5 ms·

Under which conditions is nuking a city not a horrific warcrime?

defrost 1y ago
Under which conditions is nuking a city any more or less a horrific warcrime than the destruction of city via HE and incendiary bombs? Recall that 72 Japanese cities, including Tokyo, were destroyed prior to Hiroshima, which was on a target list to be destroyed whether by atomic or conventional means already. https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/09/22/tokyo-hiroshima/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/09/22/tokyo-hiroshima/ Outside of Japan many other cities received the same treatment, famously but not only Dresden.
- ekianjo 1y ago
  those are all war crimes but the victors never get prosecuted.
  - throwanem 1y ago
    Best not to lose a war. Having started it, doubly so. Signed, a Mississippi son.
  - lenerdenator 1y ago
    Most war criminals don't get meaningfully prosecuted, victor or defeated. International law is more of a series of suggestions and norms than an actual set of codes one must operate by lest they spend time in prison. Nations have the ability to dodge them, so they do. It's that way from war crimes to counterfeiting to freedom of navigation on the high seas. Is it right? No. Should we do better? Yeah. Is rehashing something that happened in 1945 going to do anything for today? Not at all, unless we're going to start rehashing other things along the way, like the status of Imperial Japanese commanders in war dead shrines and a lot of other things.
  - nelox 1y ago
    No, the firebombing of cities (e.g. Dresden, Tokyo) and the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not legally considered war crimes under international law as it stood, which is why they could not have been and were not prosecuted.
    - Synaesthesia 1y ago
      They are horrendous war crimes. The only reason they aren't called as such is we were the victors. The conduct of the allies in WW2 was atrocious.
      - bigDinosaur 1y ago
        What's the moral lesson: if we have a WW3, don't target civilians? What if our enemies are doing exactly that without compunction? What if civilians and military infrastructure are colocated? What if those civilians simply want us all to die and will work to any ends for that result (e.g. they may have been effectively brainwashed as the allies were indeed preparing for with Japan)? It's not that the answers are morally good, but rather if you're already in a world war then the ethical part (diplomacy) has already failed and it's just going to be the degree of horrific things, not their absence, that we have to plan for.
        Synaesthesia 1y ago
        Targeting civilians is a war crime. No excuse for that. Targeting civilians in places like Tokyo or Dresden didn't even help the war cause much. The Soviet Union defeated the Nazis without mass bombings of German cities. Yes war is the supreme crime and what we should avoid in the first place. Still there are different ways you can conduct war. A nuclear exchange would necessarily target civilians and be unlike anything before in history. It's a nightmare scenario that has to be opposed at all cost.
        defrost 1y ago
        > The Soviet Union defeated the Nazis without mass bombings of German cities. In our shared reality(?) the Soviet Union defeated the Nazi's in parallel with the mass bombing of industrial areas, factories, ports, dams, and general war making infrastructure, much of which was within German cities. The Soviet Union defeated an increasingly under supplied resource starved German military.
  - throw0101d 1y ago
    > those are all war crimes but the victors never get prosecuted. Neither did (some of) the losers in the case of Japan * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 * https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)02682-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
  - to11mtm 1y ago
    No, but interestingly at least one case of Allies doing a 'war crime' was used as a defense in the Nuremberg Trials; Karl Dönitz was convicted of unrestricted Submarine warfare, however since both Britain and the US were doing the same, they more or less let it slide.
nelox 1y ago
Throwing around these terms without understanding, how and why they apply is foolhardy. The use of nuclear weapons is not explicitly prohibited under current international law, and is not automatically classified as a war crime per se. Their use could constitute a war crime depending on the circumstances, especially if they violate core principles of international humanitarian law (IHL).
- kketch 1y ago
  How could detonating a nuke over a city not violate humanitarian law … ?
  - defrost 1y ago
    Is it the means (atomic bomb) or the destruction that raise that question for you? Tokyo had a higher death toll from conventional bombing and incendiaries, and Dresden raised the question of whether destruction of a city was justified. Japan had 72 cities destroyed prior to Hiroshima, which was on the "to be destroyed" list before the wider military outside of the Manhattan project knew of the atomic bomb. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
  - nelox 1y ago
    The only conceivable (and highly hypothetical) way a nuclear detonation over a city might not violate IHL would require a very narrow set of improbable conditions, which are highly theoretical and borderline implausible in reality. Empty city scenario: The city is completely evacuated (e.g. warning issued and civilians withdrawn). The target is a purely military installation (e.g. underground command center, missile base). A low-yield nuclear weapon is used with tightly controlled fallout and blast effects. Extremis Self-Defense: The attacking state faces an existential threat (e.g. imminent nuclear attack from another state). A nuclear weapon is used as a last resort, targeting a high-value military asset in a city. The attacker argues that this was the only available means to defend itself. Hypothetical “Clean” Nuclear Technology: Some future nuclear weapon is designed with minimal blast, heat, and no residual radiation. It targets a completely isolated, fortified military position within a city. Civilians have been evacuated, and the use is precisely calibrated to avoid harm. But this is where the fantasy ends. Cities are full of civilians. Nuclear weapons cannot distinguish civilian from combatant. Blast radius, thermal radiation, EMP, and fallout affect vast areas, even with “low-yield” weapons. Hospitals, schools, water systems, food supply chains would all be devastated. Environmental destruction and long-term radiation would cause unnecessary suffering. The attack would likely violate the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, the principle of proportionality, and environmental protections (under Additional Protocol I).
