I am not excusing me as I think you are arguing like Nazis.
I never said you are a Nazi although you have strong biases against Germans and Japanese, like your ww2 global campaigns are showing, too.
Also the Holocaust is a crime without a match.
But back to rational facts.
Anyway the major error here is that it is said there were only industrial targets bombed.
Indeed that is plainly wrong for the British and partly for the US.
Bomber Harris himself admitted that except Essen the civilian population was the main target. Everything else were "sweets".
Also to destroy factories you do not have to make a firestorm in cities as such is only suitable for killing civilians and not really to destroy a single factory.
So yes, in the latter case as well as your Warspite example the death of civilians as collateral damages are no warcrime but more accidents.
But here civilians were attacked intentionally.
And what this guy said is as wrong as your remark about new international law made at Nuremberg and that being all relevant.
Indeed there were the Hague conventions. As the Nuremberg Trials said they were also in force in ww2.
Thus attacking civilians was forbidden strongly.
You had to protect civilians as much as you could, including enemy ones.
And yes, even if there is a military target in a town you have to abandon all attacks if the civilian death toll is too big.
And 100.000 people dying for a yard or so is too big. It is out of relevation.
That there was no mentioning in the trials has more to do with own guilt than with the fact of punishing a war crime.
You also said all these towns were defended by flak and thus legitime targets.
So we agree that the rules of 1907 were outdated in 1940 or 1945.
You could not have thought about the warfare abilities of 1940 or even 1945.
Thus we have to ask for the telos of the rules of protecting undefended cities.
The sense in them is to protect the civilians. Only in the case of an army fighting to take a defended town the rule should not be in force. T
hus you want to take a defended town you can bomb it with all means but still keeping in mind the civilian death toll.
At some point it is not allowed.
But here we had defended cities. Yes, true. But these cities were not shortly before being attacked. These cities were in the core of the enemy homelands. Far away from the front. Also the attacks we talk about were against the population.
Thus they were violating the Hague conventions in many ways.
So the defense against these attacks is allowed without losing the protection of the Hague conventions.
That means an undefended town may have defenses against unlawful attacks.
So without having a fitting article you come to the same result. As such a crime existed before it is not violating the nulla poena rule.
KD, even if the expected death tolls for an invasion were true, you still have to accept that the dropping of the bomb was the ultima ratio.
Thus you have to make every other possibility to be in vain before dropping the bomb.
That was not done.
There were no negotiations,
no dropping of the bomb on a military target
or an uninhabited area nor,
in the case of Nagasaki, enough time to really think over all possibilities for the Japanese government.
Thus the bombings were a crime.
The points you give here are irrelevant as there were more possibilities to end the war before the dropping of the bomb had an invasion as only alternative.
At last: The crimes made in the Holocaust and Japanese crimes were the worst in history, matched by only few others. But that does not mean that they are justifying other crimes.
Adler
So, we begin by announcing our unrepentant position for flaming, without any support or reason. Charming. If you feel it is acceptable to call people Nazis, or attempt to wriggle around the direct term by saying they are 'arguing like Nazis' without providing a single justification, then you reap what you sow.
I could barely consider that you are being serious here. Let me see if we can get this right - you are trying to base a characterization of my political beliefs and historical stance based on a computer game? It beggars belief that someone could in all credulity suggest such a thing. For your information, I have never had any issues with any Germans previously, nor Japanese for that matter. I'm sorry to burst your bubble there, but your position here is a fallacy in and of itself.
No one has suggested anything else. Indeed, no one bought the matter up until you raised it with your rather disgusting slight.
Ah, to be so teasing with promising us rationality and facts, and then proceeding to follow with a procession of flawed reasoning, fallacious arguments, baseless emotional conclusions and clumsily constructed houses of cards.
No one has ever suggested only industrial targets were bombed. Rather, it was the industry and war production capacities and facilities that were
targetted - this distinction may be difficult for some, but is straightforward. We need to consider the accuracy of the technology of the time, and the means of taking the fight to the enemy.
How is it 'plainly wrong' for the RAF and the USAAF, given what is pointed out above? This is an example of your excessive rhetorical style, whereby you resort to superlatives on a frequent basis. This does nothing for your arguments. Both Allied air forces carried out a great multitude of operations against industrial targets during the war.
Please present a citation of Sir Arthur Harris saying that every raid, save Essen, launched by Bomber Command during his tenure was focused on the civilian population. This sets aside for the moment what that civilian population is doing
Fire is the most efficient way of really destroying a factory and rendering its machine tools unworkable. Not just blowing the roof off, but creating a very high temperature situation that destroys the factory, its power supplies, and all its secondary facilities (including documents). Dehousing is part of this approach.
So, it is established that under the only applicable convention of the time, bombardments were not warcrimes. What is aerial bombing and indeed strategic bombing other than long range bombardment? It is targetted at the enemy centres of gravity and seeks to destroy their warmaking capabilities.
Please provide proof that the USAAF deliberately chose civilians as the primary target for the atomic bombings. Once again, you select a word that is the most extreme in the spectrum, without any support.
By this guy, I presume you are referring to the quotation on 'The Law of Air Warfare'. You assert that this is wrong. You have not presented any proof to support this assertion. Indeed, you would be hard pressed to do so, as there is none. There were no agreements, treaties or conventions on the treatment of civilians - that is the gist of what he says, and it is patently correct. The Hague Conventions did not deal with the protection of civilians.
Therefore, your claim is erroneous. It does help to check the facts, even if they are not in your favour.
"Thus attacking civilians was forbidden strongly.
