Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

From: Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Contents

War Crime and crime against humanity

WARNING: This section started out as one long discussion on 5 Jan 2005 (UTC). The subsections: Introducton, Terrorism, Legal Precedents, and Discussion of legal precedents; were added retrospectively after 15:34, 7 Jan 2005 [for purposes of making it easier to add comments Noel (talk) 15:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)] so the discussion before that date should be read as one continuous discussion and not in the subsections which they are in now. For example the views on the Nuremberg Principles develop through several section and are linked via the Nuremberg Trial of German Major War Criminals to Hague IV Section III military authority over the territory of the hostile stat Art 46 Philip Baird Shearer 13:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

I am not intereted in the moral question in this section, as they are open to interpritation and are discussed in detail in other sections. I would like someone to explain to me the legal arguments. For example when Karl Donitz was put on trial at the post-war Nuremberg Trials he was accused and found guilty of waging an unrestricted submarine war using the Treaty of London 1930 Article 22

(1) In action with regard to merchant ships, submarines must conform to the rules of International Law to which surface vessels are subjected.
(2) In particular, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search, a warship, whether surface vessel or submarine, may not sink or render incapable of navigation a merchant vessel without having first placed passengers, crew and ship's papers in a place of safety. For this purpose the ship's boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured, in the existing sea and weather conditions, by the proximity of land, or the presence of another vessel which is in a position to take them on board.

Using similar legal arguments can someone please supply the legal basis for the following statements in the article:

  1. Willful killing of civilians,
  2. wanton destruction of cities,
  3. use of poisonous weapons (due to the effects of the radiation) were defined as war crimes by international law of the time...
These bombings were justified. How can you say they weren't? They ended the Asian theatre of war of World War II--Biohazard 06:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is easy if one doesn't assume the ends justify the means. Are you saying the war would never have ended without both of them? Read the article for more examples of how one can say they weren't. Then perhaps you can contribute to a discussion based on the merits.--Silverback 07:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Murdering civilians on a large scale, in peace or wartime, is a crime against humanity.

Murdering civilians on a small scale is murder. Was killing enemy civilians in enemy defended territory a crime against humanity in 1945? If it was which articles in which treaties cover this? Philip Baird Shearer 03:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism

Some people consider the bombings the largest and most lethal acts of terrorism in history

and some people think that "it's turtles all the way down". This is a classic weasel worded sentence. Is there any agreement that in a declared war during the middle of the 20th century that states could commit terrorism against the enemy, because any military action against an enemy could be construed to be an attempt to terrorise them. Was there any legal definition in this area as to degree or type of action as to what constituted state terrorism in 1945? Philip Baird Shearer 03:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If there was a definition of terrorism during war at the time, the Atomic bombings would fit it. The intent was to end the war through terror. It wasn't the military damage done at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended the war. It was terrorism and a war crime and justified in the minds of those that ordered it, and probably even justifiable today although lack of respect for international law leaves it unamended to accomodate for such justifiable terror. Nagasaki though is more difficult to justify.--Silverback 05:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The goal of terrorism (to the extent it has one - it's often just plain nihilism) is to induce psychological changes in the target population. That was not, AFAIK, the main goal of the atomic bombings, as much as they had any explicitly stated goals, other than furthering the surrender of Japan. I just had a 30-minute look through my reasonably extensive collection of books on the subject of the bombings, but I can't find anything on what explicit goals the US had - can you point to any? Noel (talk) 19:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A willingness to "surrender" is quite a psychological change in this particular target population. It destroyed any heroic visions of resistance to a long seige of their island, they weren't to be allowed that honor, they were to be incinerated like rats by a flame thrower. An offshore demonstration would have been spectacular, but might have left doubt about our moral willingness to use it. The Japanese were not afraid of fire bombings anymore, they thought their fire breaks prepared them to survive them. Perhaps the second bomb was to create in their minds the impression that they might not have the time to formulate a strategy for continuing the resistance against this weapon. Ashes can't think.--Silverback 00:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But it wasn't the population as a whole who were resisting surrender; rather, it was mostly the Army.
Your comments, while certainly colourful, don't answer my question: other than (overall) furthering the surrender of Japan, do you know of any documentation of exactly what the explicit goals of the US were in dropping the bombs? I.e. any details on how they hoped the bombings would accomplist this goal? I was rather surprised that I couldn't find anything on this point, despite a search. One would think that people getting ready to deploy a new weapon would have considered what it would bring them. Noel (talk) 01:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I have heard military targets cited retrospectively. The population as a whole was preparing to resist attack, with mobilized women and children training to kill with farm implements if need be. U.S. leadership definitely expected the dropping of the bombs would lead to surrender, it is a safe assumption that they did not think they had completely destroyed any capability that Japan had to resist. The dropping of the bombs was terrorism and the mass-murder of innocents, and quite possibly justified by the usual means, net lives saved. Frankly, as someone (now reformed), responsible for the taking of far more innocent lives myself, I think the atomic and fire bombings are overemphasized. I have knowingly voted for Senators, representatives and a president who supported the Food and Drug Administration, so I bear personal responsibility, undiminished by the anonymity of the secret ballot, for the million plus innocent lives lost by delaying access to life saving drugs such as beta blockers and clot busters (i.e. TPA and streptokinase). I've long viewed myself and most others as mass-murderers. By the time the leadership was making the decision to drop these bombs, they were already responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 innocent american civilians who were conscripted, frankly, what are a few "foreigners" after that? I doubt there was much moral hand wringing, and things have arguably turned out for the best, unless one considers the moral outrage at the use of atomic weapons may have contributed to the failure to use them to bring a pre-emptive end to the cold war and the 10s of millions of lives it cost.--Silverback 08:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Most of the arguments used here are irrelevant. From the bombing of Chinese cities in 1937 through Warsaw, London, Hamburg, Tokyo, Dresden, the bombing of cities with large civilian populations was commonplace. The A bombs killed less people than the cumulative attacks on German and Japanese cities. I don't think it would have even occurred to the Allies - or to the Japanese and Germans had they developed A bombs first - not to use them on "humanitarian" grounds, if this would result in their side winning the war. Frankly, this issue is used as part of a tu quoque defence of attacks on civilian targets by "terrorist" groups. "The Americans did it in 1945". -- 81.156.102.204 19:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Legal Precedents

I think this is certainly a healthier thing to do than throw the word "terrorist" at everybody's head.

The modern Laws of War which specifically protect civilians have been passed mainly in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which makes Hiroshima and Nagasaki indeed more tricky than it might seem at first. I would suggest this page [1] for general context.

