Normally, I wouldnt waste my time replying to such an asinine thread, but the Op is purposely misleading you all by taking certain statements out of
context and alluding that they mean anything.
Here is the truth as I know it, and please OP, feel free to argue these in-arguable points:
First, try reading the Potsdam Declaration. The US told both the emperor and the people," they would face prompt and utter destruction" if they didnt
surrender immediately. It was the day after the first test of the A-bomb.
The US dropped leaflets for days and radio broadcasts of the same were on every station available.
The Japanese refused to heed these warnings. Why? Well because the year before, the Emperor made the National Mobilization Law. What was that you ask?
It was a law demanding that EVERY man and woman get military training who were between the ages of 15 to 60 for men and 17 to 50 for women. ALL OF
THEM WERE THEN ARMED. Some with munitions, some with pitchforks, but ALL were now soldiers.
The ones that didnt make the cut, were used as slave labor to produce munitions for the war effort.
Every single man, woman, and child in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in the army. Does not matter that most were forced to be. Once "full war" is
declared by a country making such a law, symantics of slave or soldier means zero to the opposing force.
So first, your "argument" that bombing those cities is a violation of the Hague Convention, specifically...targeting civvies, is a deflection from the
truth, if not an outright lie.
So lets move on to your whole basis of this thread...the Hague Convention.
First let me mention the startingly obvious point that no convention, treaty, or handshake between the US and any other entity DOES NOT SUPERCEDE THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THIS LAND. A treaty or the punishments it claims to offer for offenses, means jack squat to a sovereign nation.
It is not open for interperetation because that treaty has never been ratified by the Legislative Branch of the US.
A treaty is a contract of sorts. Meaning that in order to have a redress of grievences, you must also follow the rules of the contract as well. Japan
violated that treaty long before the US even entered the war so they have no possible redress to any court anywhere. Which means that the rules of war
outlined in the original contract DO NOT apply to the entity who violated it.
The Hague Convention merely states that it prohibits the targeting of,"undefended populations" that is it.
Was either of those two cities undefended?? Not even close. Besides my mentioning of the National Mobilization Law making ALL citizens of age into
soldiers, may I add Operation Downfall into the mix?
The Japanese were fully aware of Operation Downfall, which was the plan for a ground invasion of Japan itself by the US and allies. It was the purpose
for the Emperor making the NML in the first place. He knew an invasion was inevitable and armed/trained civilians to expect it.
The estimated US casualties of the operation was expected to be over 1 million US soldiers. While Japan wanted a ground invasion to happen so they
coyld negotiate surrender in a better position, the US had a choice:
Lose a million more citizens, or end the damned thing once and for all. They made the correct choice and didnt violate the Hague Convention because
neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki were considered,"undefended civilian positions" as every citizen residing in thise cities fell under the National
Mobilization act and were for all intents and purposes....soldiers defending against a ground attack.
The International Red Cross put in their two cents regarding this issue shortly after had this to say," In examining these events in light of
international Humanitarian Law, it should be bourne in mind that during the second world war, there was NO AGREEMENT, TREATY, OR OTHER INSTRUMENT
governing the protection of civilian populations."
Not good enough? Well heres what the damned Emperor himself said regarding it," While it is regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped, it couldnt be
helped...it was wartime."
Listen, I could pick apart your thread all damned day, but theres really no need as anyone with a fifty IQ and an internet connection knows you may
not be outright lying, but definitely distorting the truth.
edit on 24-12-2012 by MisterMaster because: (no reason given)