Thread: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 62 years

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I hope you're not referring to the 40 million Chinese statistic who were not even borned.

No dear OOE I was not, nor was I aware of that statistic to be honest ... but then again 30 million Chinese died also under one of Mao's great Cultural-forward revolutions that caused a famine.

Originally Posted by xerxes

No dear OOE I was not, nor was I aware of that statistic to be honest ... but then again 30 million Chinese died also under one of Mao's great Cultural-forward revolutions that caused a famine.

And you fell into that trap. There was a famine but there is no record of people dying on mass. You can goto any village in China. They remember the hunger and that a few elderly and weak died from insufficient nutrition but there was never a case where entire villages disappeared from the face of the earth.

Look closely at how those stats were derived. They include people who were not even borned. Another words, if a couple decides not to have children, logical during lean times, that's 2.5 "deaths" according to the stat.

Originally Posted by xerxes

I disagree, Nanking or not, Project 736 or not, comfort girls or not ... Japan would have still be bombed into oblivion.The Empire of Japan could have been the kindest prisoner-keepers in the world and the most benevolent Imperial power, yet the the absolute neccessity to wage total war against them in order to achieve the UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER would have forced the American leadership to make the very same calls that they made during WWII.

Please, treat these threads seperatly. "kill the Japs" may have been the American battle cry for average soldeirs and civilians in the war in pacific, but the war waged by the Allied high command was NOT planned by fools, but by Timur Lang who saw it fit to build a pyramid made of 70,000 decapitated heads in order to ensure absolute and unconditional surrender and end to the resistance. The war against Japan was planned with the objective to achieve total victory and UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. No need to turn this into we-did-this-because-we-felt-sorry-for-poor-chinese. You did that because you (USA) wanted to win ... and the Japanese did the samething to Chinese because they wanted to break China and to install their emperor on the throne of the Middle Kingdom.

it wasn't about sympathy fpr the Chinese, but to show that Japan actions had legally opened her up to the same scale of retaliation against her whole population.

I disagree ... the contribution of Hitler and militristic Japanese to atrocities fall short that of Stalin and far from Mao

Estimates of Chinese dead during WW2 range from 15 million to 100 million. Of particular repugancy were the rice offnesives, they stole whole crops inducing famine on a massive scale.

Indeed ... I hope you would not blame your opponant to follow the same logic ... to be crafty and bloody at the sametime: Japanese occupation in China was meant to be brutal in order to break their will.

The differance is of course the justification. The Japanese were an agressor state, not one acting from a case jus ad bellum.

with warm regards as always, mr Zraver

Of course and warmly returned.

Originally Posted by FOG3

You know I have to ask, how is wiping out two minor cities in a legitimate war, against an aggressive country prone to war crimes and use of B-Class weaponry morally superior to what the USA did the CSA?

The Constitution was ratified with the ability to withdraw from it built in as established by the ratification process including that of Virginia.

That was a concept not agreed to by all members fo the Constitutional COnvention. And several Supreme Court cases over the next several decades in fact increased the power of the Federal over the States.

As for th ealleged war crimes of th eUSA against the CSA....the Confederates were in open rebellion against the Federal government....yet I don't remember anyone being executed for treason. And while not evenly applied, Federal commanders usually tried to protect property rights in most, but not all, areas they entered. There are numerous examples of Federal sldiers being punicshed for looting, murder, rape, etc.

Originally Posted by FOG3

The Constitution was ratified with the ability to withdraw from it built in as established by the ratification process including that of Virginia.

How do you figure?

The Articles of Confederation formed a "perpetual union", and the Constitution was written and adopted "to form a more perfect union."

So, where is this mechanism to withdraw? What article and paragraph?

If you want to refer to the Declaration of Independence, then you are invoking a moral argument about declaring independence, which is then self-defeating with regards to the rebellious southern states as the Declaration of Independence stated that all men were created equal, but the explicit, expressed purpose of the south to secede was to maintain the institution of slavery, an institution that is immoral. Pretty hard to invoke a morality argument over an immoral institution.

Shek, the right of secession was openly taught in such places as West Point into the late 1850's. The legality of the secession was attested to because the states had to be re-admitted to the union post war.

Originally Posted by zraver

Shek, the right of secession was openly taught in such places as West Point into the late 1850's. The legality of the secession was attested to because the states had to be re-admitted to the union post war.