A very quick search oulines

  • Part I, article 3.1 of the Third Geneva Convention (1929) [2]: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;"

  • "populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience." the Hague Conventions. 32 Stat. 1803, 1805.
  • The Laws of War on Land. (Oxford, 9th of Septembre 1880), article 7 : "It is forbidden to maltreat inoffensive populations." (I am not sure wether this was in effect in the USA at the time; in any case, it provides evidences that the concept of population slaugter was indeed condemned by the spirit of Internation laws of the time).
  • Nuremberg Principles :
    • War Crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
    • "Crimes against humanity" : "Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. "

Rama 05:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • In Geneva convention IV Art 4: a protected person is defined as "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. which means that enemy populations in territory under the control of their own governments are not covered by it. -- we are looking here at the source for the 1949 treaty but I doubt that the previous one was significantly different.
  1. Was Japan a signatory to the Geneva conventions? If not then it it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention.
  2. The Geneva conventions are much more to do with soldiers and none combatants who end up in the hands of their enemies. It has little or nothing to say about how to treat the enemy in enemy held territory.
  • The 3.1 Geneva convention III which you quote does not apply because it is qualified with "In the case of armed conflict not of an international character' occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties" -- we are looking here at the source for the 1949 treaty but I doubt that the previous one was significantly different.
  • 1880)Laws of War on Land. (Oxford 9th of September 9 September 1880 does not appear to be a treaty:
The Institute, too, does not propose an international treaty, which might perhaps be premature or at least very difficult to obtain; but, being bound by its by-laws to work, among other things, for the observation of the laws of war, it believes it is fulfilling a duty in offering to the governments a ' Manual ' suitable as the basis for national legislation in each State, and in accord with both the progress of juridical science and the needs of civilized armies.
Further when read it seems rather removed from war as practised in the 20th century particularly as it assumes that a strict division between civilian and the armed forces of belligerent States.
  1. As to the specific section you quote Art. 7. "It is forbidden to maltreat inoffensive populations." What about Art. 32,33,34. Which imply that bombardment of defended places is legitimate and if the bombardment takes place during a assault then no notice need be given.
  2. As Oxford is not a treaty, but it seems to have in its text much of what would be in the Hague treaties. So I guess that we should start by looking at those eg Hague IV October 18, 1907), if they also cover Aerial bombardment. I point that out because there is a separate Hague treaty for naval bombardment (Hague IX).
  1. Nuremberg Principles is basically about occupied territory, but even if it is not read that way, there is the qualification at the end "justified by military necessity" The US authorities always argued that the dropping of the bombs was destruction justified by military necessity.
  • Crimes against humanity with which you supplied a definition which is part of the Nuremberg Principles. But the key here is "any crime against peace or any war crime" until it is established that the boming was a war crime it can not also be a "crime against humanity". ( a crime against peace means starting a war which the US did not do against Japan, so dropping the A-bomb was not a crime against peace)
  • What were the other treaty obligations on the use of poisons other than Hague IV Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden - To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
  • What is the definition of poison weapons, was the A-bomb known to be "poisonous" to the decision makers before it was dropped?

I am still not sure what war crimes (as signified by treaty breaches) were committed by dropping the A-bomb. Philip Baird Shearer 16:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed not easy to find a text explicitely condemning massacre of civilians in the pre-WWII conventions. Obviously, the legislators of the time though it to be obvious (I think this can be infered by the Laws of War on Land). So acts like Hiroshima, even if hey might not be as explicitely condemend in the letter of the law, are obvioulsy against its spirit.

The thing is that it is the letter of the law and not the spirit which matters in a court of law. Philip Baird Shearer

I am not a legal technician, but I suppose that by saying "defended place", opposition to invading forces is implied; thus, I am not sure that passages like "The bombardment by naval forces of undefended ports, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings is forbidden" (Hague IX) are not, in spirit, meant to protext cities like Hiroshima -- especially considering the particular nature of the bombardment : it is not about reducing the mere defenses of the town, here, but to utterly whipe it out.

Hague IV and IX do not state that there is a level of bombardment which is unacceptble only that certain rules must be followed. The US administration would have been able to build a case which said that they had followed those rules Philip Baird Shearer

In any case, the Nuremberg Principles seem to apply here : "War Crimes: (...) wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity". Even if this could be found debatable for the case of Hiroshima, I think the case of Nagasaki is blatant. Considering the scale of this particular war crime, the notion of Crime against Humanity, as defined in the same article, logically follows.

For more inforamtions, we might need to carefully examine the other treaties. (by the way, Japan seems not to have signed the 1929 Geneva convention but promised to hold to its principles in 1942 [3]).

Rama 18:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should be side tracked by Hague IX other than to flag the issue that assault by aerial bombardment may not be covered by any pre-WWII treaty, however let us assume for the moment that assault by aerial bombardment is covered by Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907[4]
  • 25 The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
  • 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.
  • 27 In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.'
It was a bombardment of defended towns because Japan had air defences. It was an arial assault so no warning need be given and all necessary steps as far as possible were taken.
As I wrote before the Nuremberg Principles do not apply because the attacks were "justified by military necessity" and the destruction was not "wanton" but systematic, trained and disciplined. That is what stratigic aerial bombardment of defended towns in world war II was all about. The US commanders were not risking the lives of their own airmen because there was not perceived to be a military necessity in bombing Japan.
As we have discussed, even if the Geneva conventions would have covered this issue (which I do not think they do see above) because Japan had not signed it, The Americans were not under treaty obligations to abide by the terms of the Geneva conventions in regards to Japan. Rama do you now agree that the Geneva conventions can be put to one side as can the Oxford "The Laws of War on Land" as they do not add clarity to the issue?
To state in a Wikipedia article that
  1. Wilful killing of civilians,
  2. wanton destruction of cities,
  3. use of poisonous weapons (due to the effects of the radiation) were defined as war crimes by international law of the time...
The article should at least be able to explain which international laws were being broken. Just as an article could state: "unrestricted submarine warfare was a war crime during the second word war, as defined in the Treaty of London 1930 Article 22.
What needs to be established is:
  1. Was the killing of enemy civilians in enemy defended territory a war crime if justified by military necessity during World War II. If it was, what is the definitive source which says it is and which laws of war are used to make the case?
  2. If the killing was done by aerial bombardment which treaties cover this?
  3. Was radiation poisoning covered by pre-war treaties. If so which ones?
  4. If it is coverd by prewar treaties, did the US administration and command know that A-bombs would result in levels of radiation poisoning which would break their treaty obligations, before the bombs were dropped?

