Was it legal, under the rules of war, for the US to use nuclear weapons against Japan during WWII?

Answer 1

Well, it's hard to say. The bombs we used in the war were so new that we didn't fully understand what we were dealing with (with the exception of those who tested the weapons, they expressed that the weapons were inhumane, to the point that they were terrified of their use.) Due to how new they were, there weren't any regulations on that sort of weapon specifically.

But consider this... the bombs were what ended WW2. Hitler saw what ends we were willing to go to in a time of war. If we didn't develop and use the bombs, a majority of the world (if not it's entirety) would be living in Hitler's ideal society. Though Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible tragedies, they all played a vital role in halting Hitler's global campaign.

Answer 2

Since the atomic bomb was a brand-new weapon, there were no nuclear proliferation treaties to violate at that time. The numerous civilian deaths were very unfortunate, but Japan's Emperor Hirohito had declared that surrender was not an option, and an invasion would have cost far more lives. Using nuclear weapons would be suicide today, but in that situation it was considered to be the lesser of two evils.

Answer 3

Since the existence of nuclear weapons was a closely-guarded secret up to the point where Hiroshima was bombed, it is rather unlikely that any rules of war already in place would have covered such devices. In other words, it's sort of like making up an international convention right now that says you can't use human-level AI or wormholes during warfare. The technology doesn't exist yet, so we don't know enough about it to properly formulate any such rule.

Answer 4

Laws of War are very real. The Hague Conventions inthe early 1900's spells out what youcan and can not do in war.
The Geneva conventions after WWII were due in part to the stuff that all armies did during WWII. As for you question, I think most military lawyers well tell you that it was legal.

Answer 5

Rules of war are not actual real. We were attacked and to prevent huge losses in an invasion of Japan, we chose to use nuclear weapons to force a surrender by a country that specifically said surrender was not an option.

Answer 6

This is a question still open for interpretation.
Some in Japan see the Tokyo trials as "victors justice" specifically because the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were excluded. However, others argue that all is fair in love or war.

Answer 7

What we normally refer to as "The Rules of War"
is a propaganda tool.
The actual rule is "The Winner makes the Rules".
If you doubt this, look at recent history, (WW I on).
The plain truth is that war itself is unethical, but
try to get any Pol. to admit it.

Answer 8

?????..... Yes... even though there could have been no rules to cover that event because we were the first.... Exactly what "rule of war" were you thinking of?

Answer 9

I think you mean atomic weapons.

Answer 10

it was just as legal to drop the bomb, on the Japan, as it was for them to bomb the pearl harbor,.....