You had to protect civilians as much as you could, including enemy ones. "
These points, are, as above, plainly wrong. They are at odds with the facts. It may be your personal opinion, but that has no bearing on cold, hard historical truth. If you are able to pinpoint the sections in the Hague Conventions which refer to the protection of civilians that seem to have eluded the author of the article and the subsequent editors from the Red Cross, not to mention other sources, please feel free to do so.
State it in clear, unadultered terms, without avoiding the issue or twisting the situation.
Once again, your next point on civilian casualty rates is disproved. More than disproved, actually. You are trying to argue something based on imaginary facts. There was no such duty as you suggest.
You are perpetuating an untruth.
Your final statement, that "...there was no mentioning in the trials has more to do with own guilt than with the fact of punishing a war crime" is at best an erroneous opinion based on a misunderstanding of the facts, and at worst an attempt to deliberately distort history in order to suit your own purposes and world view. That is something you can do in a fantasy world to your hearts content, but it is something that when perpetrated in reality, can result in being called out for it.
I never said all towns were defended by flak, rather that no cities could be considered undefended when one tallies up AA defence, civil defence and military installations.
We are not in agreement. They were not outdated. They were simply the rules that were in place. Do not presume to state that people are in agreement with you without any basis.
This is given.
To seek the 'purpose' of the rules in rather nebulous is simply to try and talk added meaning into them. The conventions on bombardment are clear.
Your section here is not based on reality; there was no convention regarding a minimal use of force, or a maximum level of permissable enemy civilian casualties, or on the treatment of civilians. You are making this up as you go along, rather than constructing an argument based on sources and facts.
This section here makes no sense whatsoever. It is effectively, waffle.
Please list the violations of either the 1899 or 1907 Hague Conventions.
Once again, you are not basing this on the Hague Conventions in place at the time, and are essentially making it up.
Nulla poena is very much in play here - no ratified conventions were broken by the actions. You base the substance of your argument on imaginary grounds.
On what grounds are the casualty rates of Downfall to be doubted? Certainly the number of Japanese civilian casualties would have been far, far higher.
No, there is no requirement for every other option to be exhausted. Japan was called upon to surrender in the Potsdam Declaration. It did not. As a result, the Allies proceeded to prosecute the war in the most effective way available to them. They were not answerable to anyone but themselves in terms of how to end the war, and to end it as quickly as possible.
There was no question of negotiations. The ultimatum was plain - unconditional surrender.
Leaving aside the targetting issues of why Kokura Arsenal and the factories of Hiroshima are not military targets, we have to consider the problems inherent in a 'military target'. The bomb could fizzle, and possibly supply material to the Japanese; the bomb could miss a small target; there were no significant untouched military targets available.
Why waste a potentially war winning weapon over an uninhabited area? Given the problems outlined above, and the additional possibility of a negative Japanese reaction, what is there to gain? If it is going to be used, then it needs to be used on a worthwhile target.
The Japanese delay was in essence, their own fault, and not something to be layed at the foot of the US. That one atomic bomb did not force immediate surrender is testament enough to the need for a sharp, shocking blow to knock the Japanese to their senses and know that they were utterly beaten.
Your conclusion is not backed up by law, convention or proof. It is your own opinion. Opinions are like servants. Everyone has them, but the whole world is not particularly awed or impressed by displays of yours. You have not supplied any evidence to support your statement.
It is ironic that you claim matters to be irrelevant, having built a large part of your own case on very shaky foundations. Options other than invasion were presented.
No one has suggested that the Holocaust or the copious and dreadful deeds of the Japanese were not crimes. No one has suggested that they were justifications for the use of the atomic bomb or strategic bombing in general.
That you add a caveat of 'being matched by few others' is telling.
Your reference to the Hague draft of 1922/3 is irrelevant. It was not agreed to. It did not come to pass. It was not in existence. It was not a binding convention. It was nothing more than a potential convention that fell through.
To attempt to cite it as support for your position is fallacious in its attempted appeal to authority and disingenuous once again in its lack of any relationship to the facts.
You have not shown that the use of the atomic bombs was the ultimate option, requiring all other options to be exhausted first. You have simply asserted it, but not proved it.
The lives saved came from the Allied POWs, the civilians under Japanese occupation and the sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines of the Allied forces.
That you do not see the military targets in Hiroshima, Kokura and Nagasaki does not mean that they do not exist; indeed, it has been previously shown that such facilities and targets were present, and that they were in line for destruction as the type of targets eliminated by the USAAF.
You have not shown that strategic bombing is illegal.
You have not shown that the use of the atomic bomb was illegal.
You have not shown the utility, purpose or practicality of a non-military demonstration of the atomic bomb.
You have not supported your conclusions with fact.
You have presented illogical arguments with conclusions not related to their premises.
You have engaged in fallacious reasoning and ad hominem attacks without reason or provocation.
You have attempted to quote facts out of context and pass them off as supporting evidence.
You have misrepresented evidence, and ignored that which does not agree with what could possibly be a previously decided conclusion.
You have failed to refute any of the evidence put before you, and have dealt selectively with arguments.
You have shown a lack of understanding of the limitations of technology of the time, of the targetting process, and of strategic bombing theory.
You have made numerous false assumptions.
You have applied different standards of treatment for Japanese and American decisions.
You have failed to account for the utilitarian approach employed.
You have failed to show that the deployment of the atomic bombs was the least worst option.
You have substituted your own opinion for international law, history and fact.
You may think that last point is quite fine. Others may not.
. Also the dropping of a nuke on a target of military value in a habited city of several 100.000 peoples has to be a very valuable target. I do not see such a target there 
.