---Philip Baird Shearer 01:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of legal precedents

Hi ! Well, I am absolutely not a lawyer, so I am mostly incompetant with the technical aspect of the debate; I'd just like to mention that in Roman legal system, there is a clause for "good faith"; I am not absolutely sure that one who'd come before a tribunal after murdering hundreds of thousand of people just for fun and whose defense would rely on technicalities only would stand much of a chance. This being said, as we are not a eral court and that this is a very slippery debate to engage, I agree with you that it is wiser to drop the debate about the Geneva Conventions and the Oxford "The Laws of War on Land".

"just for fun"? Can you please point to the evidence for this monstrous assertion? If, as I suspect, you cannot do so, it's an illuminating indication of your reliability as a calm and objective assessor of facts (not to mention your extreme bias). Noel (talk) 19:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am a little bit puzzled by your qualification of the Hiroshima bombing as an "assault"; isn't "assault" storm by troops to size an objective ? I think that Hiroshima would have been assaulted if invaded by, say, a massive dropping of paratroopers. As for the warning, quite a few scientists, politicians and military officers have suggested a more explicit description of the potential effects of the bomb, and even a demonstration in the sea in front of Toyko; I really think that the "proper warning" clause stands a chance here -- much to the contrary, absolute secrecy was made around the bomb, and there are elements which tend to indicate that the preceding ultimatum was deliberately left vague.

If an artillery shell is lobbed at a city (or even a V2 rocket) that is a bombardment and the officer in charge should notify the enemy in the target what he is doing. But as the bomber was manned it was an aerial assault. A warning of such an assult could lead to the loss of his bomber crew. No commander would risk his men in such a way nor do the laws and customs of law put such a burden on him. Philip Baird Shearer 18:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "defended city" clause is also very much of a technicality: at the time, Japan had no aerial forces left to speak of, and certainly no means able to threaten a B-29 at this altitude. Saying, for instance, that the bomber had to release a nuclear bomb to be able to do significant damage before losing all chances to escape Japanese response would be ridiculous. But that again is a technicality which is prone to make us lose time, so let's drop that subject if you agree.

It is technicalities like this which win court cases. The islands of Japan were defended by land sea and air. Therefore the cities were defended. Philip Baird Shearer

As for the Nuremberg principles, I really cannot understand, with all good faith, the necessity for the bombing of Nagasaki. Japan did not even have the time to release a proper surrender between the two bombings. I do not understand the nuance between "wanton" and "disciplined"; doesn't "wanton" mean "deliberate" ? (honest question, I'm not of English mother tongue, as you probably have guessed already). If so, a fail to understand how a deliberate destruction ordered by proper authorities make this less of a crime; the Nuremberg trials have addressed this issue, did they not ?

One must always make a difference between defended enemy territory and enemy occupied territory and the motive behind the action. For example as the Germans retreated across France in 1944, no one would say that the destruction of the bridges across the river Somme to hold up the advance of the Allies, although it was destruction of property in occupied territory was wanton destruction because it was justified by military necessity. In the Trial of German Major War Criminals Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany November 20 to December 1, 1945
(G) WANTON DESTRUCTION OF CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES AND DEVASTATION NOT JUSTIFIED BY MILITARY NECESSITY
The defendants wantonly destroyed cities, towns, and villages and committed other acts of devastation without military justification or necessity. These acts violated Articles 46 and So of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilised nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were committed and Article 6 (b) of the Charter.
As far as I can tell all the western and later in the document eastern examples given are for crimes in occupied territories. Which makes sense when one reads which section of Hague the indictment refers Hague IV SECTION III MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE Art 46
Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.
Private property cannot be confiscated.
As you can see the Hague regulation which is referred too is in a section about MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE, enemy held enemy territory. The phrases used in this document implying that the Nuremberg principles of "wanton destruction" should not be used in the A-bombings because they are misleading. Philip Baird Shearer

I agree with the questions you ask, only with the reserve that I am not at all certain that the killing of civilians in enemy territory must be "necessary for military purpose"; again, Nagasaki is extremely doubtful to have been of any legitimate use.

