The Atomic Bombings on Japan were war crimes and here is why!

The Atomic Bombings on Japan were war crimes and here is why!

Yes, you read that correctly. The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes and should have been considered as such.

During the time of World War 2, the laws of war fell under the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907), the Hague Rules of Air Warfare (1923) and early parts of the Geneva Convention. This thread will be looking at articles from the Hague Convention (1907) and the Hague Rules of Air Warfare (1923) in order to prove that the Atomic Bombings of Japan were war crimes under international law.

Before we get started, it must be noted that the conventions were signed by all parties involved. As such, the parties breaking the rules should be held liable for their war crimes.

Under the Hague Convention of 1907 in Chapter 1 under the title Means of injuring the enemy, sieges, and bombardments, the rules of law are clearly stated.

Under Article 27:

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.

While it was the duty of those besieged to indicate the locations of the buildings described above, there was no way for Japan to do so before they were attacked by the Atomic Bombs. The USA did not abide by this law, as they did not (in any way) attempt to preserve buildings of religious, artistic, scientific, charitable or historic nature. Furthermore, they also destroyed hospitals, where the ill were located. Considering the Japanese Military was not in use of most of the buildings, it is safe to state that the USA broke the law under Article 27 of the Hague Convention (1907).

Furthermore, under Article 23, it states that it is especially forbidden:

(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering

It is clear that the Atomic Bombs were dropped on civilians in order to cause unnecessary suffering. Some of the victims survived the initial blast and were forced to die a slow and painful death. Some may argue that the USA didn't know of the effects of the Nuclear bomb at the time, but they tested it, therefore they knew the physical extent of the damage which would have been done. The Atomic Bombs did indeed cause unnecessary suffering to the surviving populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Further, the laws of wartime aerial bombardments were expanded upon in the Hague Rules of Air Warfare (1923) under Chapter IV - Hostilities (Bombardment).

Under Article 22, it is stated that:

Any air bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civil population or destroying or damaging private property without military character or injuring non-combatants, is forbidden.

The Atomic Bombings were directed on both, civilian populations and private (non-military) property. Civilians were killed and/or injured as a result. Therefore, the USA broke this forbidden rule.

Under Article 24, it is stated that"

1. An air bombardment is legitimate only when is directed against a military objective, i.e. an objective whereof the total or partial destruction would constitute an obvious military advantage for the belligerent;

It was not known whether or not Japan would surrender as a result of the Atomic Bombings. Japan never surrendered after the first bomb. As such, the USA did not know if the bombings would constitute an obvious military advantage.

2. Such bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively against the following objectives:

Military forces, military works, military establishments or depots, manufacturing plants constituting important and well-known centres for the production of arms, ammunition or characterized military supplies, lines of communication or of transport which are used for military purposes.

The cities were bombed with WMD's, therefore destroying everything. As the Article states, bombardment must be exclusively against a military force. The USA opted to take out entire cities, injuring civilians. If they really wanted to take out exclusive military objectives, they should have used a more strategic bomb. Again, they broke the law.

3. Any bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations and building which are not situated in the immediate vicinity of the operations of the land forces, is forbidden. Should the objectives specified in paragraph 2 be so situated that they could not be bombed but that an undiscriminating bombardment of the civil population would result therefrom, the aircraft must abstain from bombing;

It is clearly stated here that one must abstain from bombing if the military objectives are located within the vicinity of civilians. Again, the USA broke the law and bombed civilians, claiming to be taking out important military targets.

The reasoning for the bombings doesn't matter. The USA broke international law through using WMD's on Japan. This thread clearly exposes why the Atomic Bombings of Japan were, and should have been classed as war crimes.

Thank you for reading.

Sources:

The Hague Convention of 1907:

www.icrc.org...

Hague Rules of Air Warfare (1923):

www.icrc.org...
lawofwar.org...

Very well researched. I was a History Major at School. There is little doubt that the US did not technically need to use the bombs. I am sure people would argue that by dropping the Bombs the US saved Money and Lives by ending the war quicker. I promise if the US had invaded Japan there would have been a much larger loss of life to Civilians and damage done to the infrastructure.

There is no doubt your right that it was indeed a War Crime technically. I bet if you researched every Country in WW2 that they would all have been guilty of war crimes of one kind or another. The fact is the winning side is very seldom held accountable. It might be argued that Charges of War Crimes were initially thought of as a way to humiliate the losing side even further. Lets be clear the US has been guilty of horrendous War Crimes since 9/11. I very much doubt anyone will ever be brought to justice.

