Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Was the bombing of Japan consistent with international law?

  • Japanese WWII bombings were in self-defense

    Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was consistent with international law. WWII was a time of do-or-die politics, The Japanese took it into their own hands to throw the first punch at the United States, and our country had a right to retaliate. There was nothing against international law for bombing a Nazi-sympathizing country in self-defense.

  • Yes, it was lawful.

    Yes, the bombing of Japan was consistent with international law, because it was an extreme act in the middle of a war. It cannot be said by any stretch of the imagination that the bombing of Japan was not in retaliation to provocation. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the United States only responded. It was consistent with international law that allows responding in force.

  • The bombing of Japan was consistent with international law.

    The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not moral, but it was consistent with international law. The United States had declared war on the Empire of Japan, and it is acceptable to bomb countries that you are at war with. Japan started the war, and they invited the ensuing invasion.

  • Yes. Bombing Japan was within the law.

    Yes. The act of dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was within international law at that time. Because that particular weapons technology was unknown by everyone except the United States at that time, there would not have been any written law regarding the use of atomic weapons in times of war.

  • Yes, There was no precedent for this kind of action

    Regardless of how horrible the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, there was no precedent for it. Up until then people were fighting from trenches, hand to hand, and at the furthest distance, from planes dropping hand crafted bombs capable of destroying maybe the side of a building. This level of destruction was never planned for so was never banned. Directly afterwards laws WERE made.

  • No, Bombing was a violation

    International law lays down the principle that belligerent nations are not entitled to
    unlimited choice in the means by which to destroy their opponents.
    With that being said you have to answer for what you do in this world there is always a reaction to what you do. An atomic bomb is not a way to destroy your opponent no matter what.

  • The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski was not consistent with international laws.

    No, the act of bombing the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States was not consistent with international law. The Americans did not have a right to launch an attack on sovereign territory. With that in mind, Japan did not have the right to attack the U.S. at Pearl Harbor either.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.