Z,

From what I've seen, the right of secession was only taught during a single year, 1826, at West Point. Also, readmission doesn't attest to the legality of secesssion. It simply attests to the de facto (not de jure) secession of the rebellious Southern States.

Originally Posted by Shek

the Declaration of Independence stated that all men were created equal, but the explicit, expressed purpose of the south to secede was to maintain the institution of slavery, an institution that is immoral. Pretty hard to invoke a morality argument over an immoral institution.

Though it has nothing to do with your point, the North can't take the moral high ground on that issue either. Slavery was legal there at the time, and it's leader not only fought to make it constitutional, but enslaved his own people in a draft.

In his 1801 First Inaugural Address one of the first things Thomas Jefferson did was to support the right of secession. "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form," the author of the Declaration of Independence said, "let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

Amazon.com: View of the Constitution of the United States of America (American Constitutional and Legal History Series): Books: William Rawle

Jefferson and James Madison were the authors of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which held that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the states, nullification is the rightful remedy," and that every state has a right to "nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others. . ." Nullification of unconstitutional federal actions was a means of effectively seceding.

The election of 1800 was a battle between Jefferson and the supporters of limited, decentralized government and the Federalist Party, which advocated a more powerful and centralized state. The Federalists were so bitter about their electoral defeat that they immediately began plotting to secede from the Union. The important point about this episode is that this secession movement, which was based in New England, was led by some of the most distinguished men of the founding generation and was never opposed on principle by Jefferson or anyone else. It was argued that secession might have been an unwise strategy, but no one denied that states enjoyed a right of secession.

The leader of the New England secessionists was Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who had served as George Washington’s chief of staff, his secretary of war and secretary of state, as well as a congressman and senator from Massachusetts. "The principles of our Revolution [of 1776] point to the remedy – a separation," Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for "the people of he East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the Union and form a separate government," announced Senator James Hillhouse. Similar sentiments were expressed by such prominent New Englanders as Elbridge Gerry, John Quincy Adams, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy, and Joseph Story, among others.

The New England secession movement gained momentum for an entire decade, but ultimately failed at the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814. Throughout this struggle, wrote historian Edward Powell in Nullification and Secession in the United States, "the right of a state to withdraw from the Union was not disputed."

"If military force is used," the Bangor Daily Union wrote on November 13, 1860, then a state can only be seen "as a subject province and can never be a co-equal member of the American union."

Most of the top military commanders in the war (on both sides) were educated at West Point, where the one course on the U.S. Constitution was taught by the Philadelphia abolitionist William Rawle, who taught from his own book, A View of the Constitution. What Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and others were taught about secession at West Point was that to deny a state the right of secession "would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."

Lincoln never attended West Point, but he supported secession when it served his political plans. He warmly embraced the secession of West Virginia from Virginia, for example, and was glad to permit slavery in West Virginia (and all other "border states") as long as they supported him politically. Indeed, in a July 4, 1848 speech Lincoln said, "Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right." Lincoln biographers never seem to get around to quoting this particular speech.

Secession and Liberty

View of the Constitution of the United States of America (American Constitutional and Legal History Series) (Hardcover)
by William Rawle (Author)
Editorial Reviews

Book Description
Rawle, William. A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. Second Edition. Philadelphia: Philip H. Nicklin, 1829. viii, 349 pp. Reprint available 2003 by The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. LCCN 2002044387. ISBN 1-58477-331-6. Cloth. $75. This treatise is one of the earliest works on the subject of the United States Constitution, and one of the most important. Rawle presents the view that states have a legal right to secede from the union. Cohen observes that the popularity of this text, which was used at West Point and other schools throughout the country, "is generally considered to have influenced the leaders and supporters of the Confederacy, although in fact Rawle opposed secession." Cohen, Bibliography of Early American Law 2893. Rawle [1759-1836] was a pillar of Pennsylvania's legal establishment and a highly regarded attorney and educator.

Originally Posted by zraver

Most of the top military commanders in the war (on both sides) were educated at West Point, where the one course on the U.S. Constitution was taught by the Philadelphia abolitionist William Rawle, who taught from his own book, A View of the Constitution. What Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and others were taught about secession at West Point was that to deny a state the right of secession "would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."

