Were the uses of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki war crimes?

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

QALC, what is his argument exactly? The question wether those two bombs were war crimes or not is not answered. Instead we some general banalities, some crude straw men "arguments" that are - obviously - refuted, all of it served with a big dose of American chest-thumping.

To answer the question, the use of WMDs is considered a war crime today because it violates the Geneva conventions. There's basically no realistic scenario, where you can deploy an atomic bomb on a city without violating at least the fourth Geneva convention.

These conventions however, didn't exist, at least the third and fourth didn't, during WWII, so we could debate the question wether it is permissible to apply todays standards to yesterdays war.

ETA: Considering that they were basically made up by the same generation of people who dropped the bomb, I think we can conclude that the moral argument that is made within these Conventions is indeed applicable to WWII.

Well it's a matter of opinion, not fact, that determines whether or not they were war crimes for an individual.

But it is undeniable that dropping the bombs saved millions of lives.

[Fez]

Because

1) That's not why we entered the war, and we had many businesses (and govt agencies) support in some way or another the Nazi regime. We did not get into it for moral reasons.

2) Regardless of how 'just' a war is it does not change what is or is not a war crime. It also does not absolve you of the stuff that you do that you probably shouldn't have done. You know, like nuke not 1, but 2 different cities before exhausting any other options.

Once the US entered the war, there were very few Nazi sympathizers left in the US. And the fact that there were those before, doesn't negate what actually happened. We got into the war for many reasons, including moral ones, what matters though is what our stated objectives were and what we were actually doing. We were fighting aggressors in the defense of our own territory (Pearl Harbor), liberating countries that had been unjustly conquered, and attempting to restore the rights of citizens in countries who no longer had them. The fact that there were political and economic side-benefits is not relevant.

And the justness of the war absolutely matters, because it means that defeating the unjust side was a legitimate goal and that accepting a conditional surrender was not a just outcome. Therefore, taking actions to facilitate unconditional surrender was justified.

But they can be separated. You did so in exactly where I quoted you (for the second time). You claimed, and still haven't backed up, that the bar for what counts as a war crime is different if the war is "just". Nothing you've typed here backs up that statement. It doesn't even reference it except to try and, it seems, avoid having to answer the question by now pretending it's all "too complicated" to be able to answer directly.

Except that document doesn't say that the bar for war crimes are lowered. Or anything of the sort.

In fact, it actually asserts that operations must have total adherence to international humanitarian law.

I'm not pretending that its all too complicated, I'm saying that its a combination of these things, and I can't just say that because it saved lives it was just; because that alone isn't enough. But because it saved lives, was in a just war, and was necessary to end the war, it is just.

I never said that the document lowers the bar for warcrimes. I specifically said that it was only talking about humanitarian interventions. Its that principle is the same. Because this document is showing that "bad guys" don't get the same protections as other countries, in this case total soverignity over what happens in their borders. Saying this also applies to potential war crimes is an extension of the argument, but its the same argument.

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

Also, it needs to be restated on every page of this thread. Accepting Japan's terms for a conditional surrender was absolutely unacceptable. If you believe it was, then you're incredibly naive and show you have a very weak grasp on politics and military affairs.

[Wise Fool]

By Mid-1945, Japanese strategy was based around the idea that with sufficient sacrifice, such as that at Okinawa, that a favorable negotiated peace could still be achieved. Atomic bombs changed all that - a single bomb capable of destroying an entire city. This required no particular sacrifice of men or material on the part of the Americans, and could not be mitigated through group sacrifice and suffering. If the Americans could destroy cities with a single bomb, then the self-immolation of the Japanese people in battles like at Okinawa and Iwo Jima would not avail them, because the Americans could utterly destroy Japan from afar. While this was to a great extent already true due to the B-52 bombings, there was a large psychological difference of a single, irresistible bomb.

