> How is that legal, are you invoking the Bush doctrine[0] of pre-emptive strikes, although to call that legal is a stretch.
The nuclear bombing of Japan was not a pre-emptive strike. Pearl Harbor was a thing.
> Are you suggesting that during a declaration of war it becomes legal?
While there are some prohibitions in treaties in force or what is accepted as customary international law on conduct during War (though fewer at the time of the atomic bombing than now!), yes, the consequence of a legal state of war -- whether initiated by declaration or an external attack -- generally is that fighting war by any but such prohibited means is legal. Those making the case that particular conduct is not legal would need to identify the source of the prohibition.
> Currently under international law that would not be legal unless agreed upon by the security council.
Well, the UN Charter postdates the atomic bombing, but even if it didn't it does not prevent the use of force against an aggressor once war has started (though someone had to violate the charter to start the war.) See, particularly, Article 51 of the Charter.
>> How is that legal, are you invoking the Bush doctrine[0] of pre-emptive strikes, although to call that legal is a stretch.
>The nuclear bombing of Japan was not a pre-emptive strike. Pearl Harbor was a thing.
The OP is using the present tense(unless he edits his comments), perhaps he would like to edit what he wrote to suggest that in the past it was considered a legal action to drop a nuclear weapon on a nation the US was at war with, but if the OP continues to use the present tense I can only continue to believe he is INSANE to believe it is CURRENTLY legal to drop nuclear weapons on ally nations.
The OP never responded to what he so clearly believes are "clearly-defined lines." and he will not respond to direct challenges of 1: clapper lying under oath, 2: US engaging in torture and refusing to prosecute. We can even give a historical example, was imprisoning US citizens of Japanese decent and confiscating their property within a "well defined line" no, it was simply a government run amok with fear and hatred trying to defend itself.
The nuclear bombing of Japan was not a pre-emptive strike. Pearl Harbor was a thing.
> Are you suggesting that during a declaration of war it becomes legal?
While there are some prohibitions in treaties in force or what is accepted as customary international law on conduct during War (though fewer at the time of the atomic bombing than now!), yes, the consequence of a legal state of war -- whether initiated by declaration or an external attack -- generally is that fighting war by any but such prohibited means is legal. Those making the case that particular conduct is not legal would need to identify the source of the prohibition.
> Currently under international law that would not be legal unless agreed upon by the security council.
Well, the UN Charter postdates the atomic bombing, but even if it didn't it does not prevent the use of force against an aggressor once war has started (though someone had to violate the charter to start the war.) See, particularly, Article 51 of the Charter.