war crimes

cm1179

cm1179

cm1179

Soldato
Joined
30 Sep 2009
Posts
3,626
can someone tell me a little about war crimes please?
take world war 2. was war as clear cut as anyone from the opposition countries is the enemy. for example: say i was not actually fighting (as in, classed as a soldier) but killled a german (or any opposing country) soldier in our country, even if he was unarmed, would i have gotten into trouble? or how about someone who was not a soldier (say intelligence or a surgeon etc) where was the line drawn?
i suppose what i'm trying to say, is who was the enemy and who would not be seen as a threat?
 
With your scenario then back in WW2 i'm not really sure what would have happened

These days there are actually ROE (Rules of engagement) that we MUST abide by, and everyone does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement

Read that. ROE are literally drilled into every single serving person over and over until everyone understands exactly what is allowed and what isn't.

ROE can differ slightly from place to place i.e the ROE are obviously different for england and afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
Andr3w said:
Show me proof....
Click to expand...

Look at that japanese unit XXX (cant remember the number). The scientists performed horrific medical experiments, such as amputations without aneasthesia, live abortions, freezing people alive etc. and they got off scot free in return for exchanging their findings with the americans.
 
slambo69 said:
Look at that japanese unit XXX (cant remember the number). The scientists performed horrific medical experiments, such as amputations without aneasthesia, live abortions, freezing people alive etc. and they got off scot free in return for exchanging their findings with the americans.
Click to expand...

Or the other serious war crime of the war with Japan? I think that's far more potent, since a lot of the population seems to think that it wasn't a crime at all.
 
How was that a crime? No different to carpet bombing(which have killed more in one raid than the nukes), dambusting, v2 rockets and the likes. There are basically no civilians in a world war. They are either working for the war effort or will be when of age should wake pretty young. War is ugly and small modern conflicts and modern weaponry has emesis people's ideas.
 
AcidHell2 said:
How was that a crime? No different to carpet bombing(which have killed more in one raid than the nukes), dambusting, v2 rockets and the likes. There are basically no civilians in a world war. They are either working for the war effort or will be when of age should wake pretty young. War is ugly and small modern conflicts and modern weaponry has emesis people's ideas.
Click to expand...

The Courts have ruled that it was an unlawful act. Shimoda et al, the Court concluded that the bombing was unlawful for it was contrary both to the principle prohibiting indiscriminate attacks on undefended towns, and to the principle forbidding the use of weapons causing unnecessary suffering. It's important to note that this is exclusive to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Though, that being said there isn't actually any law that states the use of nuclear weapons are against international law. The ICJ states: "... the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law; However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake."

There are hypothetical situations in which we can use general legal principles to rule that the use of them would be legal. Particularly, in second use in self defence. But we'd have to ensure that we had followed the rules set out in Nicaragua. However, I doubt that there would be any legal way to use the types of weapons seen in Japan. Tactical nukes, perhaps, but not the all encompassing 'traditional' nukes.
 
Last edited:
A tokyo district court is not appropiate to decide war crimes. Unless there's is another I'm unaware of.

Tactical they did not exist, more did nukes or passed on them. your applying modern law to an old event. Laws would be throwen out in a world war anyway.
 
Last edited:
Rape of Nanking another lowpoint in Japanese history. In fact John Rabe (a Nazi) was so horrified by Japanese actions he wrote to Hitler to get him to curtail the Japanese and helped the local Chinese. The accepted wisdom I believe is that the Japanese generally got let off as the US needed a platform to base from against China and Russia.

Would also say WW2 was not really 1939-45 that was just what it was for us - for other parts of the world it all started a bit earlier.
 
maustin said:
Rape of Nanking another lowpoint in Japanese history. In fact John Rabe (a Nazi) was so horrified by Japanese actions he wrote to Hitler to get him to curtail the Japanese and helped the local Chinese. The accepted wisdom I believe is that the Japanese generally got let off as the US needed a platform to base from against China and Russia.

Would also say WW2 was not really 1939-45 that was just what it was for us - for other parts of the world it all started a bit earlier.
Click to expand...

didn't the japanese (as a country) say they would never get involved in war again?
 
AcidHell2 said:
A tokyo district court is not appropiate to decide war crimes. Unless there's is another I'm unaware of.

Tactical they did not exist, more did nukes or passed on them. your applying modern law to an old event. Laws would be throwen out in a world war anyway.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I believe a legal framework would exist in some form and would revive itself once (if?) the World had 'settled down'. I'm applying modern law to an old event as is done commonly in international law.

I don't think it's fair to say that it wasn't a crime then because the legal framework wasn't in place. It is clearly a crime now, and nothing will change that.
The use of nuclear weapons are possible in the following circumstances:
1. Aggressive first strike - To launch an attack against another state, thus initiating a war.
2. Pre-emptive first strike - To attack a State as you believe that the other State is about to launch an attack.
3. Second use in self defence - To respond in kind.
4. First use in a conventional war - To inflict devastating losses no the enemy in the course of a conventional war.
5 Retaliatory use in conventional war
None of which would be legal today, apart from perhaps number 3 and number 5 but it's extremely doubtful the principles of Nicaragua would ever be satisfied to make it legal.
 
Last edited:
The revival framework would only apply to the losers. If we had a 3rd war you are saying all countries would abide by the weapon treaties. Not one single country would. It's life and death and anything goes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom