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

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by daaskapital

 

Sorry but there is a term for that and it is called collateral damage. Both those cities were legitimate military targets and you can’t get around that fact. Even in today’s world with the technology we have a bomb cause’s collateral damage. The US and other countries have created precision weapons to cut down on unintended casualties but it is a fact of war that there will be collateral damage as long as wars happen.

In the Hague Rules of Air Warfare, it clearly states that:

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 (Military targets) 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 cities may have been valid military targets, however the USA should have abstained from bombing them, simply due to the fact that civilians were located in the immediate vicinity. The USA broke the law by bombing cities with civilians, just to destroy a military target.

The entire argument you made has been dependent on the detonation for maximum effect and I have news for you. It isn’t against the law.

No it hasn't. Yes it was.

The USA caused unnecessary suffering to the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by detonating the Atomic bombs at an altitude.

You have been shown several times in this thread the regulations you quoted cannot be applied to any of the bombings as it was written for hand grenades and such. If you choose to ignore the facts that is fine but I will not cater to delusions.

It doesn't matter what the laws were originally written for. The fact is that WW2 fell under the Hague conventions and the Hague Rules of Air Warfare.

The definition of bombarded is:

Attack (a place or person) continuously with bombs, shells, or other missiles: "the city was bombarded by federal forces".

Considering that the USA bombarded Japan with all sorts of bombs (in this case, the WMD's), it can be safe to assume that the terms apply to every force in WW2, capable of dropping missiles, bombs or shells.

I understand the case you are trying to make but you don’t have a theoretical leg to stand on. See above post. Continuation of that war would have been far more gruesome than what was done to end it. Would you have preferred that more people had died would you have been that cruel?

edit on 25-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

Trying to turn the argument around aye.

No one knows exactly how many people would have died if the USA never dropped the bombs and invaded, but the truth is that the USA did drop the bombs which killed a whole heap of civilians.

Of course not. But i would never be so cruel as to drop two Atomic bombs, massacring civilians while leaving the survivors and those who remain, sick with radiation poisoning.

reply to post by daaskapital


Of course they are war crimes: hundreds of thousands of innocents were killed

Originally posted by daaskapital
Of course not. But i would never be so cruel as to drop two Atomic bombs, massacring civilians while leaving the survivors and those who remain, sick with radiation poisoning.

unless they were Americans....

reply to post by daaskapital


Except that when the rules are interpreted they say something slightly different.

The commission agreed that "a belligerent ought not to direct his attacks against the civil population who take no part directly or indirectly in the operations of the war, or against private property or institutions of a charitable, educational or religious character. . . ."25 This principle suggested three guidelines: the distinction between combatant and noncombatant was critical; indiscriminate bombing and bombing to terrorize were unacceptable; and only targets of military value should be attacked.26

The rationale for Article 22 is obvious, but Article 24 is more complex in the sense that it makes a significant distinction between bombing in the immediate neighborhood of operations (tactical) as opposed to more distant bombing (strategic). Part (3) of the article severely limits strategic bombing when it prohibits bombing that poses substantial danger to noncombatants.27 In Part (4), however, tactical bombing that may cause heavy civilian casualties is permissible if the military objective is sufficiently important.

www.airpower.au.af.mil...

If the military target in the civilian area is important enough, then it IS permissible to bomb it. I would say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were important enough to bomb considering that one housed a major headquarters, and the other was a major port and manufacturing facility.

In Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v The State it was found that the bombings did not constitute a war crime. It went on to say:

"In principle, a defended city is a city which resists an attempt at occupation by land forces. A city even with defence installations and armed forces cannot be said to be a defended city if it is far away from the battlefield and is not in immediate danger of occupation by the enemy."[16] The court ruled that blind aerial bombardment is only permitted in the immediate vicinity of the operations of land forces and that only targeted aerial bombardment of military installations is permitted further from the front. It also ruled that, in such an event, the incidental death of civilians and the destruction of civilian property during targeted aerial bombardment was not unlawful.[17] The court acknowledged that the concept of a military objective was enlarged under conditions of total war, but stated that the distinction between the two did not disappear.[18] The court also ruled that when military targets were concentrated in a comparatively small area, and where defence installations against air raids were very strong, that when the destruction of non-military objectives is small in proportion to the large military interests, or necessity, such destruction is lawful.[17] So in the judgement of the Court, because of the immense power of the bombs, and the distance from enemy (Allied) land forces, the bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki "was an illegal act of hostilities under international law as it existed at that time, as an indiscriminate bombardment of undefended cities".[19]

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by daaskapital

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 (Military targets) 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;

Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.

We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender Issued, at Potsdam, July 26, 1945

This declaration is a War Crime also.


WHY?

Because it spelled out clearly what was going to happen to Japan, if they didn't surrender unconditionally.

utter destruction

Bold statement, by Nations who signed a treaty. Bold Warning too. One that went unnoticed.


WHY?


War is hell.

Ethics and Morals are not part of the definition, in War. History is filled with War Crimes. War IS a crime. That's what you are failing to realize. There is no right or wrong.

BTW, ATS has already had its fair amount of discussion on it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by daaskapital
because the international law is what stands during times of war.

It doesn't.

You know this, but continue to play the game like it does. Every Country involved in WW2 had blood on their hands. You just want to point out one Nations stains. Its a chapter in a Book, that you have continued to regurgitate over and over.

I am beginning to wonder WHY you are truly doing this........

reply to post by sonnny1


Technically that's not a war crime, because the Hague Conventions state that whenever possible a warning is to be issued to civilians to evacuate the area to be attacked. That was a warning.

These cities were largely untouched during the nightly bombing raids and the Army Air Force agreed to leave them off the target list so accurate assessment of the weapon could be made. Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focusing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target."[47] The US had previously dropped leaflets warning civilians of air raids on 35 Japanese cities, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[48]

The US had previously dropped leaflets warning civilians of air raids on 35 Japanese cities, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki

en.wikipedia.org...

This thread is a joke and an insult.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Yes, Technically.

I would like to see a comprehensive in depth discussion on War crimes, and WW2. Before the Op states that I "go and make one" I will counter that "sensationalism" and growing Anti US sentiment is the only reason this thread has garnered the responses it has. That, and the angle of regurgitating the same responses over and over again, without the willingness to talk about ALL the obvious War crimes WW2 and its victims faced. Even with all that, there has been plenty of proof to show the citizens of Japan were soldiers also, due to Japans National Mobilization Law, making the whole Country a Military Complex. Many factors go into the reasons "why" but OP is clearly focusing on "his" reasons, as to why. It shortchanges the whole discussion, and cheapens it.

reply to post by daaskapital


It has already been shown that they legitimate military targets beyond a shadow of a doubt. The official ruling has exonerated the US of war crimes in that instance. There are no rules pertaining to air burst projectiles. There were no rules written concerning nuclear weapons at the time and they fell under general rules of engagement. Both cities were legitimate targets.

Not trying to turn around anything it is plainly stated throughout the thread that you are mistaken backed up by the international community. There is no obligation to accept a conditional surrender.

Would you have accepted Hitler’s conditional surrender leaving him in power? If so I have to say wow.


Do you have anything new to bring to the discussion please do not restate the same arguments as they have been adequately disproven.

Originally posted by daaskapital

The cities may have been valid military targets, however the USA should have abstained from bombing them, simply due to the fact that civilians were located in the immediate vicinity. The USA broke the law by bombing cities with civilians, just to destroy a military target.

So by this standard EVERY bombing raid was a war crime... as I stated a few posts back, the technology was not there to discriminate and whole towns were bombed to get the military.

A typical run was for the bomber to pick the highest point, typically a church, and start there with the bombing run.