ForOldHack 1y ago
When the alternatives of nationalism are to fight to the very last man, and cause 8 times the number of casualties. ( Perhaps somewhat more...). Hirohito knew that the military was going to do that.
- _trampeltier 1y ago
  With your logic, it would be ok for Isreal to nuke Gaza now ond for Russia to nuke the Ukraine.
  - mrheosuper 1y ago
    If UKR was fascist and on the path to genocide everywhere, it's acceptable to nuke them.
  - nelox 1y ago
    Again, no, not necessarily a war crime.
  - wiseowise 1y ago
    Both Israel and Russia are aggressors in the wars. It’s really not comparable. Would Ukraine have every right to use atom bomb if it had one? Absolutely.
    - albulab 1y ago
      "Both Israel and Russia are aggressors" Yeah, for anyone with more then one functioning brain cell, Russia attacked Ukraine. Gaza attacked Israel. Both Muslims and Russia are the same axis.
  - albulab 1y ago
    Gaza is an existential threat to Israel more then Japan ever was to the U.S. so, yeah.
- kketch 1y ago
  You are saying the responsibility for the instant incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians lies with the bombed, and not the bomber?
yard2010 1y ago
This is a fallacy, not that you're not right, but what is the alternative? The alternative is never "just do nothing and everyone lives" Life isn't about choosing the best option but choosing the lesser evil imo
brabel 1y ago
Never. They could have blockaded Japan. They could have negotiated with the Russians, as at the time they were “sharing” Germany and were more or less on the same side. They could even just go home, Japan was already no military threat after the horrific fire bombing. The fact that they chose to do the unthinkable, and that Americans defend that decision to this day, goes to show what kind of people they really are. They only seek peace and diplomacy when it’s other people’s wars.
- wiseowise 1y ago
  > They could have negotiated with the Russians And got second Korea in the long run? No, thanks.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- snickerbockers 1y ago
  America also could've just ditched Europe and let the Nazis rebuild their empire if that's what you want.
  - brabel 1y ago
    The Soviets would almost certainly have taken Berlin either way, given they were fighting 80% of the Nazi Army, while all of the Western Front was concerned only with the "minor" side. Thinking America saved Europe in WWII is one of the many misconceptions perpetuated to this day about the War.
    - snickerbockers 1y ago
      Well if all that counts is who's fighting >= 51% of the Axis, then you have to take into consideration that the USSR didn't even join the Asian theater until the day after Hiroshima happened despite sharing a border with Imperial Japan and having struggled through a brutal war of attrition with the Japanese just a couple decades earlier. This idea you and many other armchair historians have that the USSR can solo 1v1 the axis powers and win isn't any less naive than saying America saved Europe, because it ignores the significant amounts of foreign aid that the US donated to other allied nations. This includes the USSR, who would not have been able to carry out a successful war of attrition against the Germans without a consistent pipeline of supplies and weapons. It certainly would not have been able to win a war on two fronts if the Japanese felt free to invade the soviet far east. I will concede that the Chinese deserve way more credit than they generally get for waging their own war of attrition against the Japanese which prevented them from going to war in the soviet far east, but that was also made possible with significant American logistical support. But more importantly, you seem to have an oddly eurocentric view of history in which the european theater is the only one of any import. Japan's eventual defeat was never a foregone conclusion, and they were just as cruel to their conquered foes as the Germans were. They were also the only Axis that posed a credible threat to the United States, having successfully established a foothold in the Aleutian Islands with an aim towards invading Canada and the United States. Realistically I don't think it ever would have worked (again, they were pre-occupied with China) but they certainly have a better track record of attacking the North American continent than the krauts ever did.
snickerbockers 1y ago
It definitely is a warcrime, but just about every major battle in WWII is a war-crime by modern standards. The concept of warcrimes exists largely because we don't ever want WWII to happen again. Before that there were geneva conventions which defined war crimes but they were far more limited to the extent that even the Nazis were able to come up with supposed justifications for much of what they did based around [according to them, at least] their having not violated the geneva conventions which existed at the time. Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined weren't even the biggest war crimes committed by America against the Japanese. I'm avoiding mentioning war-crimes committed by the other side because I don't want to inadvertently make the fallacious argument that they would somehow justify the war crimes we committed, but the argument I do want to make is that these sorts of arguments should be based around who was killed. Torture is an exception to this because it implies the deliberate infliction of more pain than is necessary to kill the victim, but these sorts of discussions should never be based around the choice of weapon. When I see people constantly criticize the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki at a far greater rate than similar-scale events such as the repeated firebombings of tokyo or even "normal" battles with massive collateral damage such as Okinawa or Berlin it seems to me that the implication is that you would've been fine with America killing 250k people as long as we had done so with conventional weapons.
dsego 1y ago
It was total war (1), all civilian infrastructure was there to facilitate the war, all bets were off. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
throw0101d 1y ago
> Under which conditions is nuking a city not a horrific warcrime? When the alternative was millions of Japanese dead instead of a few hundred thousand. (Never mind American lives, or all of those living under Japanese rule in Manchuria, etc.)

Under which conditions is nuking a city any more or less a horrific warcrime than the destruction of city via HE and incendiary bombs? Recall that 72 Japanese cities, including Tokyo, were destroyed prior to Hiroshima, which was on a target list to be destroyed whether by atomic or conventional means already. https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/09/22/tokyo-hiroshima/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/09/22/tokyo-hiroshima/ Outside of Japan many other cities received the same treatment, famously but not only Dresden.

ekianjo 1y ago
those are all war crimes but the victors never get prosecuted.
- throwanem 1y ago
  Best not to lose a war. Having started it, doubly so. Signed, a Mississippi son.
- lenerdenator 1y ago
  Most war criminals don't get meaningfully prosecuted, victor or defeated. International law is more of a series of suggestions and norms than an actual set of codes one must operate by lest they spend time in prison. Nations have the ability to dodge them, so they do. It's that way from war crimes to counterfeiting to freedom of navigation on the high seas. Is it right? No. Should we do better? Yeah. Is rehashing something that happened in 1945 going to do anything for today? Not at all, unless we're going to start rehashing other things along the way, like the status of Imperial Japanese commanders in war dead shrines and a lot of other things.
- nelox 1y ago
  No, the firebombing of cities (e.g. Dresden, Tokyo) and the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not legally considered war crimes under international law as it stood, which is why they could not have been and were not prosecuted.
  - Synaesthesia 1y ago
    They are horrendous war crimes. The only reason they aren't called as such is we were the victors. The conduct of the allies in WW2 was atrocious.
    - bigDinosaur 1y ago
      What's the moral lesson: if we have a WW3, don't target civilians? What if our enemies are doing exactly that without compunction? What if civilians and military infrastructure are colocated? What if those civilians simply want us all to die and will work to any ends for that result (e.g. they may have been effectively brainwashed as the allies were indeed preparing for with Japan)? It's not that the answers are morally good, but rather if you're already in a world war then the ethical part (diplomacy) has already failed and it's just going to be the degree of horrific things, not their absence, that we have to plan for.
      - Synaesthesia 1y ago
        Targeting civilians is a war crime. No excuse for that. Targeting civilians in places like Tokyo or Dresden didn't even help the war cause much. The Soviet Union defeated the Nazis without mass bombings of German cities. Yes war is the supreme crime and what we should avoid in the first place. Still there are different ways you can conduct war. A nuclear exchange would necessarily target civilians and be unlike anything before in history. It's a nightmare scenario that has to be opposed at all cost.
        defrost 1y ago
        > The Soviet Union defeated the Nazis without mass bombings of German cities. In our shared reality(?) the Soviet Union defeated the Nazi's in parallel with the mass bombing of industrial areas, factories, ports, dams, and general war making infrastructure, much of which was within German cities. The Soviet Union defeated an increasingly under supplied resource starved German military.
- throw0101d 1y ago
  > those are all war crimes but the victors never get prosecuted. Neither did (some of) the losers in the case of Japan * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 * https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)02682-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
- to11mtm 1y ago
  No, but interestingly at least one case of Allies doing a 'war crime' was used as a defense in the Nuremberg Trials; Karl Dönitz was convicted of unrestricted Submarine warfare, however since both Britain and the US were doing the same, they more or less let it slide.

