As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[FurtherSuntime]

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.

Knowledge and communication allowed the Nazis to derive an idea. An idea which was thought to enhance the living experience of the German people.

A new world order effecting control over Europe and hopefully the balance of the world was employed in order to control the privilege of assets , resource and operations of understood wealth.

Annihilating the wealthy Jewish people was the template of initiative for the bulk of wealth throughout humanity.

If the Nazis were unaware of any possible gain financially, there would have been no war. In other words if the country of Germany was self understood to be the un-threatened dominating financial leader of he time, there would have been nothing to gain by over powering a world which could not feed itself, relative to a prosperous hypothetical Germany.

Therefore greed sought by means of control, was the momentum of the war to begin with.

Human effected greed is only possible through greed understood. A person or a country cannot be greedy relative to itself only. Two forces are required in the manifestation of greed.

1. perceived greed 2) greed itself … Neither state of reference is possible without the opposing reality in order to substantiate a relative measure to the behavior called greed.

Human greed is a matter of distribution. If all the farmers have a super harvest with plenty to eat for the winter, they cannot be understood to be acting in a greedy manner. If only a few have a terrific harvest and do not share, it is by comparison in resource and subsequent behavior, which unfolds the nature of greed. ( not co-relating to the war, simply discussing survival)

If the wealthy farmers do not share, and discard an abundance of unwanted food, we have ourselves greedy farmers. If the less fortunate farmers plan to take over the fields in order to survive and perhaps survive well above need, the successful farmers will defend to the death if necessary, as survival is at hand.

If the farmers war endures many casualties, the circumstances of both sides becomes aggravated by loss. Other neighboring farmers join the battle as the weaker farmers plan to
take over every field they can get there hands on. Finally, in order to put a stop to the non-sense a drastic measure is taken by one of the two sides.

In above example, it doesn’t really matter which side takes the drastic measure because a drastic mortal blow is how all battles are won and lost.Do people not see this?

The ordeal in the distribution and perceived distribution of wealth is the issue.
Once there is a marked significance in the perception of greed , the battle has already started.

A battle as the weaker force believes that its survival is threatened while believing to be a contributing & required necessity in the flourishing of collective man. They therefore believe to justify… the violence on behalf of selves & mankind as a whole.

All wars, bombs , bar fights for that matter are a result of insecurity, jealousy, gluttonous dispositions, territory, control. Now…what do all these words comprise?
Greed and perceived greed.

Communication has made things worse, due to perceived greed. We can argue all day about whether or not greed actually exists or is justifyed…but that has nothing to do with perceived greed. Desire, want,…we cannot want… what we do not know.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

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?

It is very important for a leader to be optimistic. I feel encouraged in this welcome update as I have not read the encyclical and will look forward to the learning . Hope is crucial.

The interesting aspect is that the leaders whom are dis-mantling represent peoples who certainly have less moral fiber than the peoples who actually built and developed these weapons out of ignorance. All one needs to do is watch a few movies from the late thirties.

I believe we need to back track on basic regard for life. Things do not seem forward by any stretch of the imagination to myself. Simply man realizing how ridiculous the weapons that he built out of ignorance truly are

 

[pnewton]

The interesting aspect is that the leaders whom are dis-mantling represent peoples who certainly have less moral fiber than the peoples who actually built and developed these weapons out of ignorance. All one needs to do is watch a few movies from the late thirties.

Yes. They all smoked back then. How moral could they be? Seriously, I don’t think that comparing movies of the thirties to movies today casts this generation is a very moral light. Besides, don’t you think that since there was a since of ignorance that the judging their moral fiber (as opposed to the morality of the act) is mitigated? They did not have access to the Catechism we have today and examination of the morality of such a bomb had not appeared on the scope of Christian thought, at least not that I have heard of.

 

[pnewton]

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?

I do not know about that last statement. If the war was a just war, then winning is more important that the loss of civilian lives. Catholic theology has always accepted the reality that innocent people die in a war. That is why wars should be avoided, not initiated (like Japan did). Otherwise, evil would increase. Japan at the time was a very cruel nation in which innocent Japanese, Chinese and many others did die. Should America have surrendered after Pearl Harbor and let others live under such a regime?