The general perspective from the UK is that they certainly were war crimes, but at the same time, the firebombing of Dresden and of Japan likely falls under the same category.

Lets not rush to judgement too much or we may find ourselves condemning every element of the war.

Any dropping of atomic weapons on our planet is a war crime against every living thing on this planet.

Originally posted by GArnold
Very well researched. I was a History Major at School. There is little doubt that the US did not technically need to use the bombs. I am sure people would argue that by dropping the Bombs the US saved Money and Lives by ending the war quicker. I promise if the US had invaded Japan there would have been a much larger loss of life to Civilians and damage done to the infrastructure.

I do agree. However we don't really know what the extent of the damage would have been if the WMD's were not dropped. What we do know is that the Japanese would have continued fighting the allies as they advanced...

There is no doubt your right that it was indeed a War Crime technically. I bet if you researched every Country in WW2 that they would all have been guilty of war crimes of one kind or another. The fact is the winning side is very seldom held accountable. It might be argued that Charges of War Crimes were initially thought of as a way to humiliate the losing side even further. Lets be clear the US has been guilty of horrendous War Crimes since 9/11. I very much doubt anyone will ever be brought to justice.

Agreed.

reply to post by daaskapital


It has been acknowledged as being a war crime.

wagingpeace.org

On the issue of legality, the judgment clearly stated that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a clear violation of international law and regulations respecting aerial warfare. The court cited a number of international laws including the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War and Land of 1899, Declaration prohibiting aerial bombardment of 1907, the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922-1923, and Protocol prohibiting the use in war of asphyxiating, deleterious or other gases and bacteriological methods of warfare.

However, many contentious issues still remain regarding compensation, repercussions and the necessity of the action in the first place though...

reply to post by exponent


Exactly. UK and Germany were guilty of the Blitz or Blitzkrieg which was pretty much the same thing, only difference is we didn't have nukes then... It's a good job really.

I don't think anyone today disputes the fact that they were war crimes.

What puzzles me, however, is how the US, the only country that has ever nuked a civilian population, can justify dictating what nations should and shouldn't be developing nuclear weapons (or power).

reply to post by daaskapital


i thought all war was a crime, since day one, what makes killing just. please indulge!

reply to post by daaskapital

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

First. The desctruction of these types of buildings were not unique to the atomic bombings. The U.S. had been firebombing Japan, for months prior to the atomic bombings, causing vast portions of Japan to be burned to the ground. Also, nearly all capable citizens and inftrastructure of Japan were mobilized in support of their war effort, and were no longer considered civilian. Before the first atomic bomb was dropped, the U.S. dropped leaflets over 35 cities, which described the coming horror.

Second. Spend some time researching the atrocities commited by the Japanese war machine.

Third. My Japanese wife, her family, nor any other Japanese I've met has said anything negative about the U.S. using the atomic weapons on Japan. Instead, they speak of peace and nuclear disarmament.

I think you're just trying to stir up some more anti-American sentiment.

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by daaskapital

 

i thought all war was a crime, since day one, what makes killing just. please indulge!

Not a crime, a war crime, a crime that violates the international rules of war.

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
i thought all war was a crime..

Actually you are right...

The only reason people are unaware of that fact is because:

“There are two histories: official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events.” ~ Honoré de Balzac

Until you come face to face with the REAL truth behind ALL wars, you will NEVER be able to grasp the REAL history that is being hidden behind the FAKE...

"Wars are all based on lies" ~ Charles Young.

"All war is based on deception." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“Most wars are engineered by the Illuminati to weaken civilization and create a global police state" ~ Henry Makow Ph.D.

“All war in history has been hatched by governments, independent of the people’s interests, to whom war is always pernicious even when successful” ~ Leo Tolstoy

"War is the major way for the EVIL, sinister, insane Illuminati to control humanity."
Michael Shore

"War is the principal means by which Lucifer's disciples, the Cabalist (satanist) central bankers, "change the world."

"...most wars/conflicts are orchestrated by this satanic cult. In other words, an Occult Elite is waging war on humanity and we don't even know it. Our political life is essentially an illusion."

How They Control the World

Hiroshima was shocking mainly because of the unorthodox method used... the amount of people killed paled in comparison to some of the atrocities committed by Japanese troops in the war.

www.hawaii.edu...