nelox 1y ago

Throwing around these terms without understanding, how and why they apply is foolhardy. The use of nuclear weapons is not explicitly prohibited under current international law, and is not automatically classified as a war crime per se. Their use could constitute a war crime depending on the circumstances, especially if they violate core principles of international humanitarian law (IHL).

kketch 1y ago
How could detonating a nuke over a city not violate humanitarian law … ?
- defrost 1y ago
  Is it the means (atomic bomb) or the destruction that raise that question for you? Tokyo had a higher death toll from conventional bombing and incendiaries, and Dresden raised the question of whether destruction of a city was justified. Japan had 72 cities destroyed prior to Hiroshima, which was on the "to be destroyed" list before the wider military outside of the Manhattan project knew of the atomic bomb. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
- nelox 1y ago
  The only conceivable (and highly hypothetical) way a nuclear detonation over a city might not violate IHL would require a very narrow set of improbable conditions, which are highly theoretical and borderline implausible in reality. Empty city scenario: The city is completely evacuated (e.g. warning issued and civilians withdrawn). The target is a purely military installation (e.g. underground command center, missile base). A low-yield nuclear weapon is used with tightly controlled fallout and blast effects. Extremis Self-Defense: The attacking state faces an existential threat (e.g. imminent nuclear attack from another state). A nuclear weapon is used as a last resort, targeting a high-value military asset in a city. The attacker argues that this was the only available means to defend itself. Hypothetical “Clean” Nuclear Technology: Some future nuclear weapon is designed with minimal blast, heat, and no residual radiation. It targets a completely isolated, fortified military position within a city. Civilians have been evacuated, and the use is precisely calibrated to avoid harm. But this is where the fantasy ends. Cities are full of civilians. Nuclear weapons cannot distinguish civilian from combatant. Blast radius, thermal radiation, EMP, and fallout affect vast areas, even with “low-yield” weapons. Hospitals, schools, water systems, food supply chains would all be devastated. Environmental destruction and long-term radiation would cause unnecessary suffering. The attack would likely violate the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, the principle of proportionality, and environmental protections (under Additional Protocol I).

ForOldHack 1y ago

When the alternatives of nationalism are to fight to the very last man, and cause 8 times the number of casualties. ( Perhaps somewhat more...). Hirohito knew that the military was going to do that.

_trampeltier 1y ago
With your logic, it would be ok for Isreal to nuke Gaza now ond for Russia to nuke the Ukraine.
- mrheosuper 1y ago
  If UKR was fascist and on the path to genocide everywhere, it's acceptable to nuke them.
- nelox 1y ago
  Again, no, not necessarily a war crime.
- wiseowise 1y ago
  Both Israel and Russia are aggressors in the wars. It’s really not comparable. Would Ukraine have every right to use atom bomb if it had one? Absolutely.
  - albulab 1y ago
    "Both Israel and Russia are aggressors" Yeah, for anyone with more then one functioning brain cell, Russia attacked Ukraine. Gaza attacked Israel. Both Muslims and Russia are the same axis.
- albulab 1y ago
  Gaza is an existential threat to Israel more then Japan ever was to the U.S. so, yeah.
kketch 1y ago
You are saying the responsibility for the instant incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians lies with the bombed, and not the bomber?