Unless we are talking about some other United States of America, constitutional law professors don't make the laws.

Indeed, in a July 4, 1848 speech Lincoln said, "Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right." Lincoln biographers never seem to get around to quoting this particular speech.

The operative word being PEOPLE. Not the several states. Most certainly the people who ordained and established the constitution can abolish it. There is provision for constitutional conventions which could do just that. Through the constitutional convention process, the several states become involved as they determine how their own convention is constituted. Further an amendment must pass three quarters of the state conventions to become law. In the alternative, the state legislatures could act on amendments proposed by the congress. It is in this manner that the make up of the union can be changed, not by armed rebellion. While the southern states convened conventions, they did not constitute the two thirds needed to compel a national constitutional convention. Nor did they obtain the needed three quarters vote among the several states for secession. Had the southern states obtained the consent of three quarters of the state constitutional conventions they could have left and there would have been nothing the federal government could have done about it. They did not obtain the needed three quarters vote. Thus, the federal government and the loyal states right to use force to quell the rebellion.

Originally Posted by zraver

it wasn't about sympathy fpr the Chinese, but to show that Japan actions had legally opened her up to the same scale of retaliation against her whole population.

Z,

Would you mind clearing up this point? I am not aware of anything in the GC, Haque, and Law of Land Warfare that allows for tit-for-tat genocide.

Z,
Thanks for your above post. I'll start with Rawle's book. Since you highligted 1829, I believe to question how it could be taught in 1826, the edition being sold on Amazon.com is the second edition. The original was printed in 1825:

Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to wit.

BE IT REMEMBERED, That on the twenty-ninth day of January, in the forty-ninth year of the Independence of the United States of America, A. D. 1825, WILLIAM RAWLE, Esquire, of the said district, has deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof he claims as author in the words following, to wit:

"A View of the Constitution of the United States of America By William Rawle"

Next, I'm not a big fan of DiLorenzo, and I will give a couple of examples. First, he gets the date of Lincoln's "right to revolution" speech wrong. Instead of being spoken on the 4th of July, it was on the 12th of January in 1848. Maybe one might think this is trivial, but when you add it to the fact that he provides no context to the quote and then drops off the next sentence where he places revolution in the context "to liberate the world" (how should treat it in the context of a "liberation" that ensures slaves are not liberated, but remain enslaved), I think that the piece is on very shaky ground. There are plenty of other statements that Lincoln made with regards to revolution and law prior to following portion of his first inaugural address that would demonstrate that Lincoln didn't just come up with flip-flop policy to justify his desired position in 1861:

If, by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution-certainly would, if such right were a vital one. This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember, or overthrowit [italics Lincoln's].

Furthermore, let's dissect what Jefferson said:

"If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety,

In otherwords, do not come to blows over speech. Let people dissent.

with which error of opinion may be tolerated

This portion talks about letting those who want to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form dissent, even though their opinions are wrong. In other words, Jefferson is stating the exact opposite of what DiLorenzo claims. Far from supporting secession in this passage from his first inauguration speech, he actually says that they are wrong but that we should allow them their speech. Why?

where reason is left free to combat it."

Because with reason, it can be combatted.

However, DiLorenzo's sloppiness doesn't end there. He then tries to argue that Jefferson and Madison de facto supported secession. However, nowhere in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions exists any language about secession. Nowhere do they speak of breaking up the Union. Instead, they sought to prevent any such secession by trying to draw a clearer line between federal powers and state powers vis a vis the alien and sedition acts.

Proportionality
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. The force used must be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the possible good that may come. The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation's claim to justness of a war it initiated

Hauge 1907 Art 24 To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

Thats about it as far as pre-WW2 goes, and while the hauge bans the bombardment of cities, military nessicity has always had supremecy.

1949 Geneva Convention

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

Since the US dropped the bombs seperately and waitied on a Japanese responce (surrender) the argument can be made thay they sought a legal and useful miltiary role under (b) that outweighed (a) and (b) clearly outwieghed the civillian suferign that would have followed an invasion and years of brutal fighting to subjagate the islands.

"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)"~ Luis Moreno-Ocampo Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court

Proportionality (law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Here is a good read on the subject.

Proportionality in the Modern Law of War: An Unenforceable Norm, or the Answer to our Dilemma?