Though this act was horrific, in fact probably more then the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's overshadowed by the nuclear destruction of those two Japanese cities.

As Germans, do you feel the bombing was "illegal" like many of you feel about the bombing of the Japanese cities?

I only ask because I met this German who firmly believed that using nuclear weapons about Japan was "illegal". No matter how you feel about it, for or against, you can't say it was "illegal". Anti Nuke laws didn't exist.

But anyway, thoughts?

Basically I agree with you, since there where no laws aginst the use of nuclear weapons its was maximal immoral but not illegal at that times.

Practically! I invent a completely new weapon like a Faser, go out out and kill hundreds of people with it, and when I get accused I can say: "Hey what do you want? There is no law against fasering people!"



Well of course the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and even the complete destruction of Tokio before - there was nothing more to destroy for an atomic bomb) were crimes, as they have not been neccessary to decide the war or even shorten it. Bomber Harris was a war criminal - but any nation had its war criminals. I think the British people meanwhile admit that it was a crime to burn thousands of helpless fugitives and drive them into cooking asphalt.

But my impression is that most American people still think it was right to use the atomic bomb - even though it was mainly an experiment and demonstration of power.

You forgot one aspect, it was war at that time and bomardments as an act of war seemed to be ok too.

Therefore those were war crimes.

This post was last modified: 18.01.2008 12:54 by Malone.

Practically! I invent a completely new weapon like a Faser, go out out and kill hundreds of people with it, and when I get accused I can say: "Hey what do you want? There is no law against fasering people!"



Well of course the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and even the complete destruction of Tokio before - there was nothing more to destroy for an atomic bomb) were crimes, as they have not been neccessary to decide the war or even shorten it. Bomber Harris was a war criminal - but any nation had its war criminals. I think the British people meanwhile admit that it was a crime to burn thousands of helpless fugitives and drive them into cooking asphalt.

But my impression is that most American people still think it was right to use the atomic bomb - even though it was mainly an experiment and demonstration of power.

Fully agreement/Zustimmung!

War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:
2. The following acts as part of an international conflict:
2.1 Directing attacks against civilians

Attacking unarmed civlians is war crime, not much need to argue about that point, but i bet that every country who ever fought in a war killed at least 1 civilian no matter if it was an accident or intentional.

As far as i know it from the english wikipedia article a first version of such a court was founded 1948. The question know is, if there were international laws against attacking unarmed civilians before the founding of that court.

I think it's not a matter if it was a crime in a juristic sense, but in an ethical.

Alexander the "Great" crucified 6000 people - man, woman and children - after conquering Tyrus, in order to discourage other cities from resisting him. Well, there was no international law against crucifying thousands of people, but nevertheless you can't say that wasn't a crime.

There lies the difference, something is illegal if it violates law and something is unethical if it is against the common understanding of ethic. The devil lies in the detail.

@Cane

What is with the Holocaust?

Illegal?