I don't see it. When you're being bombed into burning oblivion, whether it was one bomb or ten thousand isn't going to make much of a psychological difference to me. "They can slaughter tens of thousands of civilians by air, just like they have been already, only now they're saving fuel costs!"

The US was not going to run out of the means to keep on bombing Japan anytime soon - or, well, anytime ever; so it's not like there was any hope of the US running out of means.

And the Soviets declared war shortly before Japan surrendered. I rather think the Japanese knew at that point there was no hope of winning and no hope of negotiating more favorable terms of surrender - the Soviet army simply had no concern about their losses and had more than sufficient numbers to crush any opposition, and the Japanese knew that. The Japanese would also be very much aware of what a bloody, rapey, slaughter-tastic event a Soviet invasion would be - and how bad it would be for the survivors, living as a Soviet occupied territory. So, surrender to the US remained the only option to escape that fate, the best of worst possible choices.

And it turned out to be exactly the case. Compare East Germany's economic, political and social postwar situation with that of Japan.

[Alarich]

Unless people want to argue that "the atomic bombs were necessary to end the war, and did save lives, but were still a war crime", then I don't know what else there is to say.

They weren't "necessary" as in "the only means" to end the war.

They did save lives - mainly American soldiers; the million lives saved argument is based on a simplistic linear prediction of how an invasion of Japan might have happened, or not. Essentially it's an argument that relies on a fictional scenario - not an unlikely one! - nonetheless, it's not a fact, it is speculative.

Dropping the bombs did serve a purpose - military and politically and it was done in the context of a just war, it also was by todays standards a war crime.

ETA

Well it's a matter of opinion, not fact, that determines whether or not they were war crimes for an individual.

Not in the context of international humanitarian law.

Of course, when you are making up your own random "definition" of war crimes, then yes, it's a matter of your personal opinion, but then again your personal definition of a war crime is not really interesting to debate, as it has no relevance to anyone except you.

[Shryke]

I'm not pretending that its all too complicated, I'm saying that its a combination of these things, and I can't just say that because it saved lives it was just; because that alone isn't enough. But because it saved lives, was in a just war, and was necessary to end the war, it is just.

I never said that the document lowers the bar for warcrimes. I specifically said that it was only talking about humanitarian interventions. Its that principle is the same. Because this document is showing that "bad guys" don't get the same protections as other countries, in this case total soverignity over what happens in their borders. Saying this also applies to potential war crimes is an extension of the argument, but its the same argument.

It could be an extension of the same argument, except as I pointed out, the document specifically says it isn't.

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

They weren't "necessary" as in "the only means" to end the war.

They did save lives - mainly American soldiers; the million lives saved argument is based on a simplistic linear prediction of how an invasion of Japan might have happened, or not. Essentially it's an argument that relies on a fictional scenario - not an unlikely one! - nonetheless, it's not a fact, it is speculative.

Dropping the bombs did serve a purpose - military and politically and it was done in the context of a just war, it also was by todays standards a war crime.

1. They weren't the only means, but they were the most effected with the lowest death toll as game theory accurately predicted.

2. They saved way more Japanese lives than Americans. Most predictions were 10-1 Japanese to U.S. deaths if there was a full scale ground invasion. Also, dropping the bombs provided a visual that made dropping them during the Cold War less likely, and the two cities that would have been hit then were New York and Moscow.

3. Agreed.

Also, if we're counting war crimes, what the Japanese did to the Chinese was far worse than dropping the bombs. If there was any nation that was in some way thankful for the Holocaust, it's Japan.

[Alarich]

I think, that there is no debate that Japan has committed terrible war crimes and - also quite troubling - is having real problems even today to just say, okay this is some really evil shit we did.

On 1. I don't think that game theory "accurately" predicted anything, because we have no alternative realities to compare, and accurately implies an examination of fact vs. prediction.

