2 ms·
> We did? Where? The Geneva Conventions were updated partly in response to the Japan bombings. You can quibble how exactly the criteria my casual summary of "m
by fulafel 3y ago
> We did? Where?
The Geneva Conventions were updated partly in response to the Japan bombings.
You can quibble how exactly the criteria my casual summary of "mass kill civilians to save military casualties" but broadly the Japan style bombing of cities full of civilians was made illegal.
See eg:
https://fsi.stanford.edu/news/why-atomic-bombing-hiroshima-would-be-illegal-today https://fsi.stanford.edu/news/why-atomic-bombing-hiroshima-w...
- refurb 3y agoThat’s an opinion piece. It attempts to “infer” the purpose of bombing from select statements like a Presidential speech. It’s not all that convincing. But regardless the point stands. Proportionality is a subjective rather than objective measure. The paper claims that “less than 10% of the individuals killed were military personnel”. Ok, so what percentage makes the bombing legal? 50%? 90%? What if based on all available information the death toll was estimated at 90% but it turns out to be 70%? Is it still illegal? And could you even reliably determine the number? Is someone in the military a civilian because they took their uniform off and went home for the night?