As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[smichhertz]

I’ve heard this lopsided debate for over 50 years and can read between the lines.

I think you’re just projecting what others have said onto this thread. No one here is bashing America, and its ridiculous for you to make that assertion.

I’ll bet you not one in 100 who condemn America’s military has ever spent so much as one day in its armed forces, much less sit in an invasion launching craft waiting for the “go” signal.

Military experience is irrelevant to determining the immorality of a given act.

Gen. Curtis Le May’s firebombing raids killed more people in one night than both A-bombs put together, yet no one talks about them because the only difference [besides the casualty numbers] was we had to risk more planes and more of our fighting men.

People do talk about them all the time. As a matter of fact, last night I was listening to talk at a bar where a military chaplain condemned those firebombings as immoral. I would also consider them immoral, but the topic of this thread is Hiroshima, not Allied firebombings. Why don’t you start a thread on that topic if you want to discuss that? Shoot me a PM when you do and I’d happily participate.

America is condemned for ending the insanity we call WW-II and gets no credit; yet no country, save Germany, has ever been condemned for any atrocities it committed.

No one is condemning America. I said myself that Truman arguably had invincible ignorance. Declaring a single act of war immoral doesn’t mean you are condemning an entire country. And what planet are you on when you say no country has ever been condemned? Japan has been countless times condemned for its actions, as well as Germany, no one is sitting here thinking that they are blameless. But again, the topic of this thread is Hiroshima.

Why? As I said earlier, the Leftist media sets the agenda, and the agenda is condemn America since communism failed, thus America must be handed a defeat and brought down by any means possible. This is only one of them.

Unless you can show how any of the posters on this thread are associated with the leftist media, I fail to see the relevance here. The whole point of this is to determine the morality of the bombing of Hiroshima. And once again, no one is condemning America.

Once we spend 65 years debating the deka-megamurders of the despotic regimes of the 20th century, then maybe I’d be willing to discuss America’s sins. My country, right or wrong, is, after all, my country.

In order to be objective in our judgment of moral acts we have to be willing to look at and discuss where our own country acted immorality. That in no way implies that we still don’t hold other acts as also immoral.

---

“The more America does to better itself, the more – not less – unbearable her remaining faults.”

Just a tech tip, if you want to make a signature, click on profile->control panel->edit signature. You can type your signature in there and then it will automatically post with all your posts and you don’t have to type them in every time.

 

[smichhertz]

That’s probably WHY they dropped the bomb…

You missed my point. I’m simply saying that invasion was a viable option as it was the default plan. You made it sound in your post as if it were completely not feasible.

Had we invaded Japan, we would have inevitably won. Sure, it would have cost a lot of lives, but we could have done it.

 

[Neildown]

You missed my point. I’m simply saying that invasion was a viable option as it was the default plan. You made it sound in your post as if it were completely not feasible.

Had we invaded Japan, we would have inevitably have won. Sure, it would have cost a lot of lives, but we would have done it.

I realize that, but as far as America’s population was concerned we didn’t really want to go swarming into their mainland - the people back home were horrified enough at the island hopping we were doing and the casualties produced. Of course it was feasible, but personally I find that choice would have been sub-par. If we went straight into the mainland and fought them on their soil, up close and personal, it would be bound to become one huge bonsai attack, basically.

Of course we would have won - we don’t generally half-bake our bread, but lives were a priority. What would the American public think of our government if the president just shipped a ton of guys to Japan and it ended in a huge slaughter when we could prevent that? Even though we would have won, American citizens would have been devastated. We had already given huge sacrifices at Normandy and Iwo Jima * so why invade when we could drop a bomb or two? Japanese citizens were always being fed propaganda, so many of them would have posed a threat as well. It would have been kind of like Iraq has been for us, trying not to shoot neutral civilians while there are hostiles who look like civilians as well.*

 

[sedonaman]

…And once again, no one is condemning America. …

We apparently grew up in different worlds. I in the one of optimism and pride of our nation; you evidently grew up in the Watergate one of cynicism where the sight of the American flag is an offense, the default position is that all authority is always wrong, and where every seemingly immoral act by it is motivated by a massive plot. “Questioning authority” and “thinking outside the box” are, therefore, applauded. By contrast, “unoriginal” and “conventional” are treated as if they were synonyms for “unintelligent” and “unthinking.”

