As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[sandomenico]

I stand corrected in my geography. Thanks for making that clear.

God love you,
sandomenico

 

[GKC]

I stand corrected in my geography. Thanks for making that clear.

God love you,
sandomenico

You are very welcome.

GKC

 

[Rock_Happy]

Even though it was the Emperor’s decision, and not that of the general population, let’s not forget that the Japanese attacked the US. In light of that, I have no problem with sacrificing Japanese lives in order save American lives, even though they were civilians.

WWII was the first war in modern times to target civilians. Fortunately, modern weapons technology now minimizes civilian injury. Terrorists intentionally target civilians. But sometimes it is necessary to engage in large scale damage to civilian property, as we did in Fallujah. I was not happy to be rubble-izing a town at the time. No doubt that has all been rebuilt by now at US taxpayer expense.

 

[sandomenico]

Even though it was the Emperor’s decision, and not that of the general population, let’s not forget that the Japanese attacked the US. In light of that, I have no problem with sacrificing Japanese lives in order save American lives, even though they were civilians.

So American lives are intrinsically worth more than any other lives?

God love you,
sandomenico

 

[catharina]

So American lives are intrinsically worth more than any other lives?

God love you,
sandomenico

I’m guessing that his justification is that
Japan attacked first so that: All lives lost
were due to the initial Japanese aggression.

At least, that’s my guess as to what he means.

 

[Rock_Happy]

So American lives are intrinsically worth more than any other lives?

God love you,
sandomenico

In normal circumstances, of course not. When fighting an enemy at war, yes definitely. But I reject the notion of intrinsic difference in that calculation. The choice is made according to circumstance. Choices are made all the time as to whose life is more valuable than some other persons’. The one who fires the first bullet should think very carefully before inviting a war. The Japanese attack was entirely unprovoked. Would I kill a bad guy rather than let him kill an innocent victim? Yes, I have done it personally, while I did not enjoy doing it. The personal price of war was high for me physically and emotionally. However, I do not regret it. I have been to a mass grave, and watched people dig through remains looking for some clue of a loved one. I have stood on a street slick with blood, and with body parts scattered about, and people screaming. I would also gladly have shaken Hitler’s hand while I detonated myself, if given the opportunity. I would place his life below others, and my own life at less value than the millions he killed. Ditto for Stalin, Pol Pot, or a host of others.

Is killing one million people to save five million people a higher moral choice than sacrificing the five million? I say yes.

I would not be the first person to point out that the only white people that the US has ever bombed on a large scale have been German. As a nation we seem to prefer to bomb brown people.

 

[GKC]

In normal circumstances, of course not. When fighting an enemy at war, yes definitely. But I reject the notion of intrinsic difference in that calculation. The choice is made according to circumstance. Choices are made all the time as to whose life is more valuable than some other persons’. The one who fires the first bullet should think very carefully before inviting a war. The Japanese attack was entirely unprovoked. Would I kill a bad guy rather than let him kill an innocent victim? Yes, I have done it personally, while I did not enjoy doing it. The personal price of war was high for me physically and emotionally. However, I do not regret it. I have been to a mass grave, and watched people dig through remains looking for some clue of a loved one. I have stood on a street slick with blood, and with body parts scattered about, and people screaming. I would also gladly have shaken Hitler’s hand while I detonated myself, if given the opportunity. I would place his life below others, and my own life at less value than the millions he killed. Ditto for Stalin, Pol Pot, or a host of others.

Is killing one million people to save five million people a higher moral choice than sacrificing the five million? I say yes.

I would not be the first person to point out that the only white people that the US has ever bombed on a large scale have been German. As a nation we seem to prefer to bomb brown people.

What other Caucasian peoples have we had the occasion to consider bombing, on a large scale?