ETA: The second point is interesting to ponder, because the predictions rely on a linear expansion of past experience, a very dangerous approach to complex scenarios like wars or financial markets.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Once the US entered the war, there were very few Nazi sympathizers left in the US. And the fact that there were those before, doesn't negate what actually happened. We got into the war for many reasons, including moral ones, what matters though is what our stated objectives were and what we were actually doing. We were fighting aggressors in the defense of our own territory (Pearl Harbor), liberating countries that had been unjustly conquered, and attempting to restore the rights of citizens in countries who no longer had them. The fact that there were political and economic side-benefits is not relevant.

Not so much in the Pacific War- we were "liberating" European and American colonies from another imperial power. After the war we attenuated our imperialist designs to merely include propping up pro-capitalist regimes across the region, resulting in several more wars and millions upon millions more deaths. Good thing we hastened the end of the Pacific War with the atomic bomb though to get to all that good stuff- we're perfect good and the Japanese were pure evil, of course, and our victory was a blessing to the human race.

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

I think, that there is no debate that Japan has committed terrible war crimes and - also quite troubling - is having real problems even today to just say, okay this is some really evil shit we did.

On 1. I don't think that game theory "accurately" predicted anything, because we have no alternative realities to compare, and accurately implies an examination of fact vs. prediction.

Well this is the height of nitpicking, but we have the various models the U.S. government was working with. It's pretty clear that dropping the bomb was the quickest way to achieve an unconditional surrender with the least loss of life.

[Maithanet]

I don't see it. When you're being bombed into burning oblivion, whether it was one bomb or ten thousand isn't going to make much of a psychological difference to me. "They can slaughter tens of thousands of civilians by air, just like they have been already, only now they're saving fuel costs!"

The US was not going to run out of the means to keep on bombing Japan anytime soon - or, well, anytime ever; so it's not like there was any hope of the US running out of means.

It's not fuel costs, it's the comparative ease and complete destruction offered by the atomic bombs that changed the battle calculus. Airplanes can be shot down, and civilians can survive these attacks in bunkers. This is still "fighting back", even if the means to resist air attack were dwindling as fuel and ammunition ran low. The atomic bomb is just one bomb, and cannot be resisted, or survived. It is totally different as a psychological weapon.

And the Soviets declared war shortly before Japan surrendered. I rather think the Japanese knew at that point there was no hope of winning and no hope of negotiating more favorable terms of surrender - the Soviet army simply had no concern about their losses and had more than sufficient numbers to crush any opposition, and the Japanese knew that. The Japanese would also be very much aware of what a bloody, rapey, slaughter-tastic event a Soviet invasion would be - and how bad it would be for the survivors, living as a Soviet occupied territory. So, surrender to the US remained the only option to escape that fate, the best of worst possible choices.

The Soviets were not in a position to immediately threaten the Japanese Home Islands, and lacked any kind of an amphibious force. The strategic position for Japan was not dramatically different as a result of the Soviet entry into the war.

They weren't "necessary" as in "the only means" to end the war.

Not in the context of international humanitarian law.

Of course, when you are making up your own random "definition" of war crimes, then yes, it's a matter of your personal opinion, but then again your personal definition of a war crime is not really interesting to debate, as it has no relevance to anyone except you.

By necessary, I mean they were the best, most realistic option to end the war and end the bloodshed therein. I guess I just question the value of declaring something a war crime when we all agree that it almost assuredly saved thousands, if not millions of lives. That includes civilian and military lives, across many nations (Japan, US, Indonesia, New Guinea, etc).

[Arakan]

And the Soviets declared war shortly before Japan surrendered. I rather think the Japanese knew at that point there was no hope of winning and no hope of negotiating more favorable terms of surrender - the Soviet army simply had no concern about their losses and had more than sufficient numbers to crush any opposition, and the Japanese knew that. The Japanese would also be very much aware of what a bloody, rapey, slaughter-tastic event a Soviet invasion would be - and how bad it would be for the survivors, living as a Soviet occupied territory. So, surrender to the US remained the only option to escape that fate, the best of worst possible choices.

And it turned out to be exactly the case. Compare East Germany's economic, political and social postwar situation with that of Japan.

very important aspect and unfortunately often completely ignored.