Since we obviously disagree that “no one is condemning America”, continuing this is pointless, and so I’m bowing out of this thread.

---

“The more America does to better itself, the more – not less – unbearable her remaining faults.”

 

[smichhertz]

We apparently grew up in different worlds. I in the one of optimism and pride of our nation; you evidently grew up in the Watergate one of cynicism where the sight of the American flag is an offense, the default position is that all authority is always wrong, and where every seemingly immoral act by it is motivated by a massive plot. “Questioning authority” and “thinking outside the box” are, therefore, applauded. By contrast, “unoriginal” and “conventional” are treated as if they were synonyms for “unintelligent” and “unthinking.”

This is just ridiculous, I have not said a single thing that was cynical or implied disrespect to America, nor has anyone else on this thread.

Since we obviously disagree that “no one is condemning America”, continuing this is pointless, and so I’m bowing out of this thread.

When I said “no one is condemning America” I was referring to the posters on this thread. Sure, there are a lot of nutjobs out there that make all sorts of ridiculous claims. But the posts I’ve seen on this thread so far haven’t been condemning at all.

 

[pnewton]

Even though an earlier poster argued against both, I will have to state that it was both immoral and necessary. Evil begets evil. The evil of the Japanese aggression lead directly to a choice between two evils for America. Politically, it was impossible to sacrifice millions on an invasion, so the bombs were going to be dropped. The targets represent an immoral choice, Hiroshima more that Nagasaki. The catechism speaks of indisrciminate targeting of civilians. If a military target has civilians located near it, in a just war, it is not immune from destruction, if no other means of accomplishing the military goal is available.

 

[JimG]

Even though an earlier poster argued against both, I will have to state that it was both immoral and necessary. Evil begets evil. The evil of the Japanese aggression lead directly to a choice between two evils for America. Politically, it was impossible to sacrifice millions on an invasion, so the bombs were going to be dropped. The targets represent an immoral choice, Hiroshima more that Nagasaki. The catechism speaks of indisrciminate targeting of civilians. If a military target has civilians located near it, in a just war, it is not immune from destruction, if no other means of accomplishing the military goal is available.

Invasion plans had already been made, so it’s possible a different decision might have been made. But I have to wonder: If invasion had been the chosen option, with horrendous deaths on both sides, would we now be arguing the morality of the invasion? Or would we be arguing whether Truman’s failure to use the atomic weapons to shorten the war was an immoral decision?

 

[Lui]

My country, right or wrong, is, after all, my country.

I don’t know if a faithful Catholic can use this phrase. You’re putting your country ABOVE God. You have to chose: your country or God first. You can’t have it both ways. God doesn’t have a Nationality. God is neither American, German nor Japanese. He is for all humans.

If I had lived in Germany as a Catholic German during WWII, would it have been right to enter the SS with the words “My country, right or wrong”? If I had lived as a white Catholic in the USA during the Fifties would it have been alright to treat Blacks different? As a Catholic can I say “We serve Whites only” or “Jews are the Untermenschen”?
Just wondering…

 

[FurtherSuntime]

If we accept the sanctifying idea of God’s Will for each individual, we must rationally
recognize Gods Will to encompass humanity as a whole.

Humanity as a whole unit can be examined in the same manner as an individual.

Collectively these acts represent the value & measure in humanity’s sanctification.

The unification of man would obviously be God’s Will , as unification alone represents peace. No different than peace within self.

As long as we have individual greed, we will have collective greed.

As long as we have collective greed we will have …ANTI-UNITY,…resulting in

KILLING UNTIL THERE IS NO TOMORROW ON EVERY DISGUSTING SCALE IMAGINABLE

ANTI-UNITY , WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE WORLD

 

[pnewton]

As long as we have collective greed we will have …ANTI-UNITY,…resulting in

KILLING UNTIL THERE IS NO TOMORROW ON EVERY DISGUSTING SCALE IMAGINABLE

ANTI-UNITY , WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE WORLD

Let us not forget that this was, after all, 65 years ago. We still have sin and greed, but we also have greater international unity. I refer to the papal encyclical, Caritas en Veritate.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Let us not forget that this was, after all, 65 years ago. We still have sin and greed, but we also have greater international unity. I refer to the papal encyclical, Caritas en Veritate.