Perhaps you should read Japan's Longest Day, to get a better sense of how the Japanese civil and military authorities dithered after the Hiroshima bombings. I hope I don't have to remind you that the Allied military were suffering many casualties while this all went on - e.g the USS Indianapolis, sunk on July 30th with the death of over 800 crew members.
Which is not to say that the decision to drop the bombs (and, indeed, all aerial bombing of cities - conventional explosives killed a lot more civilians in air raids than the two atomic bombs) is not very troubling, to put it extremely mildly. But this simplistic "two legs good, four legs bad" labelling (sloganeering, really) is worse than useless. Noel (talk) 19:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That would depend on the motive for dropping the second bomb. But if the American high command did not think it was with military justification or or necessity why did they order it? Is there documentry evidence support any other interpretation?
My recollection of Alperovitz's book is that he cites declassified U.S. government memos to argue that the principal motive for bombing Nagasaki was to intimidate the USSR -- that a one-shot bombing might be thought by the Soviets to be something that the U.S. couldn't repeat, while the demonstrated ability to drop a second bomb would support the conclusion that the U.S. could drop a third if it wanted to, on Moscow. American policymakers were already looking ahead to a postwar world in which, they correctly predicted, the central struggle would be between the US and the USSR. JamesMLane 10:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The one shot argument is much more relevant for the Japanese high command. The second one would have given the impression that the Americans already had a production line going. Even if the USA had not dropped the second one, why would the Soviets not have thought that given time the USA would not have the capability to manufacture more? In any major strategic/tactical military decision making process, analyst are paid to look at all the military/political considerations. That some analyst were contemplating what the Soviets would/might think of the A-bomb use is not surprising, (it would be surprising if they were not,) but that does not mean that it was a primary influence in the decision to drop either of the bombs. Is there any source which points to the primary influence in the decision being to intimidate Uncle Joe? Eg does it head the adjenda in any meeting? Philip Baird Shearer 13:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I forget the details; it's been years since I read Atomic Diplomacy. I think (not 100% sure) that there were memos, etc. expressing concern that, if the bomb weren't ready by early August, the USSR's entry into the war (90 days after V-E Day, per agreement) would precipitate a Japanese surrender before the U.S. had the chance to use the bomb, and that it would be bad to lose the chance to drop the bomb to impress the Russians. I think there was also evidence of Truman's willingness to defer major decisions at the Potsdam Conference; Churchill, who didn't know about the bomb, was upset, believing that the West's influence was at its peak and that the USSR would only become more powerful with time, as the the Western Allies disbanded their armies, so he favored pressing all disputed issues immediately, but the U.S. wanted to wait until the bomb had been dropped, believing that the USSR would be more tractable then. Another point, covered in the article, is that the military leaders didn't think the bomb was necessary to induce surrender. It's hard to maintain that the primary reason for the bombings was to obviate an invasion when the military leaders were saying that an invasion wouldn't be necessary. Finally, in the context of specifically the Nagasaki bombing, the logic of the situation, if the effect on the USSR were not at issue, would be to wait to see the effect of the Hiroshima bombing and the Russian declaration of war. There would have been plenty of time to drop a second bomb if that powerful combination didn't produce a Japanese surrender. I think there are U.S. government documents indicating a desire to bomb Nagasaki while we still could -- in other words, the motivation wasn't the fear that Japan would fight on, but the fear that Japan might surrender before another bomb could be dropped. JamesMLane 15:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If I have some time, I might answer part of the last question about poisonous weapons, since we come closer to my area of expertise here. Cheeers ! Rama 10:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to it. But I wish some other would contribute their points of view to the above as both you and I seem to be having difficulty finding out what alledged war crimes were committed. Philip Baird Shearer 18:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For the reason for the bombing a Nagasaki, there are numerous theories, most of them nased on the fact that the two bombs belonged to different corps (the Navy and the Air Force), which led to political decision to drop both bombs to avoid hurting the pride of one of the corps; and the fact the bombs were based on different technologies, which had to be tested on humans if possible; the mere increase of human casualties as a mean to study the effects of the bombs; the percieved need to impress the USSR; of course, some of these ideas are very unlikely to be documented by written documents, but might explain the decision to drop a second bomb for reasons completely unrelated to the war against Japan.
To finish, I must appology for my naive understanding of the matter, since my legal knowledges are feeble, and biased toward the Roman law system. I certainly wish that more people, more qualified than myself, would join this discussion. I size the opportunity to mention the symbolic trial which is supposed to be held in Japan this year, which might be interesting, and have pretty much the same question than ourselves. Thanks again ! Rama 19:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your bizarre notion that the two bombs were the product of different services is just flat wrong. Both were produced by the same project (the Manhattan Project), and dropped by the same USAAF unit (the 509th). If you had bothered to take the smallest amount to time to actually read something about this topic (so you actually had the vaguest clue what you were talking about), you would know this. Perhaps you should go away and study this whole field some more, after which you might have useful comments to contribute. Noel (talk) 20:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

JNC, perhaps you might want to calm down a little bit, and read my comments in a more peaceful mind. I am not a native English speaker and my comments might be clumsy and sound rude, but in thie case it won't be intentional and I'll ask you to suppose good faith at first. I mostly agree with Philip Baird Shearer, for a start -- in particular, I did expect internationl Laws to be counter-intuitive. I never said nor suggested that the US had droped a bomb just for fun (you take the thing completely out of context). If the US Navy vs US Air Force thing is inaccurate, you can say so while remaining polite -- I have read that something and can't remember where for now; it might by false, but I certainly didn't invent that out of nothing (which tends to indicate that I might have indeed read something about the subject, be it wrong), and in any case, factual mistakes can be corrected without immediately jumping to the idea that your interlocutor is of bad faith. So I hope we can now both have confidence in each other's good intentions and work constructively together.

I was not assuming "bad faith", merely that you apparently had not studied the subject - which is not a good idea for a topic like this, which is both complex, and one over which there is still a lot of heated debate.
As for your English, indeed I did notice that you are not a native speaker, but it was also obvious that you were good enough that your "just in fun" comment was not an accident. Yes, you may not have meant it exactly the way that it reads, but I think it says something that you chose to use that language ("murdering hundreds of thousand of people just for fun"). To put it another way, to say that "you never said nor suggested that the US had droped a bomb just for fun" is exactly the kind of fine legal distinction that some people condemn, if other people try to use similar fine legal distinctions in defense of the people who dropped the atomix bombs. Anyway, as you say, enough of that. I have some real data for you below. Noel (talk) 00:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The "just for fun" was not related to the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima; it was a hypothetic example to test the idea that the spirit of a law might prevail on its strict letter. I am sorry if this was badly formuled. Rama 01:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Radiation

Now, for something more constructive, there are some interesting things on [5] (the site in its whole is not always very constructive, but there are interesting parts and references).

  • Radiation : This link [6] outlines the issue of radiation ("19. While no house area investigated received a dangerous amount, ie, no more than an accumulated two weeks dose of 60r, the dust outfall from the various portions of the cloud was potentially a very serious hazard over a band almost 30 miles wide extending almost 90 miles northeast of the site.")
You might want to look at:
  • Barton C. Hacker, The Dragon's Tail: Radiation Safety in the Manhattan Project, 1942-1946 (University of California, Berkeley, 1987)
which is very carefully sourced, and thus a good source of further documents; I don't have access to the sources he lists (in most cases) but I can report on what this book says.
It contains (on pages 110-113) some information about investigation of residual radiation hazards immediately after the explosion. (The motivation was the safety of the US troops who would be occupying the area after the surrender.) It reports that surveys in Nagasaki (20 September - 6 October) and Hiroshima (3-7 October) showed 4-6 times natural background levels at the hypocenter ("caused by neutron-activated soil elements") and 2-3 times natural background levels in the location of highest fallout levels (which were not the hypocenters, but downwind) in Hiroshima (west of the city). Nagasaki had a small area with a much higher level of fallout (1.0 milli-Roentgen per hour, 40-60 times background). Most of the cities were much lower than this, however. (It's worth noting that at this point the accepted safe level for Manhattan Project workers was 0.1 roentgen per day - Hacker, pg. 88)
It quotes the Manhattan Project Atomic Bomb Investigation Group as follows:
the residual radiation alone could not have been detrimental to the health of persons entering and living in the bombed areas after the explosion.
(but I would add the caveat that those words were written in June 1946, when not as much was known about the harmful long-term effects of ionizing radiation, e.g. increased cancer rates). It further says:
Radiation injuries in both cities seemed to Warren solely the result of the initial burst of gamma rays and neutrons emitted when the bombs exploded.
The reference to "Warren" is to an article from 1948 which listed in the sources, and which I do not have access to. A further source which looks useful is:
  • "Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Physical, Medical, and Social Effects of the Atomic Bombing", Basic Books, New York, 1981
which seems (from the source notes in Hacker's book) to have a lot of details; I am ordering this for future reference.
You might also want to look at descriptions of the Trinity test - the US personnel observing (who included the scientists) were at about 10,000 yards (metres, roughly) from the bomb, so clearly they expected the neutron/gamma levels at that distance to not be harmful, and Hacker reports (pg. 99) that at that distance radiation "from the fireball ... was simply too low to detect". Noel (talk) 00:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Warning before bombing (not legally binding, but might be worth mentionning) : [7] "Ever since I have been in touch with this program I have had a feeling that before the bomb is actually used against Japan that Japan should have some preliminary warning for say two or three days in advance of use. The position of the United States as a great humanitarian nation and the fair play attitude of our people generally is responsible in the main for this feeling." (Ralph A. Bard, Undersecretary of the Navy, to Secretary of War Stimson, June 27, 1945)
  • Not legally binding be interesting (hopefully): There seems to be a resolution of the League of Nations about aerial warfare, see [8]; Hiroshima and Nagasaki are clear breaches of
    • I.1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal
    • I.3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence
Of course the USA were not a member of the League of Nations, so this is not legally binding (I am right ?); I just mean to cite this as a reference for the "civilised" things whitch were supposed to be done (see the previous comment about "the United States as a great humanitarian nation and the fair play attitude").
Not only was the USA not a member but the resolution is not a treaty obligation for those nations which were. This is obvious from the text at the start of the section (my enbolding).
I. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:.
I.1)The intentional bombing... Philip Baird Shearer