We all give, for you are right it all was against the Geneva convention.... every aspects of the war broke something...but then who really gives a crap....we can't apply today views/standards on past events.

It's like you are suggesting everything prior to the Geneva convention was OK because it wasn't breaking any set rules yet....lol

Originally posted by daaskapital
In the Hague Rules of Air Warfare, it clearly states that:

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 (Military targets) 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 cities may have been valid military targets, however the USA should have abstained from bombing them, simply due to the fact that civilians were located in the immediate vicinity. The USA broke the law by bombing cities with civilians, just to destroy a military target.

Lets clear some things up since you are picking what supports your argument while ignoring the parts that dont..

The Hague rules of Air Warfare
First off -

The Hague, December, 1922-February, 1923
[These rules were never adopted by the powers concerned.]

Secondly - What you chose to leave out -

ARTICLE XXIV

1 ) Aerial bombardment is legitimate only when directed at a military objective, that is to say, an object of which the destruction or injury would constitute a distinct military advantage to the belligerent.

2) Such bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively at the following objectives: military forces; military works; military establishments or depots; factories constituting important and well-known centres engaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition, or distinctively military supplies; lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes.

What you tried to use -

3) The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings not in the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces is prohibited. In cases where the objectives specified in paragraph 2 are so situated, that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment.

What you left out -

4) In the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces, the bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings is legitimate provided that there exists a reasonable presumption that the military concentration is sufficiently important to justify such bombardment, having regard to the danger thus caused to the civilian population.

5) A belligerent State is liable to pay compensation for injuries to person or to property caused by the violation by any of its officers or forces of the provisions of this article.

Originally posted by daaskapital
No it hasn't. Yes it was.

Yes it has and no it was not.

Originally posted by daaskapital
The USA caused unnecessary suffering to the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by detonating the Atomic bombs at an altitude.

You would be wrong... Actually you are wrong to the extent that your own sources are stating you are wrong.

Originally posted by daaskapital
It doesn't matter what the laws were originally written for. The fact is that WW2 fell under the Hague conventions and the Hague Rules of Air Warfare.

The Hague Convention in 1906 was in effect and was covered 2 pages back... You ignored the post because it doesnt support the claims you are making.

The Hague rules of air warfare were never adopted by any of the major powers. Even if they were, see above where it says you are wrong.

Originally posted by daaskapital
Trying to turn the argument around aye.

As opposed to just ignroing facts you dont like?

Originally posted by daaskapital
No one knows exactly how many people would have died if the USA never dropped the bombs and invaded, but the truth is that the USA did drop the bombs which killed a whole heap of civilians.

Which was allowed under the rules of war at that time.. Both in the Hague Convention of 1906 and the Hague rules on Air Warfare that no one signed.

Originally posted by daaskapital
Of course not. But i would never be so cruel as to drop two Atomic bombs, massacring civilians while leaving the survivors and those who remain, sick with radiation poisoning.

Of course not.. You are to busy supporting the policies and practices of people like Hitler, Tojo, Himmler, Tomoyuki Yama#a, Hajime Sugiyama, Kotohito Kanin, etc etc etc....

Japanese chemical / biological programs and use during WWII

If you ever decide to debate based on facts instead of half truths and omissions let me know.

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
I don’t think they were war crimes.

There was a state of war between our two nations. At the time Japan sent its two submersible air craft carriers to bomb the panama canal so as to prolong the war. After the completion of their mission they were to go north and wreak havoc on American soil.

Because we bombed Japan using the A-bomb, they recalled their ships and all global forces back to Japan. They dumped their air craft and torpedoes and came home instead of attacking our towns and cities along the west coast until we could finally sink them (which could have taken weeks).

Japan did not surrender until the second bomb was dropped. Had we not shown them something out of star wars and our will to use it, they would have fought a bloody land battle that would have killed more civilians than anything we have seen before. That is not even mentioning the cost of American lives.

War is not fair, balanced, or sane. Laws are made for it after the fact and applied retroactively. Fact is when we were fighting, like they were, the main concern is winning. Japan was not in any mood to surrender. They spent the war doing some of THE WORST atrocities. That sort of hellish resolve will not just give up because things will get down and dirty. They raped, tortured and humiliated every people under their rule.

THAT is why modern day Chinese hate their guts. Not for some obscure historical resentment. Their grandparents told them about what they suffered under them. Japan was not going to surrender. There may have been political entities that wanted it, like in Germany, but until the real power thought so the opposition willing to surrender had no voice or vote on the matter.

War crimes are what the Japanese committed. Necessary action is what we did. If we had dropped more bombs after they surrendered then maybe. We did not.

edit on 24-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)

Well put my good man well put.
I cannot even come close to matching it.

The OP would make a great defense attorney for any criminal here in the US.
He has managed to spindle, spin, twist and dice the rules of war to match his CLEARLY anti american OPINION on the dropping of the a-bombs on japan.

I say OPINION because thoughout his rants I have yet to see where he as studied international war law much less being a judge in the hauge.

He continues to REFUSE TO ACCEPT the MOST BASIC FACT that japan was prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child. If the bomb had not been dropped the USA would have two options.
1. Let the nation starve to death
2. Invade resulting in having to kill almost everyone in japan.
Doubt this? Look at okanawa. They had the mindset to throw their own children off the cliffs to prevent capture.

It has been PROVEN that even after the two bombs were dropped the military tried to kidnap and kill the emporer. Had not his voice been on a record hidden by loyal staff they would have succeded and fought on.

In fact both bombs killed less people than one night of firebombing.
It was the FACT ONE BOMB DID ALL THE DAMMAGE that helped the emporer decide to surrender.

To the OP I say this.

You can spout your view and call it legal fact till your blue in the face.
The cold hard truth is YOUR FULL OF IT.

Your are inaccurate, an american hater and just plain WRONG.

Except for a few supporters here most of us, but more importantly THE FACTS OF HISTORY PROVE YOU WRONG.

IMO either your delusionall or a troll.

Either way your proven wrong.

reply to post by daaskapital


Way before the nuclear bombs, we fire bombed Japan, killed 100,000+ men/women/children. if there had been no Pearl Harbor, then there would have beenn no Hiroshima.

Generally speaking, when parties make an agreement, the parties who first break the agreement forfeit any benefit from said agreement.

The Axis countries started the war they therefore forfeited any benefit from the international agreement you cited.

War sucks boys and girls. Maybe someday we will rise above it....but not today. The whole cold war was based on the complete destruction of all major population centers with thermonuclear weapons. Ours and everyone elses nukes that are online today are based on the same principle, luckily there is quit a few less than there use to be. We are pawns in their game. War crimes? We had it and used it first, have no delusions they would have, had they had it first.



Bill

reply to post by Camperguy


You can't detonate one off their coast or in the wilderness as sort of a "hey leave us alone or this is what you'll get" demonstration? A warning, if you will.

reply to post by daaskapital


I never understood this at all. rules for war? it is absurd on every level. look what the Americans did to the Germans after the war. the Nuremburg trials were a farce. of course killing the Japanese like that was criminal. but so is shooting a Japanese person in the head.

reply to post by gingerlee


Some of it falls under cruel and unusual like shooting someone with a mercury bullet. The trials were for treatment of the Jews or prisoners of war. Honestly if you do not understand look it up on wiki because there is so much to it that it would take to long for me to type.

There is fighting a conflict and there is torture they are not the same.

reply to post by Grimpachi


how is dropping an atom bomb any more or less humane than allowing the German soldiers post wwill to starve to death? was it more or less human to gas Jews than allow them to die of typhoid?

reply to post by gingerlee


First you should get a firm grasp on what a war crime is then we can have a honest discussion.