The psychological aspects of the Red Army Manchurian Offensive on the Japanese military command cannot be understated.

The question of whether the atombomb droppings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes or not is almost always countered with the claim that they were the ultimate reason to force Japan to unconditional surrender, i.e. decisively necessary. All of those users who do this completely neglect or "forget" the Manchurian Offensive.

I quote Wikipedia:

The Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation, along with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined to break the Japanese political deadlock and force the Japanese leaders to accept the terms of surrender demanded by the allies.

In the "Sixty years after Hiroshima" issue of the Weekly Standard, American historian Richard B. Frank points out that there are a number of schools of thought with varying opinions of what caused the Japanese to surrender. He describes what he calls the "traditionalist" view, which asserts that the Japanese surrendered because the Americans dropped the atomic bombs. He goes on to summarise other points of view.[20]

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off a US invasion from the South, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the North. This, according to Hasegawa, amounted to a "strategic bankruptcy" for the Japanese and forced their message of surrender on August 15, 1945.[21][22] Others with similar views include The "Battlefield" series documentary,[2] Drea,[17] Hayashi,[18] and numerous others, though all, including Hasegawa, state that the surrender was not due to any single factor or single event.

[Fez]

It could be an extension of the same argument, except as I pointed out, the document specifically says it isn't.

Well of course the UN would say that, but to me it doesn't make logical sense to just cut off the argument there. Once its out there, take it to its conclusion.

Not so much in the Pacific War- we were "liberating" European and American colonies from another imperial power. After the war we attenuated our imperialist designs to merely include propping up pro-capitalist regimes across the region, resulting in several more wars and millions upon millions more deaths. Good thing we hastened the end of the Pacific War with the atomic bomb though to get to all that good stuff- we're perfect good and the Japanese were pure evil, of course, and our victory was a blessing to the human race.

China and Australia weren't colonies at the time. And I never claimed that all of our post-World War II actions were just. I've consistently said in other threads that US foreign policy in the past 60 years (I guess by this point almost 70 years) has often been extremely poorly thought out. And I've never attempted to justify the Vietnam War, a War where we absolutely committed war crimes. But that's not relevant to a debate about World War II.

And, regardless of how you feel about the US, the fact that you'd consider the pre-1945 Showa period of Japan regime anything other than evil shows a horrendously misguided bias on your part.

[Shryke]

Well of course the UN would say that, but to me it doesn't make logical sense to just cut off the argument there. Once its out there, take it to its conclusion.

That doesn't make sense at all.

RtP simply states that there is a responsibility to intervene to protect civilians from their own government. That has nothing to do with changing the rules of war. It's only about why that war starts.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Nope. In the immortal words of Ben Aflek in "Dogma"- "You have to keep reading."

I actually gave it about six paragraphs. My point is that dropping the bombs shortened the war thus saving far more lives than it cost. You stopped after two sentences, which is the most self-evident truth that you are not taking the evidence seriously.

Attack the argument folks. And best of luck.

I kept reading. There was nothing in it about the arithmetic of civilian lives for civilian lives. All I saw was an argument about killing civilian lives to save combatants. The latter is the part you seem to treat as self-evident, and which I find morally dubious.

Why not just carpet bomb Germany in 1919 and we'd never have Hitler and 'countless' deaths averted. Not sure why nobody ever considers that as an option ever.

[Wise Fool]

It's not fuel costs, it's the comparative ease and complete destruction offered by the atomic bombs that changed the battle calculus. Airplanes can be shot down, and civilians can survive these attacks in bunkers. This is still "fighting back", even if the means to resist air attack were dwindling as fuel and ammunition ran low. The atomic bomb is just one bomb, and cannot be resisted, or survived. It is totally different as a psychological weapon.

The Soviets were not in a position to immediately threaten the Japanese Home Islands, and lacked any kind of an amphibious force. The strategic position for Japan was not dramatically different as a result of the Soviet entry into the war.