65 years is a drop in the bucket. In evidence the scale of humanity’s self destruction 1000yrs ago could never even come close to millions lost due to one act of slaughter

Greater international unity today is represented ONLY through a brief bleep in the true value of man’s unifying accomplishments. We are still “of” the potentiality. It will take hundreds of years if not thousands to see a marked difference .

International unity is a farce, as greed is at its peek. The calm is more like a calm before a possible storm. A storm which may or may not come about but…none the less in greater potential than at any other time in history, as greed through knowledge of greed made accessible by communication is in FULL BLOOM. Thus potentiality in self destruction equally
and proportionately is without escape in its perfect representation of collective mans value.

Potentiality for self destruction is in FULL BLOOM.

 

[exnihilo]

Folks keep making the argument that the bombing was necessary to save American lives. But this is only true if an invasion was necessary. An invasion might have been necessary but only because the US insisted on unconditional surrender. To modern Americans unconditional surrender seems only natural. We assume we have the right to demand that our enemy completely submit to us. But this is a terrible idea as it leaves no room for negotiating. Almost no one wants to surrender completely and thus this idea will necessarily make wars longer and more deadly.

I happened to come across a great video echoing this point. The video is of the late Crown Prince of Austria, Otto von Habsburg. I think he was a great man. He was very educated. He lived through the war and was in DC during the war. And he was a faithful Catholic.

At 1:50 he calls unconditional surrender a great American tradgedy that came from what he calls the ‘War Between the States’

youtube.com/watch?v=7ZDgkDcBuqE

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Folks keep making the argument that the bombing was necessary to save American lives. But this is only true if an invasion was necessary. An invasion might have been necessary but only because the US insisted on unconditional surrender. To modern Americans unconditional surrender seems only natural. We assume we have the right to demand that our enemy completely submit to us. But this is a terrible idea as it leaves no room for negotiating. Almost no one wants to surrender completely and thus this idea will necessarily make wars longer and more deadly.

I happened to come across a great video echoing this point. The video is of the late Crown Prince of Austria, Otto von Habsburg. I think he was a great man. He was very educated. He lived through the war and was in DC during the war. And he was a faithful Catholic.

At 1:50 he calls unconditional surrender a great American tradgedy that came from what he calls the ‘War Between the States’

youtube.com/watch?v=7ZDgkDcBuqE

Its not that the bomb was dropped, it is the potencial in man to drop the bomb. A condition which was allowed to evolve . A condition which exists today , the act represents the value of mans unifying process. The bomb drops everyday in greed, once the greed peeks the bomb reflects and represents…WORK DONE

 

[pnewton]

65 years is a drop in the bucket. In evidence the scale of humanity’s self destruction 1000yrs ago could never even come close to millions lost due to one act of slaughter

Greater international unity today is represented ONLY through a brief bleep in the true value of man’s unifying accomplishments. We are still “of” the potentiality. It will take hundreds of years if not thousands to see a marked difference .

International unity is a farce, as greed is at its peek.

I am curious if you have read the Pope’s encyclical. It is far more full of hope and not as pessimistic. Yes, sixty-five years is a drop in the bucket and sin still prevails in the world. Yet this has been an unprecedented time of change in the world. When, prior to 1945, have major world powers dismantled their most powerful weapons?

 

[Lui]

Folks keep making the argument that the bombing was necessary to save American lives.

