Should the nuclear bombing of japan in WW2 be considered a war crime?

@jackjjackson

For sure. Two wrongs don't make a right

The current version of the Geneva Convention was done in 1949 after the war. I’m having trouble finding exactly what WAS in effect then and if Japan was a signatory. There was a more limited 1907 Geneva Convention mostly related to maritime things (which makes sense based on the date) and some other international treaties.

A question similar to yours is whether mustard gas was a war crime in World War One. Another is whether sarin gas used in Syria and other places in the last ten years is a war crime. The easier answer to that one is that none of the sarin gas in incidents occurred during a declared war.

@Pikachu

@jackjjackson

Not really concerned what the international conventions were at the time. Of course the bombings were very significant to those conventions.
I'm asking if it should be considered a war crime, not was it considered a war crime.

Oh ok got it. A Hypothetical philosophical discussion . After reading a number of comments on this thread, it seems that the choice was having the Japanese kill hundreds of thousands resisting what would ultimately be a successfull invasion to end a war the Japanese started vs having roughly the same number of Japanese killed and no invaders killed ending the war the Japanese started.

Of course that wording is slanted but not necessarily tit for tat. I can see morality issues both ways. @Pikachu

@jackjjackson

I think it's pretty clearly a different situation.
Not wanting to place your own troops in harm's way does not make the slaughter of innocents not a war crime.
If they citizens took up arms and fought back then they become valid targets.

Children burning alive in their schoolrooms? Not so much.

A terrible dilemma and horrible choice. I’m glad I wasn’t involved. I’m not in a position to judge anyone from here on my sofa. @Pikachu

@jackjjackson

If you say so

Besides all of those involved in that are dead right?@Pikachu