Now if your point is that winning quickly was not worthy the lives of the innocent, then no on is arguing that. Rather that the bombing reduced greatly the number of innocent casualties.

 

[smichhertz]

Now if your point is that winning quickly was not worthy the lives of the innocent, then no on is arguing that. Rather that the bombing reduced greatly the number of innocent casualties.

You can’t intentionally kill innocent people to reduce the number of innocent people killed. That makes no sense at all.

 

[stevegravy]

You can’t intentionally kill innocent people to reduce the number of innocent people killed. That makes no sense at all.

I have yet to see in all these post someone define a basic premise what an innocent non-combatant is in a modern nation state at war. It seems until that is agreed upon the conclusion of immorality of Heroshima atomic bombing is not proved.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

The Atomic bomb attacks on Japan were nothing more than a cold-war propaganda exercise by the United States. Here’s why: The US had brokered a deal at Yalta with Josef Stalin that, after Gemany’s defeat, the USSR would declare war on Japan and assist the US in ending the Pacific war. It took Stalin about six months to transfer the necessary troops and equipment to Siberia from the European fronts. US leaders were informed as to the planned date of the Soviet war declaration. They were also aware of the devastating effect that this declaration would have on the Japanese leadership who were hoping that the Russians, as a neutral party, would broker a conditional peace between Japan and the US. Japan also depended for survival on its Korean, Chinese, and Manchurian occupied territories. The Japs knew that fighting the massive, battle tested Red Army would end in defeat.
In short, US leaders knew that the Soviet declaration of war against Japan would force Japan to surrender. In order to make it appear as if Japan were surrendering because of a US (rather than Soviet) action, Truman ordered the A-Bomb attacks to take place just before the USSR declared war on Japan. This US propaganda effort was so successful that most Americans still believe it today. I myself used to think that the Soviet war declaration on Japan, coming after the A-Bomb attacks, was a sudden, opportunistic action, when, in fact, it had been months in the planning. For those who still have doubts, I refer you to the latest research on this subject, “Racing the Enemy… Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan” by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa.
The idea that US leaders never make a despicable decision is a mistaken one. We, as US citizens, have a responsibility to review the decisions of our leaders and to call them out when these leaders commit such outrageous actions.

 

[smichhertz]

I have yet to see in all these post someone define a basic premise what an innocent non-combatant is in a modern nation state at war. It seems until that is agreed upon the conclusion of immorality of Heroshima atomic bombing is not proved.

Actually the burden of proof is on those who think it’s morally permissible to show how. The CCC clearly condemns the “destruction of whole cities”:

#2314 Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

So once we determine that Hiroshima was an act that destroyed a city, we have sufficient information to declare it immoral. A precise definition of an innocent non-combatant isn’t even needed to determine the morality of the Hiroshima bombing.

 

[stevegravy]

Actually the burden of proof is on those who think it’s morally permissible to show how. The CCC clearly condemns the “destruction of whole cities”:

So once we determine that Hiroshima was an act that destroyed a city, we have sufficient information to declare it immoral. A precise definition of an innocent non-combatant isn’t even needed to determine the morality of the Hiroshima bombing.

First, the alternate hypothesis is not Hiroshima is moral, the alternate is it was not immoral.

Second, bvecause Hiroshima is a city does not mean it isn’t a military target. This leaves only an appeal to authority the CCC. Well did the CCC define how God could destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?

 

[smichhertz]

First, the alternate hypothesis is not Hiroshima is moral, the alternate is it was not immoral.

Correct. That’s what “morally permissible” means.

Second, bvecause Hiroshima is a city does not mean it isn’t a military target.

Yes it does. There is no justification for targeting and destroying an entire city.

This leaves only an appeal to authority the CCC. Well did the CCC define how God could destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?

Technically, it is an appeal to the authority of the CC which then wrote the CCC, but either way works.

God can kill whomever, whenever. It is within His right as Creator. As a matter of fact, no one dies but by the Will of God, so technically speaking, every single person in the history of existence was killed by God. The question is not what can God morally do, but what can WE morally do?

 

[Godfollower]

I have yet to see in all these post someone define a basic premise what an innocent non-combatant is in a modern nation state at war. It seems until that is agreed upon the conclusion of immorality of Heroshima atomic bombing is not proved.

A blameless person who is not engaged in fighting during a war, esp. a civilian, chaplain, or medical practitioner; someone not involved in prosecuting the war.

Some examples:

• Schoolchildren;
• Infants too young for school;
• Babes in the womb;
• Civilians at home;
• The tens of thousands of Korean and Chinese “contract workers” (forced laborers);
• Arguably at least some of the few thousand American citizens in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the time (though some of them may have been willing to be in Japan, and not all of them are necessarily innocent);
• The doctors, nurses, techs, patients, and patients’ family members at the various hospitals that were destroyed in the blasts;
• Arguably the dozen or so Allied prisoners of war who died in the blasts;
• Etc.

Hope this helps.

 

[Godfollower]

First, the alternate hypothesis is not Hiroshima is moral, the alternate is it was not immoral.

Second, bvecause Hiroshima is a city does not mean it isn’t a military target. This leaves only an appeal to authority the CCC. Well did the CCC define how God could destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?

From the report of the Target Committee:

1. Status of Targets

A. Dr. Stearns described the work he had done on target selection. He has surveyed possible targets possessing the following qualification: (1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August. Dr. Stearns had a list of five targets which the Air Force would be willing to reserve for our use unless unforeseen circumstances arise. These targets are:

(1) Kyoto - This target is an urban industrial area with a population of 1,000,000. It is the former capital of Japan and many people and industries are now being moved there as other areas are being destroyed. From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget. (Classified as an AA Target)
(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)
(3) Yokohama - This target is an important urban industrial area which has so far been untouched. Industrial activities include aircraft manufacture, machine tools, docks, electrical equipment and oil refineries. As the damage to Tokyo has increased additional industries have moved to Yokohama. It has the disadvantage of the most important target areas being separated by a large body of water and of being in the heaviest anti-aircraft concentration in Japan. For us it has the advantage as an alternate target for use in case of bad weather of being rather far removed from the other targets considered. (Classified as an A Target)
(4) Kokura Arsenal - This is one of the largest arsenals in Japan and is surrounded by urban industrial structures. The arsenal is important for light ordnance, anti-aircraft and beach head defense materials. The dimensions of the arsenal are 4100’ x 2000’. The dimensions are such that if the bomb were properly placed full advantage could be taken of the higher pressures immediately underneath the bomb for destroying the more solid structures and at the same time considerable blast damage could be done to more feeble structures further away. (Classified as an A Target)
(5) Niigata - This is a port of embarkation on the N.W. coast of Honshu. Its importance is increasing as other ports are damaged. Machine tool industries are located there and it is a potential center for industrial despersion. It has oil refineries and storage. (Classified as a B Target)
(6) The possibility of bombing the Emperor’s palace was discussed. It was agreed that we should not recommend it but that any action for this bombing should come from authorities on military policy. It was agreed that we should obtain information from which we could determine the effectiveness of our weapon against this target.
B. It was the recommendation of those present at the meeting that the first four choices of targets for our weapon should be the following:

           a. Kyoto
           b. Hiroshima
           c. Yokohama
           d. Kokura Arsenal

C. Dr. Stearns agreed to do the following: (1) brief Colonel Fisher thoroughly on these matters, (2) request reservations for these targets, (3) find out more about the target area including exact locations of the strategic industries there, (4) obtain further photo information on the targets, and (5) to determine the nature of the construction, the area, heights, contents and roof coverage of buildings. He also agreed to keep in touch with the target data as it develops and to keep the committee advised of other possible target areas. He will also check on locations of small military targets and obtain further details on the Emperor’s palace.

1. Psychological Factors in Target Selection

A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor’s palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.

