Are nuclear weapons legal?

[Dari]

Not the tactical nukes but the one that can destroy an entire town or city. If their sole purpose is to inflict economic, political, and social harm on civilians, shouldn't they be illegal? I ask because I recently found a copy of some documents by General Curtis Lemay which he admitted that, had America lost, he would have been brought up on war crime charges for the approval of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm well aware of the victor punishing the loser but would there be an abstract, legal basis for such a charge?

 

[Genx87]

Im sure he would have by the Japanese Empire. Of course there is going to be some victor decides what is morally right and morally wrong and who is guilty. We also firebombed their cities and German cities as well.

In today's war the world wont stand for that kind of ultimate war. In WWII destroying the will and capability of the population supporting the war effort was a tool of war. Every nation did it. Some to greater degree's than others. And yes we prosecuted those who lost while celebrating those on the winning side.

As for my personal opinion? If you have a population that is actively helping the war effort. I dont have a problem making life hard on that population. Firebombing and nuking them is off the table. But knocking out power, water, sewage, and other elements of civilized survival is on the table. You want to bring the regime down? Make the population supporting it hate the regime because their kid cant get clean drinking water anymore and they have to shit in a bucket out in the yard.

 

[nick1985]

In world word II, if you made a sandwich to give to a worker to give him the energy needed to produce steel used to make tank tread, you were just as much of an enemy as a soldier on the front lines.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Not the tactical nukes but the one that can destroy an entire town or city. If their sole purpose is to inflict economic, political, and social harm on civilians, shouldn't they be illegal? I ask because I recently found a copy of some documents by General Curtis Lemay which he admitted that, had America lost, he would have been brought up on war crime charges for the approval of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm well aware of the victor punishing the loser but would there be an abstract, legal basis for such a charge?

LeMay was not talking about the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He was referring to the large bombing campaign against the Japanese, which killed far more than both nuclear bombings.

I don't think we charged any German generals for bombing London.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm well aware of the victor punishing the loser but would there be an abstract, legal basis for such a charge?

First of all, if we had lost then our laws would not be used.

Second, I believe the victor would simply make it up as they go along to fulfill their need for retribution. If someone firebombed or nuked a town of yours, I don't think civil criminal law would get a chance to be applied.

 

[StageLeft]

I do believe that large scale non-tactical nukes are by their very definition a terrorist weapon. But then, strictly speaking, much of war is terrorism and has been executed by the vast majority of countries. How else could one really define the Axis' bombing of London or the Allies' bombing of Berlin? Or, of course, the nuking of Hiroshima. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

 

[StageLeft]

In world word II, if you made a sandwich to give to a worker to give him the energy needed to produce steel used to make tank tread, you were just as much of an enemy as a soldier on the front lines.

And this makes sense. It's really also the reason why lamenting that enemies attack civilians and not military is such a silly delineation. Without that civilian the military does not exist and it exists at the behest and to serve the civilian. As pointless a qualification as being mad at me for attacking your body and not your knife, despite it being connected to an arm and the knife trying to stab me.

 

[glenn1]

Are nuclear weapons legal?

Even if they were illegal in the abstract, how exactly would you plan to execute the arrest warrant in the practical? This seems to be one of those situations where the legality of something is beside the point, such as making it illegal not to pay taxes on the proceeds of criminal activity.

 

[ElFenix]

Not the tactical nukes but the one that can destroy an entire town or city. If their sole purpose is to inflict economic, political, and social harm on civilians, shouldn't they be illegal? I ask because I recently found a copy of some documents by General Curtis Lemay which he admitted that, had America lost, he would have been brought up on war crime charges for the approval of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm well aware of the victor punishing the loser but would there be an abstract, legal basis for such a charge?

arguing from a false premise, eh?

 

[daishi5]

Not the tactical nukes but the one that can destroy an entire town or city. If their sole purpose is to inflict economic, political, and social harm on civilians, shouldn't they be illegal? I ask because I recently found a copy of some documents by General Curtis Lemay which he admitted that, had America lost, he would have been brought up on war crime charges for the approval of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm well aware of the victor punishing the loser but would there be an abstract, legal basis for such a charge?

You give too much credit to the word legal. I can declare red socks illegal tomorrow, but I can't actually do much to people wearing red socks. Same thing with Japan, or whatever world court system you think might declare these illegal. Whomever decides these weapons are illegal needs both the potency to punish us, and the willingness to do so. If we control the group that declares these weapons illegal, it doesn't matter if we break the law.

Same thing with stuff like wiretaps, it doesn't matter if you break the law if you do it for the part of the government that controls prosecution. If they won't prosecute you, it is just as good as not breaking the law.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Total War is a bitch. Blame Sherman for introducing it to the US.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The British and French introduced it prior to 1776

 

[palehorse]

Total War is a bitch. Thank Sherman for introducing it to the US.

fixed.

More importantly, though, who should we "blame" for forgetting how to implement it effectively?

 

[Possessed Freak]

fixed.

More importantly, though, who should we "blame" for forgetting how to implement it effectively?

Oh don't get me wrong. I am a big fan of total war. People look at the carpet/nuclear bombings during WWII as the introduction to total war and that is just not the case.

