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

Anyone who has studied that war thoroughly knows that it was by no means certain to the responible parties among the Allies that the Japanese would accept their defeat and lay down their arms.

Anyone who would bother to read this thread before commenting would have read the extremely detailed and well reasoned opinions offered, and know that the conclusions which people posting here have reached were not reached hastily, nor in an access of patriotism nor of racism.

Instruct us, Oh Thou Great Fount of Wisdom . . .

Wrong. It killed about 140 000 people. Hardly hundreds of thousands.

Japan was not going ot surrender. Even after the 1st bomb was dropped the Japanese leaders voted in favour of continuing the war.

After the 2nd bomb was dropped they voted 50/50. The Emperor then cast the deciding vote to end the war.

That night there was an attempted coup to kill those who voted no (not the Emperor though) in the hope of having a revote. With no "no" voters left the war would've continued. The coup failed.

Hardly a won war without the bombs.

Well Tobruk...if you count those that died of diseases caused by bomb number is definitely hundreds of thousands.

Prove it.

okay, that's a good one

Your "Cynic Day" today?

Piece of cake. Well, at least piece of cake to show that your number is wrong and that you can't prove that hundreds of thousands did not die either. Not even if you restrict it to acute deaths.

This is based on the assumption that you are not talking about only Nagasaki, which jacko73 named. I use this assumption because your figure would be even more incorrect if this were so and would be far far beyond the upper estimate.

So I am assuming you too, are taking about both cities.

==========

First of all your initial figure for acute deaths is incorrect. According to RERF (Radiation Effects Research Foundation, a Japanese/American organization that has studied the survivors of the atomic blasts) the conservative estimate on acute deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is above the 140,000 you cite.

In fact, the range for Hiroshima alone is 90,000-140,000.

The total acute death toll is 150,000- 220,000

So, even with only the acute deaths the toll may well have been hundreds of thousands.

3,000 in utero exposure cases are being monitored and effects are clearly shown but there are not yet enough deaths to delienate the portions attributable to radiation exposure statistically.

428 out of 4,863 monitored cancer deaths are attributed to the radiation exposure. This is only from the high exposure level of the select group that this organization monitors and the deaths are expected to continue to come in because 25% of the radiation related cancer deaths occured within the latter 1986 and 1990.

The elevated cancer risk is expected to be with all the exposed throughout their lifetimes.

50,113 non-cancer deaths from among the survivors study group were studied but the rate at which they are radiation related is low and the total number is probably not more than the cancer deaths that were attributed to radiation exposure.

To get better ideas on the numbers you need to take this and generalize it across the exposure victims, it will be a lot of work but either way, the thrust of your initial point is wrong, and hundreds of thousands may well have died directly from the bombings without even counting the subsequent excess deaths.

But now your turn. You claimed that it did not kill hundreds of thousands of people, you laughed at those who suggested as much.

You said "hardly hundreds of thousands" when the upper estimate of acute deaths makes it hundreds of thousands easily.

So Tobruk, Prove it.

I am never in favor of deliberately attacking civilians. I think it would have been better, if possible, to have used the bombs against military targets.

However, on a purely formal note, in order for something to be a war crime, it must violate a treaty to which the country in question is signatory at the time the act is committed. Otherwise it isn't a war crime, by definition. It would be helpful if someone could cite the specific treaty and quote the specific portion which this violated. I am not saying that there is no such thing, I simply don't know.

I've heard and read several definitions (which all are more or less identical).

However, this one by you isn't to be found in any of my books on international war .... or online.
source:Encyclopaedia Britannica

Well, it's not like I know much about this, but it would seem to me that in order for an action to be a crime, it would have to violate a law. One cannot hold a country responsible for violating the Geneva Conventions, for instance, if they have never signed them. At least I wouldn't think you could hold a country responsible for violating a treaty it never signed.

Now my previous post mentioned international treaties, but your reference to the Lieber Code would indicate that a country could be guilty of war crimes if it violated its own internal laws.

As far as the International Criminal Court goes, does it require that the country in question has signed a treaty agreeing to be subject to that court, or is it simply imposed by force on anyone who has violated the terms of the treaty, regardless of whether they ever agreed to them?

Was the International Criminal Court in existence in 1945? I would like to see which specific provision of a law the use of the A-bombs in 1945 violated. I am not saying there isn't such a thing. I just don't know. But this would certainly be the criterion for being guilty of war crimes.

Those determined to hew to a preset notion of the question have neither knowledge of nor regard for fact. Impeccably researched, compellingly written, and offering both Allied and Japanese points-of-view, the below-listed authoritative treatments of the issue herein at discussion lead to no conclusion but that the choice to use The Bomb was mandated by circumstances, clearly the only reasonable option. Those who actually desire to aquaint themselves with the facts may find these works through any major library, or obtain them from any general market bookseller.

Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire; Frank, R. B., 2001, Penguin Books. ISBN 0141001461

The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb; Skates, J.R., 2000, University of South Carolina Press. ISBN 1570033544

Japan's Longest Day: The Pacific War Research Society; Compilation, Forward by Hando, K., 2002 (Originally published in Japanese; English Translation), Kodansha International. ISBN: 4770028873

The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945 (Modern Library War Series); Toland, J.R., 2003, Modern Library edition
ISBN: 0812968581 (First Pub. 1970 Random House)

Japan at War: An Oral History; Cook, H.T. and Cook, T.F. Eds., 1993, New Press. ISBN: 1565840399

And, of course, those unfamiliar with the actual history and determined to cling to their comforting preconceptions to the contrary are advised, and expected, not to take the effort to examine the facts.

International law started in Münster/Osnabrück in 1648 with the Westphalian Peace.

In more modern times, the Hague Conventions are recognized as the rules for that.


The ICC is working just a short time - and actually has nothing to do with countries/nations that violate international law but individuals.
'Britannica' mentions this, when you kindly would re-read the above quote, just re a definition of "war crime".

It started long before that.

Which international law, present in 1945, would have covered the use of atomic weapons, and would the country in question have had to have signed the treaty in order for its citizen to be regarded as a violator?

Right - but that was the very first some dozen countries recognized that, even those, not (directly) involved in a war. :wink:

The Hague Convention

Questions of international law are largely moot, in that there were military targets at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oppenheimer and company may well have had a notion of the scale of devastation which would result, having been present at the Trinity tests. Curtis LeMay and company were not there. The crew of Enola Gay were not there. The systematic destruction of more than 60 Japanese cities with "fire storm" bombing techniques represents a far more questionable and despicable application of overwhelming airpower.

The atomic bombings mark a major mile stone in military history, not because of the total scale of the destruction wreaked--which pales in comparison to the fire-bomging campaign. Rather, it was the implications for the future of general global war. As such, it has attracted the usually collection of the obstreperous, the lovers of conspiracy, those constitutionally inclined to disagree with prevailing views simply because they prevail, and the legions of those who are quick to adopt a point of view because it resonates with their feelings, as opposed to having been based upon solid research and sound reasoning.

The emotional factor here makes it unlikely that this debate will ever go away. It also assures that a good deal of the input into the debate will be misinformed and dogmatic. Such is the way of humanity, world without end, amen.

Brandon,

Which international law, present in 1945, would have covered the war crimes the Nazis were subsequently tried for?

Answer: The indictments were not based on any law. They were ex post facto* indictments.

*retroactive

So, were the Nazis guilty of war crimes?

By the standard you have set forth herein, no, the Nazis were not guilty of war crimes.

They were guilty however of crimes against humanity. Ovens, gas chambers, murder of unarmed civilians genocide, ethnic cleansing and, etc., must have been judged unlawful with or without written statues.