From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. This democide was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture (such as the view that those enemy soldiers who surrender while still able to resist were criminals)

I think the US had no choice, also, it deserved to give Japan a punch in the mouth after Pearl Harbor.

Dropping 2 might have been a little much, but Hiroshima needed to go down in history!

plus, Japan has recovered, its cities have been rebuilt, generations have past on and Hiroshima and Nagasaki continue as bustling cities...

'IT' was big, but it wasn't forever big!

Originally posted by tamusan

First. The desctruction of these types of buildings were not unique to the atomic bombings. The U.S. had been firebombing Japan, for months prior to the atomic bombings, causing vast portions of Japan to be burned to the ground.

I know. Those attacks should also be classed as War Crimes.

Also, nearly all capable citizens and inftrastructure of Japan were mobilized in support of their war effort, and were no longer considered civilian. Before the first atomic bomb was dropped, the U.S. dropped leaflets over 35 cities, which described the coming horror.

Indeed. It still doesn't stop the fact that the USA violated numerous International laws, which would still make the bombings a war crime.

Second. Spend some time researching the atrocities commited by the Japanese war machine.

Who's to say i haven't?

This thread is focused on the WMD bombing of Japan. So i do not need to raise the topic of Japanese war crimes here.

Third. My Japanese wife, her family, nor any other Japanese I've met has said anything negative about the U.S. using the atomic weapons on Japan. Instead, they speak of peace and nuclear disarmament.

I imagine they would. Japanese people are generally peaceful and very respectful.

I think you're just trying to stir up some more anti-American sentiment.

Sigh...

I knew someone would raise that word in this thread. Just because i am talking about an American war crime does not make me anti-American. Nor does it mean i am anti-American. Grow up.

This has been discussed several times before, once again the Japanese apologists/USA haters are attacking the USA.

It was not a war crime, they saved a lot of lives. Also Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both valid military targets.

Originally posted by hellobruce
This has been discussed several times before, once again the Japanese apologists/USA haters are attacking the USA.

It was not a war crime, they saved a lot of lives. Also Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both valid military targets.

edit on 23-12-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

You have to be a "USA hater" to think nuking Japan was wrong?

reply to post by daaskapital

It is clearly stated here that one must abstain from bombing if the military objectives are located within the vicinity of civilians. Again, the USA broke the law and bombed civilians, claiming to be taking out important military targets.

The Japanese bombed Darwin
The Germans Bombed London

What's the difference?

Originally posted by hellobruce
This has been discussed several times before, once again the Japanese apologists/USA haters are attacking the USA.

It was not a war crime, they saved a lot of lives. Also Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both valid military targets.

edit on 23-12-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

I'm not attacking the USA.

Why do you's have to take offense over everything?

No, they were war crimes. Read the OP.

I quote Article 24 of the Hague Rules of Air Warfare:

3. Any bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations and building which are not situated in the immediate vicinity of the operations of the land forces, is forbidden. Should the objectives specified in paragraph 2 be so situated that they could not be bombed but that an undiscriminating bombardment of the civil population would result therefrom, the aircraft must abstain from bombing;

The bombings should have been called of, simply because they were bombing a place with civilians.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by daaskapital

 

It is clearly stated here that one must abstain from bombing if the military objectives are located within the vicinity of civilians. Again, the USA broke the law and bombed civilians, claiming to be taking out important military targets.

The Japanese bombed Darwin
The Germans Bombed London

What's the difference?

Nothing. Both, Japan and Germany broke International law by bombing those cities (considering it was in the presence of civilians).

Originally posted by daaskapital
No, they were war crimes. Read the OP.

You are wrong again there.

I quote Article 24 of the Hague Rules of Air Warfare:

3. Any bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations and building which are not situated in the immediate vicinity of the operations of the land forces, is forbidden.....

Oh dear, there goes your "war crime"....

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army which commanded the defense of all southern Japan.[59] Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army was headquartered in the Hiroshima Castle and his command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly expected.[60] Also present in Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 5th Division, 59th Army, and most of the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit.[61] The city's air defenses comprised five batteries of 7-and-8-centimetre (2.8 and 3.1 in) anti-aircraft guns. In total, 40,000 military personnel were stationed inside the city.[62]

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The four largest companies in the city were Mitsubishi Shipyards, Electrical Shipyards, Arms Plant, and Steel and Arms Works, which employed almost as 90% of the city's labor force.

So both were valid military targets.