If I get to find more, about radiations in particular, I'll let you know. Cheers ! Rama 20:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

These numbers are nearly two months after the explosion. Since the radiation decrease is exponential, this leave room for a pretty impressive level in thr immediate aftermath. I'll do the proper calculation as soon as Iget the proper tools (hopefully tomorrow) so we can have orders of magnitude to speak of. Also, a significant proportion of the effects of fallout are long-term (people will die of cancers because they have inhilated radioactive material); as for the genetic effect, its maximum should be visible at the third and following generation; so far, virtually noo genetic effects have been observed (note that we're mostly at the second generation)[9].
The book I previously quoted (above) quotes Warren:
when the readings were extrapolated back to zero hour, the levels were not considered to be of great significance.
Also, the same book records (pg. 111) that the US teams first reach Hiroshima on 9 September (one month after the bombings) and did quick radiation surveys then (with negative results); Nagasaki was surveyed later that week. I quoted the later surveys above because they were more extensive, and quantified. Noel (talk) 03:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Manhattan Engineer District, June 29, 1946 (effects of the bombings) report says that the fallout did not cause any damage : "No casualties were suffered as a result of any persistent radioactivity of fission products of the bomb, or any induced radioactivity of objects near the explosion." and "No harmful amounts of persistent radioactivity were present after the explosions as determined by: A. Measurements of the intensity of radioactivity at the time of the investigation; and B. Failure to find any clinical evidence of persons harmed by persistent radioactivity". The report goes on to say "The heights of burst were correctly chosen having regard to the type of destruction it was desired to cause"; this is notable, because while the test seems to have induce significant amongt of fallout, the actual bombings are said to have induced much less fallout; this is due to the altitude of the explosion (air burst cause less fallout than ground or underground explosions).
However, I quote [10] : "Those a little farther away, who survived these effects, suffered from acute radiation syndromes and became quite ill within hours to days"; (I would be nice to find a number for this kind of victims). This might qualify for "poisonous weapon", since illness is induced [11], [12]. The report about Trinity where concern is raised about fallout and direct radiation clearly shows that the dangerous nature of radiation was, at least, partly understood. It would be interesting to find more documents on this, though.
([13] discribes effects, including long-time effects. Notably, excess death [14], increase of risk of cancer [15] and correlation with deseases [16]. Also [17])

Rama 01:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's no question that the radiation from the bomb explosion caused a lot of injury. However, I think that the points about poisons, etc would only apply to fallout and other long-lasting radiation sources, not the large radiation pulse produced by the explosion of the bomb. If you're looking for a clause to apply to that, you might be better off with whatever it was that applied to e.g. dum-dum bullets. That's why I've been producing the data on the long-term radiation sources; i.e. I'm trying to separate out the radiation from the explosion pulse from the long-term radiation, because different legal clauses might apply to the two. Noel (talk) 03:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The legal question is not if there were levels of radiation, but:

  1. Did such radiation constitute poisoning as defined in the various treaties?
  2. If it does, was the US administration aware before the dropping of the second A-bomb that it would produce poisons that would cause the US to be in breach of their treaty obligations? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I first have to concede that I haven't reviewed the texts of the relevant Treaties (for all I know poisons and dum-dum bullet are outlawed by the same Treat/Article, under one single set of words) - so I would welome a pointer to the relevant references for poisons, etc. (Are people perhaps thinking of poison gasses? I'm pretty sure those do come unde the same clause as dum-dum bullets).
However, even if there is no distinction in the applicable law between poisons and unacceptable weapons, I was still distinguishing between the two kinds of radiation because the page also treats moral issues, and when it comes to analyzing the morality of the bombs, the residual radiation (which could potentially harm in the future, including people who arrived later, etc) is in something of a different category. Noel (talk) 17:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think that there is no doubt that the administration knew about radiation; the report following the first test is very explicit, for instance.
As for the legal definition of poison, I didn't find any definition in the Hague treaty; where do you think the notion could be defined ? Rama 09:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget that a lot of the fallout from the Trinity test was because the bomb was exploded at (basically) ground-level, and it was irradiated dust from the crater that was the source a lot of the fallout (no time to look for a definite ref, sorry). The altitude of the air-bursts over Japan were in part picked to minimize fallout, to "keep the fireball from touching the ground and thus to avoid severe radioactive contamination" (Hacker pp. 109).
Also, the Trinity test resulted in a higher residual radiation level at the test site because the scientists had missed (Hacker, pp. 101) on predicting "the effects of neutron-induced activity in sodium and other soil elements". Noel (talk) 17:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a little bit about direct radiation vs fallout ? The radiation produced by fallout and direct burst of high-energy photons is the same in nature -- Gamma rays; even though the effects of fall-out are moreover time, the nature of the threat is the same. In this optic, I don't see why the high-energy photon emission of the bomb is closer to dum-dum bullets than poisoning (that said, I agree that the two should separated, be it only to avoid convusion about the mechanism of a nuclear device). Rama 09:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, technically, I believe there would also have been both alpha and beta radiation in both cases, but in the bomb explosion they would not be significant, since they do not have long range. People could receive alpha and beta radiation from fallout, but that's generally not a health hazard. (I say generally because there are exceptions - beta radiation can cause skin burns if very intense, and inhaled plutonium particles are dangerous, IIRC, because it's an alpha emitter.) But anyway...
I think it's worth distinguishing between the two for a number of reasons.
  • First, I'm not sure most people realize that radiation from fallout from the bombs was not significant (both in general, and also when compared to radiation from the bomb explosion). In addition, explicit steps were taken to minimize this, steps which seem to have been quite effective.
  • Second, when analyzing the morality (as I alluded to above), I think the two fall into separate categories, because residual radiation could continue to harm people long into the future (e.g. after the war was over). It could also harm people who weren't there when the bomb was exploded (i.e. were not targets); yes, I know this last is minor, given the indiscriminate nature of the bomb, but it is a factor, as later arrivals could be expected to be include a lot of aid personnel.
It was these latter points I was thinking of when I differentiated between poisons and dum-dum bullets, and analogized to the two kinds of radiation - one is inherently an aspect of the weapon itself (like the dum-dum), whereas the other can potentially cause unintended consequences.
Also, I don't get too focussed on the radiation, when considering whether the bomb was, in itself, an immoral weapon. (To make this analysis easier, think of a case where it is only used on soldiers, to remove the complexities caused by the targeting of civilians.) The bomb also produced a lot of infra-red, which produced some horrible burns. Is that wrong? Apparently not, because napalm has not yet been outlawed (although I personally can see a case for doing so - being burned to death is surely more horrible than being hit by a dum-dum bullet). Noel (talk) 17:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Noel this section is not about if the A-bomb was "an immoral weapon" ,but if it was an illegal weapon under international war and the use of which constituted a war crime in 1945. Philip Baird Shearer 13:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand that that was the original motivation in opening this section, but I'm interested in discussing both legal and moral aspects (of this particular point about the two sources of radiation), because the article covers both aspects of the use of the bomb - or, should I say, ought to cover them in a clearly separate way (which I think would be what you would prefer, no? :-). I have admittedly (for reasons of economy of my already-longwinded text :-) put discussion of both aspects in my comments here, but I hope that as long as we clearly separate out which is being talked about, it's not a problem here. Noel (talk) 15:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the record here are the inter-war treaty and protocol, I found on line which relate to prohibtion on the use of poison weapons. Neither AFAICT of which seem to cover the use of atomic weapons by the USA in 1945:

Treaty between the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan, Signed at Washington, February 6, 1922 [1]...[1] In French and English; French text not printed. Ratification advised by the Senate, Mar. 29, 1922; ratified by the President, June 9, 1923. Inasmuch as the French Government did not ratify the treaty, ratifications of the signatory powers have not been deposited and the treaty has not become effective. I am not sure when the French ratified it if ever.

--Philip Baird Shearer 13:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for looking that up; I think the second one (the Geneva one) was in force at the time, because I'm pretty sure poison gasses were outlawed during WWII (and this treaty was certainly signed by enough countries to ratify it).
I'm not so certain it doesn't apply; let me think on "paper" here for a bit. The exact wording, "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" could potentially be read (if read broadly) as applying. The question is whether anything which produces radiation counts as a "poisonous .. device". I'm not saying I'm certain it does apply, mind, but I think a semi-decent argument could be made that it does. Radiation can be said to "poison" the body (i.e. it causes damage to biological processes within the body, which causes harm; at many levels, from low to high, the effects are similar), and the bomb was certainly a device. On the other hand, one could to some degree make the same observation ("causes damage to biological processes within the body") of burns, which often kill (if not by infection) by causing organ failure, even though the organs themselves are never directly damaged. Furthermore, the usual method of poisoning is that it is something that has to be ingested or breathed - although there are of course skin contact poisons, e.g. nerve agents, so I guess that one doesn't count. All in all, I would say "no", I guess: the "causes damage to biological processes within the body" reading of "poison" needed to encompass radiation is too broad, and also covers things which clearly aren't "poisons". Noel (talk) 15:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wanton destruction

Can we also discuss the Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter outlawing "the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." ? I still havent understood the points previously made. According to [18], "wanton" means "Immoral"; a meaning of "Undisciplined" or of "rebellious" does exist, but the example cited is precisely the Article 6, as "Marked by unprovoked, gratuitous maliciousness; capricious and unjust: wanton destruction." The Article 6 was also invoked in the Nuremberg trials, applied to acts commited by regular or para-military forces. Therefore, I think it can be invoked here.


The "wanton" and "not justified by military means" nature of the destruction is backed the fact that:

  • neither targets were purely military targets (isolated bases, military ports, ...);
  • that the economy and industrial capabilities of Japan had been brough to its knees and was incapable of delaying the final outcome (in particular, the torpedo plant in Nagasaki was mostly useless since Japan had virtually no navy nor air force left); the lackof interest to Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the extensive bombing campains illustrates the lack of military importance of these cities.
  • that the argument about making a demonstration can be easily defeated by the fact that the demonstration could have been made in unhabited areas (at sea before Tokyo for instance);
  • that Hiroshima ground zero was on the population area, a few miles away from the military installations (I quote our own article: "In every detail, the attack was carried out exactly as planned");
  • that a majority of the victims were civilians;
  • that at least some basic understanding of the danger of radiation existed, making the nuclear device a particulary barbaric device known to inflicted particularly gruesome suffering.
  • that only three days were left between the two bombings, giving an unreasonabley short time for Japan to surrender, giving the confusion which followed the bombings.
  • that diplomatic means were available to press Japan into surrender, which were not pressed to the full extend of their promises; in particular, the warning before Hiroshima was vague, misleading and utterly insufficient; the comparison with the brilliant prose displayed in the radio speech following the bombing is especially eloquent. Hiro-Hito remaining on the throne, which was a condition which would have made Japanese surrender acceptable much earlier, was never offered, even though it was decided that this would happen anyway.
  • Military and politic experts have testified educated objections to the bombings :
    • "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was of no material assistance in our war against Japan... In being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Admiral William Leahy, chief of staff for Roosevelt and Truman, I Was There (1950)
    • "Despite any sophistries, its use is not to kill fighting men, but to kill women, children, and civilian men of whole cities as a pressure on governments." Herbert Hoover, adviser to Truman, September 1945
    • "First the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that damned thing. Second, I hated to see our country to be the first to use such a weapon." Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1963, commenting his opposition of July 1945.
    • "During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
    • "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. " (U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946)
    • Other opponents to the bomb include chief of Naval Operations Admiral Ernest J. King, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, General Claire Chennault of the Flying Tigers, Army Strategic Air Forces Commander Carl Spatz, and Army Air Force General Curtis E. Lemay, who directed the firebombing of Japan. (Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Bomb, 1995)
    • More can be found at [19]