I also argued that not having dropped the bomb would have cost much more American lives so dropping the bomb might have cost 100000 more Japanese lives but saved thousands of American lives.
My statement was viewed from a strategic point of view by the US military but I don’t know if the Catholic view can be the same as the military view. If not dropping the bomb would have saved 70000 innocent Japanese(children, women, old people etc) but cost 10000 American lives, it would have maybe been better to risk the lives of the 10000 Americans(from a Catholic view only) because the Americans were ALL soldiers who were in Japan to fight and the risk of their life was part of their duty. While the 70000 innocent people were just pure victims who had no choice(all numbers are just pure examples) so their lives should have been spared instead of the soldier’s lives.
I realize it is really tough to know what’s right:shrug:

 

[smichhertz]

Even though an earlier poster argued against both, I will have to state that it was both immoral and necessary.

This type of scenario is impossible. If an action is necessary, then by definition it is not immoral.

Evil begets evil. The evil of the Japanese aggression lead directly to a choice between two evils for America.

Not really, many of the alternatives (such as invasion for instance) would have not been immoral. America made an immoral choice when there were clear morally permissible alternatives.

Politically, it was impossible to sacrifice millions on an invasion, so the bombs were going to be dropped.

It was certainly not impossible.

If a military target has civilians located near it, in a just war, it is not immune from destruction, if no other means of accomplishing the military goal is available.

Yes, but a city is not a military target. Therefore the bombing of Hiroshima was immoral.

 

[smichhertz]

I also argued that not having dropped the bomb would have cost much more American lives so dropping the bomb might have cost 100000 more Japanese lives but saved thousands of American lives.
My statement was viewed from a strategic point of view by the US military but I don’t know if the Catholic view can be the same as the military view. If not dropping the bomb would have saved 70000 innocent Japanese(children, women, old people etc) but cost 10000 American lives, it would have maybe been better to risk the lives of the 10000 Americans(from a Catholic view only) because the Americans were ALL soldiers who were in Japan to fight and the risk of their life was part of their duty. While the 70000 innocent people were just pure victims who had no choice(all numbers are just pure examples) so their lives should have been spared instead of the soldier’s lives.
I realize it is really tough to know what’s right:shrug:

It’s not THAT tough.

There’s nothing wrong with looking at things from a strategic point of view, but the MORAL point of view is king. It drives all our decisions in every aspect of our lives, including war. Therefore if from a moral perspective you determine something is immoral, then you can’t do it, regardless of the strategic benefits.

Remember that a strategic point of view is limited, it has only one objective: win. It fails to see the greater implications of our actions. That’s why the moral point of view is what drives our decision making.

That’s not to say we totally ignore any other point of view, only that we rule out any decisions that are immoral, as they are ultimately harmful to ourselves and to others. Beyond that, any other point of view can certainly play a part in our decision making.

Hope that helps.

 

[pnewton]

This type of scenario is impossible. If an action is necessary, then by definition it is not immoral…

This thread was an opinion poll. You are not the first to state that the too are mutually exclusive. It is my opinion that you and the previous poster are wrong. I believe that it was **politically **impossible, meaning that it was not something that could have reasonably been expected to have happened. Disagree, argue, and repeat if you must. I think most here know the difference between opinion and fact.

As far as the military importance of Hiroshima, I was not alive back then or in the military with access to intelligence. That is why I worded my statement as I did. You might want to re-read and note that before you disagree with something that I did *not *say.

 

[JimG]

Its not that the bomb was dropped, it is the potencial in man to drop the bomb. A condition which was allowed to evolve . A condition which exists today , the act represents the value of mans unifying process. The bomb drops everyday in greed, once the greed peeks the bomb reflects and represents…WORK DONE

I guess I don’t understand. Are you saying that the atomic bomb was dropped because of greed? Was it that Truman saw dropping the bomb as a way to enrich the U.S. at the expense of Japan? Greed? I don’t think historians would agree with that.

I don’t even think that the U.S. entered the war because of greed. The war cost money, and the U.S.helped pay for reconstruction both in Europe and in Japan. Greed? I don’t get it.

 

[JaneGrey]

What makes the A-bomb particularly deplorable is that we don’t have to risk as many of our own fighting men in order to win, and America winning is also deplorable to some people; call it the Rev. Jeremiah Write syndrome, if you will.

I ve already stated enough times that neither I nor the other people on this thread arguing against Hiroshima (in other words those you are engaging with at this point) are against America.

Is America winning more important than the lives of innocent Japanese?