There were many at the time who
believed it was a war-crime. In order for it to be a legitimate war crime it
would have to violate the Hague Convention. Rules of warfare… sounds a bit like
an oxymoron but major nations laid down a set of rules to try to make war less
barbaric. For example, Mehdi Hasan Statesman's
senior editor (politics) who asserts “I still can't quite understand how
defenders of the US decision to nuke those two Japanese cities can argue, in good
conscience, that it wasn't a war crime.” The only thing is that to be a war
crime there were some specifics about the bombings that would have to be in
violation of the specifics of the law. The cities would have to be undefended
and not legitimate military targets. Accordingto this Hiroshima had an impressive air defense and was the second General Headquarters
of the Japanese Army. Nagasaki was a major port, but more importantly it was highly militarized. Though highly
defended the major war-crime argument is that even with all this militarization
the cities were primarily civilian.
Another point is warning civilians
to evacuate. The problem here is that
the single bomber overflight was not taken seriously. The people expect an air
raid to be several planes strong. Since that left everyone in the open it did
make it worse for civilians, but there to the story is more complicated. The
USAF did warn Japan there would be utter destruction brought to bear on
them. The major possible target cities were leaflet bombed with a warning.
Not being a lawyer I am not able to
tell definitively which side is legally correct, but my read of the law and the
situation from an intel standpoint is that though it was a terrible loss of
life and massive amount of damage it was not a war-crime in my opinion.
This is another fascinating post. I myself had no idea why we bombed the two cities in Japan. One, because we never discussed it in any class in school. Second, I never took the time to research the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I had no idea that the two cities were to heavily armed/militarized cities. We are taught in school that the bombings were the correct thing to do. Nobody ever really questioned it. After reading your posts and doing a little bit of research of my own, I believe that the war could have been ended in a more moral, and less cruel form. There are rules of engagement to prevent the casualties of innocent people. Here, imagine the amount of lives affected directly by the initial blast, and then indirectly by nuclear fallout. Affecting the many lives of those living around the two targeted cities.
ReplyDeletewar and less barbaric in the same sentence!? On a serious note, What would of this all looked like if those bombs weren't dropped? More casualties on both sides i would assume....its a tough call in any way you turn it, but i fall on the side of no bombs should of been dropped. Good job Steven!
ReplyDeleteWar has a number of reasons as to why it happens, when it comes to the bombing though. There was the debate that a mainland invasion would have cost thousands of lives on both sides. So it's a really awful thing that was done in a time when awful things were condoned. That's really it in the end. It was done because the alternative would have been just as bad.
ReplyDeleteThis is intriguing. I wonder how our country would have responded if atomic bombs were dropped on American soil. I understand the bombing was our response to the acts on Pearl Harbor but I still have the notion that what we did was a bit much. Either way, I think you did a awesome job informing us and researching your topic. Nice work.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not the decision to nuke japan is a warcrime. Do you think that in the future if there is a need to potentially nuke another country, should we look back at hiroshima and nagasaki as examples to not nuke again in a time of grave war? Should America have gave greater warning that they were going to obliberate two cities and heavily urge their citizens to evacuate or would that defeat the purpose of being in a war?
ReplyDeleteActually the US did warn the citizens of all of the cities on the target list that their city was going to be destroyed and after Hiroshima they changed the warning to specify atomic bombing. As to the need for nuking anyone else I do not believe it will ever come up due to "Mutually Assured Destruction" any nuclear bombing would trigger Armageddon.
Delete