yard2010 1y ago

This is a fallacy, not that you're not right, but what is the alternative? The alternative is never "just do nothing and everyone lives" Life isn't about choosing the best option but choosing the lesser evil imo

brabel 1y ago

Never. They could have blockaded Japan. They could have negotiated with the Russians, as at the time they were “sharing” Germany and were more or less on the same side. They could even just go home, Japan was already no military threat after the horrific fire bombing. The fact that they chose to do the unthinkable, and that Americans defend that decision to this day, goes to show what kind of people they really are. They only seek peace and diplomacy when it’s other people’s wars.

wiseowise 1y ago
> They could have negotiated with the Russians And got second Korea in the long run? No, thanks.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
snickerbockers 1y ago
America also could've just ditched Europe and let the Nazis rebuild their empire if that's what you want.
- brabel 1y ago
  The Soviets would almost certainly have taken Berlin either way, given they were fighting 80% of the Nazi Army, while all of the Western Front was concerned only with the "minor" side. Thinking America saved Europe in WWII is one of the many misconceptions perpetuated to this day about the War.
  - snickerbockers 1y ago
    Well if all that counts is who's fighting >= 51% of the Axis, then you have to take into consideration that the USSR didn't even join the Asian theater until the day after Hiroshima happened despite sharing a border with Imperial Japan and having struggled through a brutal war of attrition with the Japanese just a couple decades earlier. This idea you and many other armchair historians have that the USSR can solo 1v1 the axis powers and win isn't any less naive than saying America saved Europe, because it ignores the significant amounts of foreign aid that the US donated to other allied nations. This includes the USSR, who would not have been able to carry out a successful war of attrition against the Germans without a consistent pipeline of supplies and weapons. It certainly would not have been able to win a war on two fronts if the Japanese felt free to invade the soviet far east. I will concede that the Chinese deserve way more credit than they generally get for waging their own war of attrition against the Japanese which prevented them from going to war in the soviet far east, but that was also made possible with significant American logistical support. But more importantly, you seem to have an oddly eurocentric view of history in which the european theater is the only one of any import. Japan's eventual defeat was never a foregone conclusion, and they were just as cruel to their conquered foes as the Germans were. They were also the only Axis that posed a credible threat to the United States, having successfully established a foothold in the Aleutian Islands with an aim towards invading Canada and the United States. Realistically I don't think it ever would have worked (again, they were pre-occupied with China) but they certainly have a better track record of attacking the North American continent than the krauts ever did.

snickerbockers 1y ago

It definitely is a warcrime, but just about every major battle in WWII is a war-crime by modern standards. The concept of warcrimes exists largely because we don't ever want WWII to happen again. Before that there were geneva conventions which defined war crimes but they were far more limited to the extent that even the Nazis were able to come up with supposed justifications for much of what they did based around [according to them, at least] their having not violated the geneva conventions which existed at the time. Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined weren't even the biggest war crimes committed by America against the Japanese. I'm avoiding mentioning war-crimes committed by the other side because I don't want to inadvertently make the fallacious argument that they would somehow justify the war crimes we committed, but the argument I do want to make is that these sorts of arguments should be based around who was killed. Torture is an exception to this because it implies the deliberate infliction of more pain than is necessary to kill the victim, but these sorts of discussions should never be based around the choice of weapon. When I see people constantly criticize the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki at a far greater rate than similar-scale events such as the repeated firebombings of tokyo or even "normal" battles with massive collateral damage such as Okinawa or Berlin it seems to me that the implication is that you would've been fine with America killing 250k people as long as we had done so with conventional weapons.

dsego 1y ago

It was total war (1), all civilian infrastructure was there to facilitate the war, all bets were off. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

throw0101d 1y ago

> Under which conditions is nuking a city not a horrific warcrime? When the alternative was millions of Japanese dead instead of a few hundred thousand. (Never mind American lives, or all of those living under Japanese rule in Manchuria, etc.)