Nuclear attacks in Japan justified - Agree or Disagree?

[rld]

Are mass exterminations of civilian populations now acceptable, if that is "cheaper" than other ways of winning? How about Gaza? Perhaps Israel would then be justified in exterminating everybody in the entire territory, just because Hamas refuses to surrender. It's plain it would cost the Israelis dearly if they had to go into Gaza and militarily take Hamas out one by one.

I suspect you haven't thought your view through.

Most everyone in the world would think that it was an absolute atrocity if Israel were to exterminate the entire population of Gaza. However, when the Americans did it in Japan, it was ok? If it's wrong in one case (and it is wrong) it is wrong in both cases.

The Americans did not eliminate the entire population of Japan, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Why do you feel the need to mislead?

The question at the heart of this debate, which you refuse to even think about because it makes you look dumb (again) is if one believes that the killing of X civilians, will save the life of 10X civilians and 3X soldiers (just to make up numbers) is doing so:

a) a war crime.
b) morally incorrect.

The answer, while not simple, is one that I think most rational people can agree upon.

 

[blackrock13]

You mean the law that you claimed protected civilians in these events that did not exist until 1949?

Your complete absence of humility is amazing.

I find it amazing, that especially after the recent FUJI threads, that FUJI talks about others members lack of credibility, simply in an attempt to bolster his position when it was clearly expressed and illustrated that most on here think he has even less than no credibility.

 

[euripides]

The Americans simply wanted to give the Russians a message!! A very expensive message if you were an expectant mother or aged grandmother in Hiroshima. But "hey" for all those back Stateside ,"who cares !!"

 

[Rockslinger]

A very expensive message if you were an expectant mother or aged grandmother in Hiroshima.

But a great relief to all the expectant mothers and aged grandmothers in the rest of Asia who suffered so greatly under Imperial Japan.

 

[fuji]

No, their goal was to obtain the surrender of the Japanese at the lowest cost possible to them. Surrender was always an option. When one conducts genocide, surrender is not offered as an option...only extermination.

Al Qaeda has stated its conditions as well, which if met would result in no further attacks on Americans. I gather the conditions that Al Qaeda has demanded are as unpalatable to Americans as the American conditions were initially to the Japanese.

So Al Qaeda would simply say hey, if you do what we say, we won't detonate our atomic bomb in your city, and that would be an identical argument to the one the Americans made to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Namely in either case the idea is to terrorize the population into aborting a fight that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to conduct conventionally. It's state terrorism. Pure and simple. The objective is to achieve a political end by terrorizing the population of the other side with atomic weapons.

You can't have it both ways. Either terrorizing civilians with atomic weapons is acceptable, or it is unacceptable. To me there's a clear bright line here: It is fucking unacceptable.

 

[rld]

Al Qaeda has stated its conditions as well, which if met would result in no further attacks on Americans. I gather the conditions that Al Qaeda has demanded are as unpalatable to Americans as the American conditions were initially to the Japanese.

So Al Qaeda would simply say hey, if you do what we say, we won't detonate our atomic bomb in your city, and that would be an identical argument to the one the Americans made to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Namely in either case the idea is to terrorize the population into aborting a fight that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to conduct conventionally. It's state terrorism. Pure and simple. The objective is to achieve a political end by terrorizing the population of the other side with atomic weapons.

You can't have it both ways. Either terrorizing civilians with atomic weapons is acceptable, or it is unacceptable. To me there's a clear bright line here: It is fucking unacceptable.

Your AQ comparison fails on so many levels.

Let's start with one. AQ was the agressor. The United States defended itself against Japanese attack.

I think we all agree punching someone in the face because you don't like them is wrong. Defending yourself from that punch is quite legitimate.

But it takes a truly fucked up mind to think that AQ and the US war effort in the pacific are legally, morally or ethically equivilent.

 

[fuji]

AQ believes that the US is the aggressor. It's the same crime.

They believe they are responding to western aggression against arab people. If the ends justify the means the only question is whether you agree with their complaint, aka what side you are on.

 

[Aardvark154]

it takes a truly fucked up mind to think that AQ and the US war effort in the pacific are legally, morally or ethically equivilent.

You hit that nail on the head.

 

[oldjones]

It also take a truly fucked-up mind to imagine that what you think is what the world thinks. Which is why there is an AQ at all.

 

[fuji]

I didn't say that the US war effort was terrorism, rld, I said that bombing hiroshima and nagasaki was state terrorism. It was also a war crime. And it's just a fact, whether you like it or not, that it has been "justified" using the same "ends justify the means" argument that AQ used to justify 9/11.

It was an act to terrorize the population into concessions that could not easily be achieved through conventional military means.

Your only legal defense is that the law criminalizing it wasn't written yet. That is pathetic as a defense, that is no moral or ethical defense, and it is a defense that was rejected legally at nuremberg.

 

[rld]

I didn't say that the US war effort was terrorism, rld, I said that bombing hiroshima and nagasaki was state terrorism. It was also a war crime. And it's just a fact, whether you like it or not, that it has been "justified" using the same "ends justify the means" argument that AQ used to justify 9/11.

It was an act to terrorize the population into concessions that could not easily be achieved through conventional military means.

Your only legal defense is that the law criminalizing it wasn't written yet. That is pathetic as a defense, that is no moral or ethical defense, and it is a defense that was rejected legally at nuremberg.

Yes, at the same time the Russian judges announced that they were only there to determine punishment, not guilt or innocence.

But tell me Mr. Legal Scholar, what is the status of post facto creating crimes in international law today?

And one does not need a defense when there is no law criminalizing an act now does one...

You also lie again, since you know I have plenty of factual material to show that neither H nor N were criminal acts.

I ask again, if you believe that by killing 200k civilians that you will save 300k lives is it a crime?

 

[GPIDEAL]

The Americans did not eliminate the entire population of Japan, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Why do you feel the need to mislead?

I've said this to Fuji as well.

I'm re-visiting this thread because I had a discussion about this over dinner with friends on the weekend after TIFF movies. I saw one about Emperor Hirohito years ago. This led to talk of a documentary on PBS seen by a friend who said that the Japanese were warned about the bomb. After the 1st bomb was dropped, they were warned again for their unconditional surrender. The Japanese told the Americans to screw off. Ergo, the second bomb.

Japanese insiders explained on the documentary that Imperial Japan did NOT believe that the Americans had a SECOND bomb.

 

[fuji]

And one does not need a defense when there is no law criminalizing an act now does one...

You have no common sense at all. According to you a nation could withdraw from any treaty criminalizing genocide, by giving proper notice of its intent to withdraw, cancel any domestic law relating to the same, and then carry on with wholesale genocide and slaughter, and it would be perfectly legal.

If you believe that you are a complete twit. I don't doubt that you believe it--you have this overly literal interpretation of things that lacks fundamental common sense.

 

[rld]

You have no common sense at all. According to you a nation could withdraw from any treaty criminalizing genocide, by giving proper notice of its intent to withdraw, cancel any domestic law relating to the same, and then carry on with wholesale genocide and slaughter, and it would be perfectly legal.

If you believe that you are a complete twit. I don't doubt that you believe it--you have this overly literal interpretation of things that lacks fundamental common sense.

As usual you just start lying again.

That is not what I said, nor is that how treaty law works. There are some treaties one can withdraw from, and some not. But you try to mislead without facing the central questions yet again:

I ask again, if you believe that by killing 200k civilians that you will save 300k lives is it a crime? or

But tell me Mr. Legal Scholar, what is the status of post facto creating crimes in international law today?

You can name call all you want, but it does not cover up your dishonesty or clear ignorance of international law.

i do suspect you are fit, you do so much running away and around it must do wonders for your cardio.

 

[Aardvark154]

The bottom line 350 posts later is that Fuji has no respect for the law, and pays no attention to history, rather everything should be based upon morality. However, when others say it isn't immoral in my books, Fuji says well it is in mine and that trumps everything else.

 

[fuji]

The bottom line 350 posts later is that Fuji has no respect for the law

Bullshit. Quite the opposite. It is those who refuse to admit that the US should be held accountable to the same law as everyone else who have no respect for the law. To the likes of you, and John Bolton, a law is invalid if it constrains US action. Quite the reverse belief is true of people who respect the law!

and pays no attention to history

The historical precedent--Nuremberg--is against you, and yet you have the gall to say this???

rather everything should be based upon morality.

Unless you are arguing that the mass murder of civilians is a moral thing, you are completely out to lunch.

 

[fuji]

That is not what I said, nor is that how treaty law works.

If you think there is any case, anywhere, any way, that a nation could engage in genocide and it would not be criminal then you are a complete raving fool. That's clear.

 

[fuji]

I ask again, if you believe that by killing 200k civilians that you will save 300k lives is it a crime?

Phrasing the question correct: The intentional targeting and murder of 200k civilians, without any other legitimate military advantage, based on the belief that it will save 300k lives is both immoral and illegal.

The ends to not justify the means.

 

[rld]

If you think there is any case, anywhere, any way, that a nation could engage in genocide and it would not be criminal then you are a complete raving fool. That's clear.

Nor did I say they could. You simply have an active imagination.

Of course this is a complete red herring, because none of the cases were are actually discussing were genocide. You are just trying to disguise you failed approach.

And tell me, in International Law, on the issues we are discussing, where does Nuremberg fit? What is its precedential value. You used the wrong article to describe it...it is not "the" precedent, it is "a" precedent, and one everybody who works in the field regards as deeply flawed.

I am not surprised however you cling to a weak and not applicable precedent to make your childish argument.

And once more I ask:


But tell me Mr. Legal Scholar, what is the status of post facto creating crimes in international law today?

 

[rld]

Phrasing the question correct: The intentional targeting and murder of 200k civilians, without any other legitimate military advantage, based on the belief that it will save 300k lives is both immoral and illegal.

The ends to not justify the means.

No, but some ends, justify some means. And in this case the rational mind would take less deaths over more...