Common Courtesy - I think Sherman revolutionized the idea, but I do know that the original concept predates his solution.

 

[Dari]

You give too much credit to the word legal. I can declare red socks illegal tomorrow, but I can't actually do much to people wearing red socks. Same thing with Japan, or whatever world court system you think might declare these illegal. Whomever decides these weapons are illegal needs both the potency to punish us, and the willingness to do so. If we control the group that declares these weapons illegal, it doesn't matter if we break the law.

Same thing with stuff like wiretaps, it doesn't matter if you break the law if you do it for the part of the government that controls prosecution. If they won't prosecute you, it is just as good as not breaking the law.

There are lots of treaties and conventions on nuclear weapons and the laws of war that nations adhere to. If you made non-tactical nuclear weapons illegal I'm sure there would be some type of compliance although knowing whether compliance is genuine is debatable. It's no different than SALT and SALT II that limits nuclear warheads. We don't know if one or either side is cheating but both sides came to the table.

EDIT: Getting rid of non-tactical nuclear weapons would also mean making inter-continental ballistic missiles illegal since their only raison d'etre is to deliver such heavy and devastating payloads.

 

[werepossum]

Im sure he would have by the Japanese Empire. Of course there is going to be some victor decides what is morally right and morally wrong and who is guilty. We also firebombed their cities and German cities as well.

In today's war the world wont stand for that kind of ultimate war. In WWII destroying the will and capability of the population supporting the war effort was a tool of war. Every nation did it. Some to greater degree's than others. And yes we prosecuted those who lost while celebrating those on the winning side.

As for my personal opinion? If you have a population that is actively helping the war effort. I dont have a problem making life hard on that population. Firebombing and nuking them is off the table. But knocking out power, water, sewage, and other elements of civilized survival is on the table. You want to bring the regime down? Make the population supporting it hate the regime because their kid cant get clean drinking water anymore and they have to shit in a bucket out in the yard.

This. Personally I like the idea that a country and/or government cannot send its military off to war without sharing (at least in principle) the dangers.

 

[jhu]

I have one in my backyard. No one messes with me anymore. Thank you 2nd amendment!

 

[piasabird]

Yes they are legal. In War time, if a country is bent on destroying your country or taking over, then legality is irrelevent. Taking over a foreign country is already illegal. That is the whole point in war. Are you lacking in your logical reasoning. If some country like Russia or China or Canada was invading the USA then we have a right to target their civilians. They would be killing our civilians if they attacked us. So like Duhh!!!!

 

[Dari]

Yes they are legal. In War time, if a country is bent on destroying your country or taking over, then legality is irrelevent. Taking over a foreign country is already illegal. That is the whole point in war. Are you lacking in your logical reasoning. If some country like Russia or China or Canada was invading the USA then we have a right to target their civilians. They would be killing our civilians if they attacked us. So like Duhh!!!!

There is life after war for a lot of the leadership and there are laws of war. The latter makes the former a more responsible leader.

 

[Craig234]

I think it's a good question, and it's overwhelming to many people. It was Stalin who said 'the murder of one man is a tragedy, of a million is a statistic', or something similar.

That captures many people's inability to deal with the moral implications of nuclear weapons, so instead of viewing them as monstrous and something to abolish, they accept them.

The recklessness with which the US targetted the USSR - and China, just for the heck of it - for nuclear annihilation at the sign of aggression in Europe is not well known in the US, but terrible.

It wasn't until Kennedy that the hair trigger for all out nuclear war was started to be addressed and ratcheted down, when McNamara, over the objections of the Air Force, reviewed the war plans.

 

[Genx87]

There is life after war for a lot of the leadership and there are laws of war. The latter makes the former a more responsible leader.

Unless you are the winner, like we were in WWII.

 

[Dari]

Unless you are the winner, like we were in WWII.

I disagree. Look at Germany in WWII. It was mainly the political and SS leadership that was punished. The regular German Army followed the laws of war for the most part. They behaved. AFAIK, none of their men were punished.

 

[Ozoned]

Not the tactical nukes but the one that can destroy an entire town or city. If their sole purpose is to inflict economic, political, and social harm on civilians, shouldn't they be illegal? I ask because I recently found a copy of some documents by General Curtis Lemay which he admitted that, had America lost, he would have been brought up on war crime charges for the approval of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm well aware of the victor punishing the loser but would there be an abstract, legal basis for such a charge?

I think about the only thing you can go on is natural law. Pretty much what you stated you are aware of.

The big nukes are weapons of terror. They serve their purpose very well without being used.

 

[Genx87]

I disagree. Look at Germany in WWII. It was mainly the political and SS leadership that was punished. The regular German Army followed the laws of war for the most part. They behaved. AFAIK, none of their men were punished.

Look up Disarmed Enemy forces. Eisenhower enslaved over 2 million german soldiers post WWII to rebuild Europe. Some of them not returning until 1957. And an estimated 1 million never returned at all. And then the Morgantheur plan which starved hundreds of thousands of german civilians.

Either way doesnt your point back mine? If Germany would had won WWII there would be no punishment of their soldiers and leadership while our officers went to the firing line.

 

[ichy]

Might makes right. Who exactly is going to punish the US for having "illegal" nukes?