1. Use Against “Military” Objectives

A. It was agreed that for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb.

Notice that they deliberately chose an “urban area” for the target.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Yes. They all smoked back then. How moral could they be? Seriously, I don’t think that comparing movies of the thirties to movies today casts this generation is a very moral light. Besides, don’t you think that since there was a since of ignorance that the judging their moral fiber (as opposed to the morality of the act) is mitigated? They did not have access to the Catechism we have today and examination of the morality of such a bomb had not appeared on the scope of Christian thought, at least not that I have heard of.

I guess above explains why abortion is what it is today. I like your phrase scope of Christian thought…Take it and apply it to abortion, deteriorating family unit , corporate theft, material glory, role models like Tiger Woods and that crowd…greed of course

So much for access to the catechism and examination of morality I believe that you may be living in a dream world. The abstract expectation of the social has done well . Mutual brainwashing.

 

[Warrior1979]

Of course we would have won

This is pure speculation. I also believe that it displays a lack of understanding of Japanese culture and beliefs. IMHO, battles at Iwo Jima and the like were the easy ones; battling the Japanese on the turf that they actually lived would be exceeding difficult.

 

[JimG]

This is pure speculation. I also believe that it displays a lack of understanding of Japanese culture and beliefs. IMHO, battles at Iwo Jima and the like were the easy ones; battling the Japanese on the turf that they actually lived would be exceeding difficult.

I have no expertise on the military prospects. Presumably the U.S. would have used overwhelming force in an invasion fleet. But that is no guarantee of success.

Before the Normandy invasion, Eisenhower had prepared a statement accepting full responsibility for the defeat of the invasion forces. He planned to use it in the event that the invasion failed. Military actions are never a sure thing. Fortunately, he didn’t have to use it. I’m sure that whoever might have been in command of a U.S. invasion of the Japanese mainland would have had reason to prepare such a statement. Failure would have even more disastrous and costly than failure at Normandy.

 

[Warrior1979]

I have no expertise on the military prospects. Presumably the U.S. would have used overwhelming force in an invasion fleet. But that is no guarantee of success.

I’m not referring to the military prospects. I am referring to Japanese culture. It is extremely dishonored to surrender. Doing so means shaming themselves and their family. It is more honorable to die.

Interestingly, atomic weapons may have been what was required to break their spirit enough to surrender. It’s one thing to fight on the battlefield; there is always hope, regardless of odds. There is no hope if atomic weapons evaporate everything is sight.

 

[pnewton]

You can’t intentionally kill innocent people to reduce the number of innocent people killed. That makes no sense at all.

You can never intentionally kill innocent people in any case. However, that does not mean that you can take no action in which innocent people are killed for proportionate cause.

 

[pnewton]

Actually the burden of proof is on those who think it’s morally permissible to show how. The CCC clearly condemns the “destruction of whole cities”:

I notice you selectively quoted and left out the key modifier “indiscriminate”. In any case, using the Catechism will only answer the question of would it be immoral today, not was it immoral at the time.

 

[pnewton]

So much for access to the catechism and examination of morality I believe that you may be living in a dream world. The abstract expectation of the social has done well . Mutual brainwashing.

Thank you for the compliment. May others here be as kind to you as you are to them. But yes, I do live in a world where faith, hope and love are still virtues that are at work in the world. Abortion has nothing to do with the topic of Hiroshima, so I will ignore rabbit trail.

 

[JaneGrey]

I do not know about that last statement. If the war was a just war, then winning is more important that the loss of civilian lives. Catholic theology has always accepted the reality that innocent people die in a war. That is why wars should be avoided, not initiated (like Japan did). Otherwise, evil would increase. Japan at the time was a very cruel nation in which innocent Japanese, Chinese and many others did die. Should America have surrendered after Pearl Harbor and let others live under such a regime?

Now if your point is that winning quickly was not worthy the lives of the innocent, then no on is arguing that. Rather that the bombing reduced greatly the number of innocent casualties.

Well I dont pretend to be an expert on war or that particular time period so I accept that even i cant say for sure that America should have surrendered. However was that the only alternative to an atom bomb?