Airplanes can be shot down, including ones carrying nuclear weapons.

And over a quarter of a million people survived the atomic blasts, so yeah, it can be survived. More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo. "Complete destruction" sounds FUCK YEAH but the reality isn't really different.

And it is indeed fuel costs you're talking about when you say "comparative ease" for the user. What else would it be? Certainly not overall cost, since the two nuclear weapons represented a vast sum in development. Maintenance and parts for aircraft?

As for the Soviets, as part of the Allied forces, for all the Japanese knew they might have been lent-leased transports. Japan may not have faced "immediate" destruction from the USSR, but it wouldn't have been immediate in any case. It's a question of totality, and the level of brutality and degradation involved. Make no mistake, a Soviet invasion would have been worse than anything the Japanese had seen so far. If you were going to lose, who would you rather lose to? Stalin, or Harry Truman?

[brAnthelAstgreenseer]

Is anyone taking the radiation into account and the effect on the future generation while saying things like whole of Japan was going to be militarised .

Were these unborn children also going to be part of the resistance ?

Although not related to war crimes :

The other issue i wonder is whether other countries would have pursued in making these weapons had the bomb not been dropped .

[OnionAhaiReborn]

China and Australia weren't colonies at the time. And I never claimed that all of our post-World War II actions were just. I've consistently said in other threads that US foreign policy in the past 60 years (I guess by this point almost 70 years) has often been extremely poorly thought out. And I've never attempted to justify the Vietnam War, a War where we absolutely committed war crimes. But that's not relevant to a debate about World War II.

And, regardless of how you feel about the US, the fact that you'd consider the pre-1945 Showa period of Japan regime anything other than evil shows a horrendously misguided bias on your part.

And we never liberated China or Australia.

The Vietnam War, just one of the conflicts I had in my mind, is entirely relevant. You're declaring the Allied powers obviously morally superior and their victory over the Japanese so desirable that incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians is acceptable because it saved lives and hastened the good guys' victory. Well, immediately after the war and with heavy Allied involvement several more conflicts were set off and millions of lives were lost. If the obvious moral superiority isn't there, and there's a huge death toll right afterward, it strongly undercuts your fantasy world where the USA is perfect and the Japanese are pure evil.

Japanese imperialism was evil, just as Western imperialism was. I don't say that it wasn't, I only say that your "good vs. evil" fantasy is inane and... horrendously misguided.

[sologdin]

rock--

I'm not sure if any of your lengthy and admirable post, supra, goes to the question of whether the nuclear bombings were war crimes or not.

QALC--

I'm not sure if any of your short and scurrilous post, supra, goes to the question of whether the nuclear bombings were war crimes or not.

for both: y'all seem to equivocate on the issue of political/strategic necessity vs. military necessity. the latter is part of the test regarding war crimes and can exculpate; the former is a matter of aesthetics, and was a hanging offense under the CIMT.

[Arakan]

Well of course the UN would say that, but to me it doesn't make logical sense to just cut off the argument there. Once its out there, take it to its conclusion.

China and Australia weren't colonies at the time. And I never claimed that all of our post-World War II actions were just. I've consistently said in other threads that US foreign policy in the past 60 years (I guess by this point almost 70 years) has often been extremely poorly thought out. And I've never attempted to justify the Vietnam War, a War where we absolutely committed war crimes. But that's not relevant to a debate about World War II.

And, regardless of how you feel about the US, the fact that you'd consider the pre-1945 Showa period of Japan regime anything other than evil shows a horrendously misguided bias on your part.

But I do think OAR has a point. I think the European War and the Pacific War cannot be put under one roof.

FDR was very well aware that the US were fighting against one Imperial Power to liberate colonies for two other agressive Imperial Powers (UK, France). He didnt like it and he had major issues with the British Empire.

Unfortunately the actions of France immediately after WW2 (Indochina, Algeria) proved that his concerns were correct.