Hiroshima: the Crime that keeps on paying

I am afraid I am missing your point.
If you are on the Geneva and Hiroshima point, than it should be clear that bombing from an airship was not in the Laws of War in 1945. You could do whatever you like, so US is clean here from legal point of view (But deep in (*)(*)(*)(*) from moral).

We wear discussing the “collateral damage” term. What it is. Till the moment, term “collateral damage” is nothing in legal perspective. You can kill as many civilians as you want (during an attack on a military target) until you do not forget to say that in your opinion these deaths are justified. You opponent might think otherwise but that is his trouble. The laws of war do not specify how many civilians can be killed during a kill of one militant. You can kill 1 civilian, you can kill 100, you can kill a million. This makes term “collateral damage” useless, from legal perspective. I cannot blame you for “excessive” collateral kills, because the laws of war do not specify what is “normal”.

International law is difficult to synchronize so that all sides would agree and accept it. That is why till now, international law looks more like a declaration of intent, rather than a Law, which should state two key points “crime description or boundaries” and “punishment or penalty”.
But that is better than nothing. In time, it should work out, if we will not kill each other earlier

 

My point being that the only international laws in force at the time of the usage of the A-Bombs were the 1907 articles (to which the USA agreed), which included articles 25, 26, 27 ... Article 25 itself would seem to render the usage of A-bombs not permitted, and to a certain degree article 27 further restricts the usage of them .. I know that there were no real penalties if these articles are violated, but it does call into question the legality and moral decision to use the A-bombs.

 

I should disagree…
You should not remove the law from practice. You should allow them to coexist as close as possible. Yep, this statement sounds ridicules but it is so. The only reason why UN and International Law exists is because majority of sides, try as hard as possible, to let them live. These constructions are extremely fragile. This includes closing your eyes on violations.
Enforcing article 25 in 1945 would mean placing leaders of all sides under trial. Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill, they all carry responsibility for their forces that attacked undefended towns and villages. All sides did, intentionally and unintentionally.
1. Such a trial is out of question in 1945…
2. This means that USSR, Britain, USA, are directly violating Art 25.
3. This means that everyone can
4. You understand where this takes us…
So, we pretend this newer happened… there was no such article… Alternative solution is much worse – scrap the Laws of War as they are.

An attempt to resolve the situation was made in 1938
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/0/910f79361f226492c125641e004057ed?OpenDocument
but it did not pass even whith very strict “udefended” status. (Where a single soldier or single AA in place meant that the target is defended). But it was not, and could not be ratified by that time…
And both, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they both wear “defended’…

So I say bombings are legal, but completely immoral.

Proving immoral is easy.
US Strategic Bombing Survey stated that Nuking was irrelevant to ending the war. Meaning that 200000 civilians died without a military need. I do not know if there is any authority who can be more competent on the matter. Probably God? But it is difficult for us to know his opinion, one moment he says - love your foe, the next moment he deploys tactical charges on Sodom and Gomorrah
Major US war leaders of the time - agree.
International community – I do not know if someone supported the bombings.

Majority defines morality. Nuking civilian targets without any military need – immoral.

 

Problem is war has a way of making shadows of morality.

 

So? And why is that a problem? And what aspect of human life dosn't?

 

Didn't say it was a problem

 

No one adhered to this at any time in the 2nd world war.

 

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Lol

 

Oh, there wear issues.

Curtis LeMay – responsible for air raid on Tokio (100 000 civ casualties):
>>>Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.... Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier.<<<

If US would loose the war, LeMay would definitely be prosecuted as a mass murderer by the Japs. He understood that. I believe he had his reasons to do so.

 

"Issues" being that every combatant in the war ignored the provisions cited, from the first day to the last.

 

And just where did I say they did?

 

You didn't
You did, however, ask if the US adhered to the articles you cited.
The answer is that no one did.
Thus, in terms of the Geneva convention, Hiroshima was nothing special.

 

so the answer to my question is, no they didn't

 

As I said: No one did. Strategic bombing as carried out by all sides did not bother with any of these provisions.

However:
Art. 25. - The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
Hiroshima was defended

Art. 26. - The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.
The USAAF dropped a gazillion leaflets warning of the attack.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.
Did the Japanese do this?

 

Honestly, I am not trying to bug you. But have you tried searching google or wiki on the matter before posting your statement here?

 

I've been reading about WW2 since 1974; generally speaking, I don't need to reference Google or Wiki.

 

so that makes it ok then?

so every dwelling or building was defended was it?

Here are the military targets of Hiroshima -



Each could have been taken out with conventional bombing.

Yes .. but would you follow that advice if the only bombing you had been subjected to was conventional bombing ... I wonder how many Americans would have evacuated Washington if they had received the same leaflets before the power of the A-Bomb was realised.

considering the aerial photo above .. did they need to?

 

As I said:
In terms of the Geneva Convention, Hiroshima was nothing special.

The city was defended. Thus, article 25 was not violated.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Thus, article 26 was not violated.

Did the Japanese comply with their duty to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand? Yes? No?

 

You seem to be under some impression that I am disagreeing with you.

 

Sounded that way.
But if in fact you do agree with me -- good news! You're right!

 

Nuking them was icing on the cake. Showed the world they F-ed with the wrong country. It was time to end it once and for all.

 

Oh I agree in the context of the time all this happened it was "normal" .. whether that makes it ok is another question.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting take on the issue.

 

Fantastic! This makes you probably the most knowledgeable man on history of WW2 who walked the face of the Earth! .
Than what do you think about Roosevelt Aerial bombardment initiative in the beginning of the war and how is it different from art25?

- - - Updated - - -

During a war time, a city of a country that is standing on its knees, is mostly populated by elders, woman and children. Majority of combat ready population is already dead or about to be. Burning elders, woman and children is nothing about cakes, it is about stupidity, fear, dishonor.

 

Actually it is not justifiable if you think about. if claim self defense, then you have to point out the wrong of killing civilians. You can claim it worked. But there was nothing 'just' about it.

 

Wrong. It was about pounding the enemy into submission. I feel honored that we nuked those pieces of (*)(*)(*)(*) that committed the terrorist attack at Pearl Harbor and declared war on us. It worked well too. They shortly surrendered because of our power.