In the light of the military situation, the futility of the diplomatic issue of the unconditional surrender and the opinion of the military experts, I suggest we have a closer look at Article 6 of the Nuremberg Principles. Rama 09:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Nuremberg Charter outlawing "wanton destruction" is not appropriate. The whole section in the Nuremberg Principles (and the Charter of the International Military Tribunal) is based on Hague IV SECTION III MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE Art 46. It is about the restrictions on the behaviour of an occupying power not restrictions on attacking an enemy. As I said above, as far a I can tell all the examples given in the Trial of German Major War Criminals was for territory under occupation (Hague IV Art 46). If this was not the case, I would ask you to point out an example mentioned in the trial. For more details on this see what I have written above.
What you have written earlier to day on this talk page is a mismash of stuff, most of it to do with moral arguments. If a war crime was committed what was it and which articles in which treaties were violated?
If no-one can suggest the war cime which was committed then I think that the whole paragraph in the article should be removed. Philip Baird Shearer 15:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. I didn't mean to make a moral ramble, I was just trying to see wether a case could be made about the "wanton" and "military purpose"; the thing I had not understood was that the Nuremberg Priciples were a link to the Hagues IV. I also agree that the list I did could be a simple "#include<5.1 Opposition to use of atomic bombs>"; so sorry for being a little bit off-topic there, and thank you for the explanation ! Rama 16:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A question about Hague IV

I just found this [20] :

"But it is argued that the Hague Convention does not apply in this case, because of the " general participation " clause in Article 2 of the Hague Convention of 1907. That clause provided:
"The provisions contained in the regulations (Rules of Land Warfare referred to in Article 1 as well as in the present Convention do not apply except between contracting powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention."
Several of the belligerents in the recent war were not parties to this Convention.
In the opinion of the Tribunal it is not necessary to decide this question. The rules of land warfare expressed in the Convention undoubtedly represented an advance over existing international law at the time of their adoption. But the Convention expressly stated that it was an attempt " to revise the general laws and customs of war," which it thus recognised to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognised by all civilised nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war which are referred to in Article 6 (b) of the Charter."

Can someone comment on this ? Does it mean that the provisions in treaties like the Hague Convention or the Geneva conventions regarding loss of priviledges by countries not part in the treaty are invalid ? Rama 17:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that this means that as Hague had been in force for 40 years it was now to be considered customary. I suspect that this was an attempt by the victors to try to make sure that the vanquised could not argue that some of the charges did not apply because one or more of the many countries which fought in World War II had not signed a treaty. Philip Baird Shearer
So we do have a precedent indicating that by 1939, the Hague Convention of 1907 had to be respected even toward parties not signataries, right ? Rama 17:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is also the following part which might be interesting to consider :

It has not, however, been found possible at present to concert regulations covering all the circumstances which arise in practice;

On the other hand, the High Contracting Parties clearly do not intend that unforeseen cases should, in the absence of a written undertaking, be left to the arbitrary judgment of military commanders.

Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.

I think it is safe to think that long-range, high-altitude bombers armed with nuclear weapons are good candiates for the "cases not included in the Regulations" which could not be though of in 1907. Rama 17:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes quite! As the British and the USA were "civilized peoples" the destruction wrote by the use of high-altitude bombers armed with nuclear weapons was obviously the act that "civilized peoples" considered to be acceptable by their representative governments and not one taken with just "the arbitrary judgment of military commanders". Philip Baird Shearer 13:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oooh, that's a very good point indeed, at least as it refers to aerial bombing of cities in general (more below about that limitation). Although the legislatures (the most "representative" branch of the governments in question) may not have been involved in the targetting choices, they certainly appropriated the money for heavy bombers, knowing full well they would be used to attack cities. So although standards among "civilized peoples" may have since changed since, it certainly appears as it at the time it was accepted.
Of course, one must take into account Thucydides' dictum that "In peace and prosperity, states and individuals have better sentiments, because they do not find themselves suddenly confronted with imperious necessities; but war .. proves a rough master, that brings most men's characters to a level with their fortunes.", so even the judgement of elected legislatures in war-time is not necessarily the last word on "civilized".
On reflection, I don't think the additional qualification of "high-altitude bombers armed with nuclear weapons" (my emphasis) is significant. Although it is true that most members of the legislature did not know about the atomic weapons (in the US, the money was appropriated on the word of only a few leaders of the legislature), I don't see that the particular weapon used to kill many tens of thousands of civilians (be it incendiaries, as in Tokyo/Dresden, or an atomic bomb, as in Hiroshima) matters that much, either legally or (as a completely separate point, covered here only to save space) morally. Noel (talk) 16:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Since we agree that long-range nuclear bombing falls into the "cases not included in the Regulations", it logically follows that "the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience". Don't we have texts which define specifically targetting civilians an immoral thing to do ?
Beside the numerous texts which tend to indicate this, in the light of the "cases not included in the Regulations", is there not a case for suggesting that the "occupied territory" provision in Hague was mainly a reflect of the technological limitations of the time which made it difficult to imagine that massive destruction could be caused behind enemy lines ?
And does not the "cases not included in the Regulations" make a point that the spirit of the text, which quite clearly tends to protect civilians, is, in case of doubt, to be favoured over the letter of the law ?
Since the president of the United States of America is the "Commander in Chief" of the armed forces, he quite clearly is a "military commander", is he not ? Rama 17:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a large difference under the laws and customs of war between the conduct that a power's armed forces must show to POWs and citizens in occupied territory and the enemy in enemy held territory.
  • The USA President is also the civilian head of state as well as the commander in chief.
He thus is in the military chain of command. The Nuremberg trials already made a point that war crimes make no case for immunity of a chief of state, did they not ? And they certainly made a point that "following orders" is not an acceptable defence, which makes the whole chain of command liable. I also read that the bombing of Nagasaki was not supervised by the president personaly, but was done as a consequence of the order to use nuclear bombs on a set of four possible Japanese cities, can anyone confirm or infirm this ?
  • "Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 may not apply as it was an aerial bombardment. There is for example a different Hague treaty for naval forces bombarding land: "Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War" (Hague IX). It is stated in any credible source that Hague IV applies to aerial bombardment?
I though we were agreed that this kind of aerial bombardment was covered in the provision of the preamble about "cases not included in the Regulations" ? If I missed somethin about this, can it be clarified ?
  • Fun as this debate has been, we are only playing barrack-room lawers, no one has come up with a credible source to justify the war cime allegation. If it was a war crime, one ought to be able to use at least one credible source to show which paragrpahs in which treaties or customs of war were broken. As one can for example with unrestricted submarine warfare. As the ICJ did not find, that even in 1996 with all the new treaties since 1945, that there were explicit prohibitions in customary or conventional international law on the use of nuclear weapons, I doubt that there is such a source for the legal position in 1945. Without that, the paragraph "It has been argued that... crime against humanity and a war crime...terrorism..." , is only speculation and ought not to be in this Wikipedia encyclopedia article as it were all established facts. Philip Baird Shearer 13:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, only a full-scale trial would solve the matter. For perspective, I have read that the chief judge of the Nuremberg trial had qualified Nagasaki of "war crime"; the reference is Robert Lay Hifton and Greg Mitchell Hiroshima in America: A Half Century of Denial, Avon Books, 1995, page 162. Can somebody confirm or infirm ? Rama 21:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

