use of the atomic weaponry legal? My answer; it was as legal as the war itself.

0 Replies

War itself is not illegal per se. The sneak attack was certainly illegal.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Craven
I doubt you will find an American or national of any of the allied nations at that time that did not cheer it's use since it brought an end of the war.
This may not sit well with you but as they say you had to be there.

Hmmm - just as an interesting note, this site has quotes from some quite important contemporary Americans, who had real concerns about the idea of using nuclear weapons on Japan, it seems.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

They appear to include folk such as Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur...

I cannot vouch that they may not have been taken out of context - but doubtless Set or another history buff may be along.

0 Replies

Craven
By what standard is war legal. Is there some document that details how it can be initiated and if the protocal is followed it is acceptable and legal. I think that is splitting hairs just as the question concerning the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

0 Replies

Craven--

When you have an unsuspecting country minding their own business, and they are attacked without provocation--they have opened themselves up to a multitude of results.

They own those results. They may have beaten us, and occupied us--eradicating the US and others.

What they got was a proclamation from the UN that if they didn't surrender, they'd be annihilated. If the UN stamp then didn't make the US response legal, what was the UN for again?

If a guy tries to kill me, and I jab out his eye, do you think I'm going to get in trouble for that? The aggressor is responsible for what happens to him.

If I am speeding, and I hit someone, and everyone in my car dies--do I blame the other car for killing my family? They got their citizens killed by their illegal actions.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Craven
By what standard is war legal.

The nature of law is such that what is legal is not codified so much as what is not legal.

You will not find any time in History that war per se is broadly considered illegal.

Quote:

Is there some document that details how it can be initiated and if the protocal is followed it is acceptable and legal.

Currently, yes. For example, declaring war in self-defense is legal according to the UN Charter.

That is just a simple example.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Craven--

When you have an unsuspecting country minding their own business, and they are attacked without provocation--they have opened themselves up to a multitude of results.

Check your facts. The USA knew a war was coming. They just never believed that Japan would attack Pearl Harbor as it was deemed to be too far.

And Japan went to war due to the US's oil embargo.

Hardly unsuspecting and minding their own business.

But anyway, Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained many military targets. Back then wiping a city was the done thing to destroying a military target. They couldn't drop 1 bomb onto a factory and wipe it out like we can today.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

au1929 wrote:

Quote:
Is there some document that details how it can be initiated and if the protocal is followed it is acceptable and legal.

Currently, yes. For example, declaring war in self-defense is legal according to the UN Charter.

That is just a simple example.

The Hague Convention states that you have to give a declaration or an ultimatum as another example.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

When you have an unsuspecting country minding their own business, and they are attacked without provocation--they have opened themselves up to a multitude of results.

Indeed, but again, that does not make any such result legal, which is all I have maintained.

Quote:

What they got was a proclamation from the UN that if they didn't surrender, they'd be annihilated. If the UN stamp then didn't make the US response legal, what was the UN for again?

The UN did not even exist at the time, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Truman's warning to Japan was not delivered in a way to make them sentinent of what was to come and sounded like rhetorical bluster.

"expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth".

He made no effort to make it believable because he believed the "Japs" were "savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic" and did not deliver the threat with any expectation that it would be heeded but rather for his own concience's sake:

"we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance"

Aside from the wording of the threat the other quotes come from his diary.

Interestingly in his diary he also said:

"I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children."

Quote:

If a guy tries to kill me, and I jab out his eye, do you think I'm going to get in trouble for that?

No, it would be legal (as long as it was during his attack).

Quote:

The aggressor is responsible for what happens to him.

This is not always true Sofia.

Quote:

If I am speeding, and I hit someone, and everyone in my car dies--do I blame the other car for killing my family?

This is a fallacious comparison.

If you killed their family and they returned to kill yours years later would be more accurate.

Quote:

They got their citizens killed by their illegal actions.

Yes, they certainly started it. And their attack on Pearl Harbor was certainly illegal.

But again, that says nothing of the legality of the nuking, just your feelings on the subject.

0 Replies

Craven
I am sure you are aware that there was no such thing as the UN in 1941 or it's charter.
I would add if one nation is fighting a war of self defense the other nation must be the aggressor. Making the war illegal, at least for one of the parties. Splitting hairs again.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Craven
I am sure you are aware that there was no such thing as the UN in 1941 or it's charter.

Indeed. My example of the UN charter was a simplistic example about the legality of war per se.

It was not a good example for the fact that war per se was not illegal at that time but I'm a bit lazy right now.

Quote:

I would add if one nation is fighting a war of self defense the other nation must be the aggressor.

Close, and you may wish to kill me for splitting this hair, but not quite.

The doctrine of pre-emption is such that the nation in self-defense is also theaggressor of the military engagement and while on shaky ground has precident for being considered legal.

For more on this subject see my thread on Pre-emption and international law. The legal basis.

Quote:

Making the war illegal, at least for one of the parties. Splitting hairs again.

The nature of law is such that hair-splitting is, indeed, often an apt description.

0 Replies

The UN existed in World War Two.

It's what the Allies called themselves. It's why the UN is called the UN today.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know