Could the bombing of Hiroshima be considered a war crime?

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
You sure the Big Six weren't aware of talks with the Russians? I don't see why they wouldn't be, given that they had agreed to cibtact the Soviet Union a week earlier at a meeting (on June 22).
All peace overtures or what have you, before Nagasaki, were unsanctioned.

June 24, Vice Chief of the IJA (direct subordinate to the chief of the IJA, a Big Six member), written message to the Japanese foreign ministry: "As we have said before, Japan is firmly determined to prosecute the Greater East Asian War to the very end. There is a report, however, to the effect that some Japanese official stationed in Sweden is making peace overtures to America. That is demagoguery pure and simple, and if you have any idea as to the source of those reports please inform us."

Officially, the Big Six weren't told that Togo was talking to the Soviet Union until August 9 meeting. That morning they were discussing the ramifications of the previous day's declaration of war by the USSR, when a messenger interrupted them to state that the Nagasaki bombing had just occurred. Either they broke temporarily and met later, or at that exact meeting, Togo admitted to the rest that he'd been in talks with Soviets trying to get them to get a line to the US, and that he had done it at the orders of Hirohito.

Note. These WERE NOT SURRENDER GESTURES. Even after the Nagasaki bombing, the Big Six could not even decide what to do for days, and for much of that time the pro-war ministers of the Big Six were still pressing for terms that were insane. Self disarmament, no occupation, Japanese control of war crime trials. After everything that had occurred to Aug 9-10, three of the seven most powerful men in Japan, whose votes are needed to make any decision, still believing they could end the war with those terms is blatant indication they were not trying to end the war.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,704
San Antonio, Tx
While I don't consider the bombing to be a war crime, it's very obvious there is a form of double standard from american posters. After all, Pearl Harbor was classified as a crime against peace, hard to see how that was not a victors justice.
No one ever declared the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as a “crime against peace”, even though it was. What it really was, was a declaration of war by the Japanese against the Americans and even then they screwed it up.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,704
San Antonio, Tx
Thats very messed up line of thinking. Using your logic, it will be not morally wrong for Taliban to detonate nukes in the cities of America to dissuade her from continuing on with invasion of Afghanistan.

And Japan was already willing to surrender before the Atom bombs. The bombs were dropped to see its scale of its destruction and see its effects on humans.
Nonsense. Cite FACTS to support your assertion, as in written, demonstrable proof.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,704
San Antonio, Tx
Back then, the public did not know enough about the power of the nuclear bomb. There were not any independent media at the time, whistle blowers or investigative journalism. On the other hand, Americans needed to test the nuclear bomb and the circumstances at the time were perfect, and Americans to seized the opportunity to use nuclear bombs.
Wrong. There were plenty of investigative journalists around before during and after WW2.

How much damage Japan could have caused when Germany surrendered and the Europe itself was devastated by war? It was indeed possible to use other means to make Japan surrender and not kill 250.000 and cripple the rest of the population for decades to come.
OK, you’ve stated an opinion, and not a fact. Just for giggles, what other means were available to make the Japanese surrender? Let’s see, 1) blockade and 2) starvation and 3) more fire bombing. Do those sound like good alternatives?

Some say t was necessary, but would we use the bomb today to bomb countries that are direct sponsors of wars around the world, I don’t think so.
What you “think” may not be the most relevant source.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,704
San Antonio, Tx
No. You're talking about Americans, people. A few Japanese politicians made semi-endearing apologies for some aspects of their conduct in WW2. To you, that means JAPAN THE NATION has apologized.

No sane American is ever going to apologize for using atomic bombs. They ended the war. Some might apologize for the need to use them, or that it sucks that they had to be used, but to simply state, because they killed a lot of people, that they shouldn't have been used, especially in light of their importance in ending the war (which you and others ignore), I think its suffice to say that this American (ME) is absolutely thrilled they were used.
We had a family friend (now deceased) who lived in Houston who was a KNIL (Dutch) officer in Indonesia. After the Dutch defeat, he was transported to Japan where he was put to work as a slave in a mine. The mine was just outside of the city of Hiroshima. One day he was in bed and the whole wall next to his bank “lit up” and a powerful roar was heard. Yes, it was the Bomb.

Before he was repatriated, he was invited aboard an American ship for lunch. The Americans apologized for only having “powdered eggs” to serve him. He hadn’t seen an egg in more than three years.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,704
San Antonio, Tx
But wasn't the note that the Japanese delivered just before the Pearl Harbor attack their declaration of war, but was sent in code and close to when the attack began... so that technically they abided by the law, but did so in such away that wouldn't feel right?
Oh well, not really. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor took place before the Japanese Declaration of War was delivered to the Americans. Not cool.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,704
San Antonio, Tx
I would say no at the time. But if TODAY someone uses them on non-military targets, I'd say yes.
Makes one wonder why some nations are so eager to have their own nukes since their use is 1) illegal and 2) “peace loving” nations have no need for nukes.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
Multiple reasons but typically as a deterrant against invasion. Examples: North Korea, almost Libya.
Deterrent, not deterrant. Also, Yes, countries without nukes are more vulnerable to attacks. Just imagine what would have happened had Saddam Hussein got nukes before he invaded Kuwait. In such a scenario, the West might have been much more hesitant to militarily intervene.