International Court of Justice

The statment in the article "Nuclear weapons can be expected—in the present..." is a statment by President (of the court) Mohammed Bedjaoui in an advisory opinion by the ICJ on July 8, 1996 on the "Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons" in any circumstance is permitted under international law at the request by the United Nations General Assembly.

Further reading: NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, AND THE PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT By David Krieger

Although the 5 judements returned are enlightening in a debate about whether the current use or threat to use nuclear weapons, it has nothing to say about the state of international law in 1945 (other than to say that in 1996 "There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such;" Which suggests there was nothing in customary nor conventional international law in 1945).

Does anyone think that the statment by Mohammed Bedjaoui brings clarity to this article, as it is a comment on the state of international law 50+ years after the first use of the A-bombs in 1945. If they do please explain how and why it is not misleading? Philip Baird Shearer 11:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I hope I don't make you sick by writing too many comments :p
If I understand correctly, this text makes a point that nuclear weapons are not illegal per se.
Since this comes rather in defense of the bombing, I think it might be interesting to mention this, even though it came a long time afterward; especially, this might give a retrospective reason to drop the discussion about radiation as poisonous weapon (I have the impression that it is mainly a technicallity which twists the spirit of the law, and I don't feel very comfortable with it anyhow).
I hope this makes sense... Now, if it gets things more complicated, I understand we might want to avoid entering another discussion. Rama 15:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kyoto

Someone added
According to Robert Jungk, page 178, (which needs a confirming reference):
"On the short list of targets for the atom bomb, in addition to Hiroshima, Kokura and Nigata, was the Japanese city of temples, Kyoto. When the expert on Japan, Professor Edwin O. Reischauer, heard this terrible news, he rushed into the office of his chief, Major Alfred MacCormack, in a department of the Army Intelligence Service. The shock caused him to burst into tears. MacCormack, a cultivated and humane New York lawyer, thereupon managed to persuade Secretary of War Stimson to reprieve Kyoto and have it crossed off the black list."
Alas, Jungk doesn't give sources, but I don't have any reason to doubt him, but see below...
From Frank's Downfall p. 262
The conspicuous absence of Kyoto from the list was the result of direct intervention by Secretary of War Stimson, who deleted the city over vigorous and protracted efforts by Groves. Stimson had traveled to Japan and appreciated the cultural significance and spendor of the old capital and insisted that its artifacts, if not its one million inhabitants, be spared.
—wwoods 07
03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Rhodes, Making of the Atomic Bomb (pp. 640-641) quotes an interview with Groves (from a book published in 1965, so his memory may not have been accurate that long afterwards) about his meeting with Stimson where he first told Stimson that Kyoto was to be a target, and Stimson immediately objected. So it's not clear that Reischauer's pleas were needed. Noel (talk) 15:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Reasons to doubt Jungk: He wasn't there. He makes other errors. (The same reasons apply to any other historian.) Jungk implys Stimson opposed it BECAUSE of Reischauer. More references are welcome.64.165.203.61 21:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know about this particular issue, but there are reasons to doubt Jungk, to say the least. He was known to make a number of significant errors of interpretation and judgment. --Fastfission 13:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge with atom bomb debate

I attempted to merge the stuff from atom bomb debate into this article. There were some arguments that I did not think they were relevent or I could not find a good place to put them. I put them here in case anyone wants to add them to the article; otherwise, they can be deleted. Also, should Atom bomb debate be deleted? -- JeffAMcGee 09:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

arguments against bombing:

  • Men were sent out to try and reason with the U.S.A.; however, many were killed on the way there or taken to prison on charges of spying for Japan.
  • The US army knew that hundreds of people in Japan were starving to death because the rice crop failed, but they kept this secret for many years.

arguments that support bombing:

  • Japan had also taken over Manchuria in China and had over 2 million men there.
  • Japan planted 1000s upon 1000s of mines.
  • Another piece of evidence is that the Japanese had killed over 7000 U.S. marines on the island of Iwo Jima. They say this was a "cold blooded act" which needed retaliation by the Americans. The result was the atomic bomb.
  • People on this side of the debate also say that revenge was needed for the attack of Pearl Harbour in 1941 which resulted in death of over 3000 soldiers and the loss of several American battleships and aircraft carriers.
  • The Japanese created a lethal and hard to stop breed of warfare: Kamikaze warfare. Planes were packed with explosive material and flown into buildings or ships. America needed to eradicate this threat before it caused extensive damage to America and its military.

I don't like the new article. It doesn't cite any sources for these points in the "debate" (many of which I have never seen actually used before by actual people debating) and there is no reason for a separate article on the topic. The ones you've listed above are all ones I have never seen seriously given, and are fairly ridiculous at best. (The process to create the bomb was started long before Iwo Jima; I don't see any connection between nuclear weapons and land mines; what does Manchuria have to do with it? that sounds more like an argument for Russia's invasion of Manchuria than anything else; Kamikaze warfare never posed a great threat of "extensive damage" to "America" and a minor one to its military, and certainly had nothing to do with the atomic bomb; what would the US knowing about rice crop failures have to do with the bomb?; I've never heard of this "men sent out to try and reason with the USA", and it sounds nonsensical). The other article doesn't add anything, it should redirect here. --Fastfission 20:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I created the redirect. --Fastfission 20:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I pretty much agree with what you said above. I was just hesitant to get rid of the old article because I'm new here. --JeffAMcGee 00:23, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Not a problem. The other article was created by a well meaning user who was probably not aware the subject had been covered in detail here for some time. --Fastfission 03:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/t/o/Talk%7EAtomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki_Archive_3_5b90.html"