Was the use of the atomic bomb on Japan in WW2 a crime agaist humanity?

[Alan McDougall]

I am aware that there has already been a thread around this topic, but I would like to approach the topic from a different angle

Many politicians state that the use of the atomic bomb on Japan at the very end of WW2 was both a war crime and a crime against humanity,

I remember Oppenheimer s famous word "I am death the destroyer of world, we have known sin" like most of his peers he was appalled at the destructive power of the bomb.

What do the members of the forum have to say on the topic??

[Aedes]

Some points to consider:

1) The firebombing of Tokyo, Osaka, and numerous other Japanese (not to mention German) cities was far larger a human catastrophe than the two atomic bombs.

2) WW2 was an enormous, complex event that in itself can be seen as multiple unprecedented crimes against humanity. Some of them were utterly beyond a historical or moral justification -- the military aggressiveness, the genocides, the mass starvation of populations, the disruption of treaties. Others were performed for the primary purpose of ending the conflict. The mere fact that this question keeps getting asked should clue us in that whether or not we judge it as a crime, it was unquestionably a military tactic and strategic maneuver that had the undeniable purpose of ending hostilities with Japan.

You cannot make the same statement about the Rape of Nanking.

So I can't call it a crime against humanity in that same sense. It was less a crime against humanity than the Soviet-German land war, which consumed tens of millions of civilians from starvation, cold, and paramilitary violence. It was less a crime against humanity than the Siege of Leningrad, which killed 5-10 times the number who died in the atomic bombings combined. It was less a crime against humanity than the Japanese atrocities against Korea and Manchuria.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Alan McDougall

I am aware that there has already been a thread around this topic, but I would like to approach the topic from a different angle

Many politicians state that the use of the atomic bomb on Japan at the very end of WW2 was both a war crime and a crime against humanity,

I remember Oppenheimer s famous word "I am death the destroyer of world, we have known sin" like most of his peers he was appalled at the destructive power of the bomb.

What do the members of the forum have to say on the topic??

People can state whatever they like. But the notions of "war crime", and "crime against humanity" are fairly well-defined. The question is whether the dropping of the bomb falls under those definitions. Otherwise, the issue you raise becomes unresolvable.

---------- Post added 10-16-2009 at 08:34 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Aedes

Some points to consider:

1) The firebombing of Tokyo, Osaka, and numerous other Japanese (not to mention German) cities was far larger a human catastrophe than the two atomic bombs.

2) WW2 was an enormous, complex event that in itself can be seen as multiple unprecedented crimes against humanity. Some of them were utterly beyond a historical or moral justification -- the military aggressiveness, the genocides, the mass starvation of populations, the disruption of treaties. Others were performed for the primary purpose of ending the conflict. The mere fact that this question keeps getting asked should clue us in that whether or not we judge it as a crime, it was unquestionably a military tactic and strategic maneuver that had the undeniable purpose of ending hostilities with Japan.

You cannot make the same statement about the Rape of Nanking.

So I can't call it a crime against humanity in that same sense. It was less a crime against humanity than the Soviet-German land war, which consumed tens of millions of civilians from starvation, cold, and paramilitary violence. It was less a crime against humanity than the Siege of Leningrad, which killed 5-10 times the number who died in the atomic bombings combined. It was less a crime against humanity than the Japanese atrocities against Korea and Manchuria.

Of course, that X is worse than Y doesn't make Y not horrible too. Just not as horrible.

[Didymos Thomas]

If it is war, then it is horrible and criminal. Let's get that together first. There is no such thing as a just war, only some wars that become so terrible that they must be expanded so that they may be ended (the two world wars are fine examples).

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

If it is war, then it is horrible and criminal. Let's get that together first. There is no such thing as a just war, only some wars that become so terrible that they must be expanded so that they may be ended (the two world wars are fine examples).

Of course there is such a thing as a just war. The Second World war against Hitler was a just war. But the issue here is not whether the war itself was just. The issue here is whether the war was justly conducted, and, specifically, whether the dropping of the bomb was just. It is wrong to lump all wars together and just condemn them all. There are important differences, even if all wars are bad. The American Civil War, fought partly to end slavery is another case in point of a just war. There is a thread on the idea of a just war. I suggest you read it.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Of course, that X is worse than Y doesn't make Y not horrible too. Just not as horrible.

Missing the point.

The whole concept of Crimes against Humanity was conceived (along with War Crimes and Crimes against Peace) because of a certain basic level of protection for human life and well-being. No tactical act of war has ever been legally judged as a crime against humanity, to my knowledge. This is generally reserved for paramilitary or nonmilitary operations that occur outside the scope of the military engagement.

So the question is really whether it's a war crime, not a crime against humanity.

As an act of war the atomic bombs were unremarkable in scale -- they were remarkable only in efficiency and technology. I believe that indiscriminate bombing in general is a war crime, and the a-bombs were but two of countless such acts in WWII, a war that lacked precision bombing. Knowing what we do now about the effects of radiation, any subsequent use of them would be appropriately considered a war crime. But I'm not sure I can come to that judgment based on what was understood at the time.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Missing the point.

The whole concept of Crimes against Humanity was conceived (along with War Crimes and Crimes against Peace) because of a certain basic level of protection for human life and well-being. No tactical act of war has ever been legally judged as a crime against humanity, to my knowledge. This is generally reserved for paramilitary or nonmilitary operations that occur outside the scope of the military engagement.

So the question is really whether it's a war crime, not a crime against humanity.

As an act of war the atomic bombs were unremarkable in scale -- they were remarkable only in efficiency and technology. I believe that indiscriminate bombing in general is a war crime, and the a-bombs were but two of countless such acts in WWII, a war that lacked precision bombing. Knowing what we do now about the effects of radiation, any subsequent use of them would be appropriately considered a war crime. But I'm not sure I can come to that judgment based on what was understood at the time.

What point did I miss? I don't think I said whether or not it was either, nor that the issue was the one or the other. I simply pointed out that Whether X is worse than Y shows nothing about how bad Y was. So, even if X is worse than Y, and X is a war crime, Y may still be a war crime. Only not as bad as X. Therefore, arguing that Y is not a war crime because X is a war crime, and X is worse than Y, is fallacious. And I think that is what you were arguing.

[Aedes]

Again, both misreading and missing the point.

If our discussion is about whether X should fit a moral or legal principle, then you are guilty of arbitrariness when you exclude simultaneous events that were clearer examples of this principle.

If you want to argue that the bomb was a crime against humanity, then you are forced to justify why you haven't included a million other examples from WWII that people rarely contend to be such a crime.

[prothero]

Yes but WWII was full of crimes against humanity. War itself is a crime against humanity. At least the bomb had the effect of ending the war. Its not black or white but an ugly shade of gray.

[xris]

Bayoneting an unarmed enemy, is a crime but who would dare condemn that man if he had entered Auschwitz and seen the horrors. War is the most distasteful activity man can pursue but given certain circumstances we are all capable of criminal acts. Its never grey its black.