OE, this will help sate your curiosity from the other thread.
If a war begins as self-defense, does it necessarily remain a war of self-defense throughout the entire conflict? E.g., if someone breaks into your house, you fight them off, and push them off of your property, if you continue to engage them, are you still acting in defense? Of course, this is more of a question regarding spectrum than bright-line distinction; however, I think it is safe to say that if you followed the at-one-time-intruder back to his house and burnt his house to the ground, you would no longer be fighting in self-defense.
If one is not fighting in self-defense, then they are either fighting a justified punitive war (even though punitive wars are technically outlawed), or they are fighting an aggressive war. In order to justifiably punish another, the punisher must be in a position of supremacy and legitimacy. Legally, there is no supremacy among nations, i.e. there is no federation of nations with a federal body charged with keeping order and disciplining nations that do something uncouth. So, as it is and as it was in WWII, there was no legal position in which one nation could legitimately punish another nation. Now, this does not rule out the possibility that one nation is morally superior and therefore a legitimate moral authority in which it can and ought to punish other nations that have acted immorally. Moral authority and supremacy rests not upon proclamations but upon deeds. Therefore, to be in a moral position in which one may legitimately punish another, one must be less morally culpable for their deeds.
As this relates to the Japan-US war, no one would argue that Japan was not morally culpable. The atrocities that the Japanese committed in Nanjing were terrible. That said, this does not automatically give the US moral supremacy. The atrocities that the US inflicted on the residents of Dresden, Munich, Frankfurt, and Berlin were also terrible. As well, the status of African-Americans as second-class citizens in America and the unjust internment of Japanese-American citizens also degrades America's moral high ground (one might also argue that America's moral high ground was already lost the moment America began to strangle Japanese energy and food resources, prior to the war).
The Japanese-US war cannot be argued as a war of self-defense from 1943 forward. This was well after the Battle of Midway and the consequent engagements which rendered Japanese projection of naval power obsolete. The Japanese could no longer threaten either Hawaii or the mainland (one might argue that the US was still entitled to fight for and then defend the Philippines; however, I cannot say that the history of US involvement in the Philippines would ever help in any argument of US moral supremacy, and the US regained control of the Philippines in 1945, which would still leave the argument for self-defense well shy of the dates the atom bombs were dropped). Since it was no longer a war of self-defense, it must be reclassified as either a punitive expedition or an aggressive war. I have argued that the US was in no position to legitimately punish any other nation. Therefore, the use of the atom bombs in August 1946 was a wholly unjustified act of terrorism on the grandest scale.
If a war begins as self-defense, does it necessarily remain a war of self-defense throughout the entire conflict? E.g., if someone breaks into your house, you fight them off, and push them off of your property, if you continue to engage them, are you still acting in defense? Of course, this is more of a question regarding spectrum than bright-line distinction; however, I think it is safe to say that if you followed the at-one-time-intruder back to his house and burnt his house to the ground, you would no longer be fighting in self-defense.
If one is not fighting in self-defense, then they are either fighting a justified punitive war (even though punitive wars are technically outlawed), or they are fighting an aggressive war. In order to justifiably punish another, the punisher must be in a position of supremacy and legitimacy. Legally, there is no supremacy among nations, i.e. there is no federation of nations with a federal body charged with keeping order and disciplining nations that do something uncouth. So, as it is and as it was in WWII, there was no legal position in which one nation could legitimately punish another nation. Now, this does not rule out the possibility that one nation is morally superior and therefore a legitimate moral authority in which it can and ought to punish other nations that have acted immorally. Moral authority and supremacy rests not upon proclamations but upon deeds. Therefore, to be in a moral position in which one may legitimately punish another, one must be less morally culpable for their deeds.
As this relates to the Japan-US war, no one would argue that Japan was not morally culpable. The atrocities that the Japanese committed in Nanjing were terrible. That said, this does not automatically give the US moral supremacy. The atrocities that the US inflicted on the residents of Dresden, Munich, Frankfurt, and Berlin were also terrible. As well, the status of African-Americans as second-class citizens in America and the unjust internment of Japanese-American citizens also degrades America's moral high ground (one might also argue that America's moral high ground was already lost the moment America began to strangle Japanese energy and food resources, prior to the war).
The Japanese-US war cannot be argued as a war of self-defense from 1943 forward. This was well after the Battle of Midway and the consequent engagements which rendered Japanese projection of naval power obsolete. The Japanese could no longer threaten either Hawaii or the mainland (one might argue that the US was still entitled to fight for and then defend the Philippines; however, I cannot say that the history of US involvement in the Philippines would ever help in any argument of US moral supremacy, and the US regained control of the Philippines in 1945, which would still leave the argument for self-defense well shy of the dates the atom bombs were dropped). Since it was no longer a war of self-defense, it must be reclassified as either a punitive expedition or an aggressive war. I have argued that the US was in no position to legitimately punish any other nation. Therefore, the use of the atom bombs in August 1946 was a wholly unjustified act of terrorism on the grandest scale.
