Could the bombing of Hiroshima be considered a war crime?

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,562
Stockport Cheshire UK
But morality or what is right and wrong are what makes something a law or not. Call it values, call it morals, call it the general consensus of what is good and what is bad but things that people(or in this case the international community)don't have a problem with(at least at some point in time) don't become crimes. So yes, it does have something to do with morality cause why else have war crimes statues in the first place if you don't think some acts? I mean certain war acts are seen as more morally reprehensible than others and overwhelmingly so. Laws exist for a reason.
But until that morality is agreed upon and signed into law by the international community it is totally irrelevant.
You may think the act of dropping Atomic Bombs on Japan was morally wrong, but the fact it was not classed as a war crime by the existing laws, means there is no way you can truthfully call it a war crime.
 
Last edited:

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,484
Dispargum
There is a tendency to question if an act is simultaneously moral, ethical, and legal, because these three terms do not perfectly overlap. There are some actions that might be one or two but not all three. None of these three terms perfectly defines what is right and wrong so we use all three.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,602
Sydney
,
good point ,
the easiest is legal ,this is the black letter of the law
ethical rest on one personal ethics and the balancing of requirement such as obeying orders as against upholding one honor
moral is frankly the most woozy of the three , is it moral to take revenge ?
is it moral to wish your opponent to suffer as he made you suffer ?
 
Dec 2017
212
Florida
But until that morality is agreed upon and signed into law by the international community it is totally irrelevant.
You may think the act of dropping Atomic Bombs on Japan was morally wrong, but the fact it was not classed as a war crime by the existing laws, means there is no way you can truthfully call it a war crime.
It is a considered a crime against humanity to use a WMD and that is the same law that was used to try the Nazi leadership during the Nuremberg trials...It is also illegal to murder the civilian population which again the atomic bomb did.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,602
Sydney
.
The Atomic bomb had military objectives . the Naval base at Hiroshima the Mitsubishi aircraft plant at Nagasaki , the killing and burning of civilians was as incidental as it was for the people of Hamburg , Dresden or Tokyo .
by 1945 the technique of lighting a city to create a firestorm had been perfected ,
with incandescent winds having a ground speed in excess of 100 km /h , even the stone burned
a survivor said the sound was like the devil hysterically laughing
 
Mar 2017
855
Colorado
I'm an old guy. I had a friend that was a much older guy.

He was in a Japanese prison at the time they dropped the bombs.

His opinion: "Thank God they dropped the bombs. They saved so many lives."

He was a priest.

Just sayin' ...
 
Dec 2017
212
Florida
Name the law and exact charges at Nuremburg dealing with WMDs.
The law is Crimes against Humanity. Here, a short informative video:



You can also see it here in the Nuremberg Charter or the Constitution of the International Military Tribunal

Article 6 Section C:

"CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan."

The WMD's nomenclature was added in later in the 1970s
 
Last edited:
As far as I know, a war crime is essentially any act during wars/military conflicts that opposes the law of war; which includes (but not limited to) destroying civilian property, intentional killing of civilians and strategic bombing.

Now the bombing of Hiroshima was essentially destroying civilian property; intentional killing of civilians and strategic bombing. And worse; a nuclear bombing.

So why isn't intentionally using nuclear bombs on a country (that has been discussing terms of peace and was willing to surrender) considered a war crime? Why is the killing of more than 200,000 and the intentional destruction of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not considered a war crime?
Nope. It saved lives so no-it cannot be considered a war crime.
 

Similar History Discussions