GKC

 

[George_Stegmeir]

For all of you who oppose the use of the atomic bomb during WWII, and are ant- war in general, bear in mind that you have the freedom to express your views publically and privately because of the sacrifices common men who fought to keep your freedoms.Can you imagine living in any West Coast State if Japan had won the war, or living in any State East of the Rockies if Nazi Germany had won?
It is all well and good to theorize, but we should always learn from the past, and quite frankly we are still not over from the hippie and peacenik infection of the 1960’s…neither of which is compatable with Catholic theology.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

For all of you who oppose the use of the atomic bomb during WWII, and are ant- war in general, bear in mind that you have the freedom to express your views publically and privately because of the sacrifices common men who fought to keep your freedoms.Can you imagine living in any West Coast State if Japan had won the war, or living in any State East of the Rockies if Nazi Germany had won?
It is all well and good to theorize, but we should always learn from the past, and quite frankly we are still not over from the hippie and peacenik infection of the 1960’s…neither of which is compatable with Catholic theology.

The 1960 peacenik business was part and parcel of the Soviet Communist propaganda war against the United States which came to the aid of South Vietnam whose mayors and teachers were being assassinated by agents of North Vietnam. And we came to the rescue of South Vietnam as part of a treaty.

Unfortunately, we botched it.

Rules of engagement and anti-war protests.

The protesters did not protest the atrocities perpetrated by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese, however.

 

[Godfollower]

it took TWO bombs for japan to take us seriously.
So therefore…HAD TO DO IT. Thank you PResident Truman!

Good point. That hadn’t occurred to me.

Even though it was the Emperor’s decision, and not that of the general population, let’s not forget that the Japanese attacked the US. In light of that, I have no problem with sacrificing Japanese lives in order save American lives, even though they were civilians.

WWII was the first war in modern times to target civilians. Fortunately, modern weapons technology now minimizes civilian injury. Terrorists intentionally target civilians. But sometimes it is necessary to engage in large scale damage to civilian property, as we did in Fallujah. I was not happy to be rubble-izing a town at the time. No doubt that has all been rebuilt by now at US taxpayer expense.

In normal circumstances, of course not. When fighting an enemy at war, yes definitely. But I reject the notion of intrinsic difference in that calculation. The choice is made according to circumstance. Choices are made all the time as to whose life is more valuable than some other persons’. The one who fires the first bullet should think very carefully before inviting a war. The Japanese attack was entirely unprovoked. Would I kill a bad guy rather than let him kill an innocent victim? Yes, I have done it personally, while I did not enjoy doing it. The personal price of war was high for me physically and emotionally. However, I do not regret it. I have been to a mass grave, and watched people dig through remains looking for some clue of a loved one. I have stood on a street slick with blood, and with body parts scattered about, and people screaming. I would also gladly have shaken Hitler’s hand while I detonated myself, if given the opportunity. I would place his life below others, and my own life at less value than the millions he killed. Ditto for Stalin, Pol Pot, or a host of others.

Is killing one million people to save five million people a higher moral choice than sacrificing the five million? I say yes.

I would not be the first person to point out that the only white people that the US has ever bombed on a large scale have been German. As a nation we seem to prefer to bomb brown people.

For all of you who oppose the use of the atomic bomb during WWII, and are ant- war in general, bear in mind that you have the freedom to express your views publically and privately because of the sacrifices common men who fought to keep your freedoms.Can you imagine living in any West Coast State if Japan had won the war, or living in any State East of the Rockies if Nazi Germany had won?
It is all well and good to theorize, but we should always learn from the past, and quite frankly we are still not over from the hippie and peacenik infection of the 1960’s…neither of which is compatable with Catholic theology.

I take it, then, given that there were pregnant women present at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki who died from the bombs, that each of you fully supports the idea that deliberately killing an unborn human is justified in the right circumstances? I would be interested in hearing what those circumstances are, and what effect that argument has on the abortion debate.

(Obviously we aren’t talking about aiming conventional weapons at a munitions factory and accidentally killing innocent bystanders, or sending in lots of missiles at military targets even though we’re pretty sure that a few of them will go astray and accidentally kill innocents. That can be moral under the principle of double-effect. Here we’re talking about deliberately targeting a city – not a factory or military base, but an entire city – containing innocent civilians, including children under the age of reason and the unborn).

If deliberately killing innocent children was acceptable at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and Tokyo and Hamburg and Dresden and all the other places we killed enemy civilians through whatever means), when else is it acceptable? To save the life of the mother? To reduce a famine-ravaged area’s population to subsistence levels? To maintain economic or political independence?

If our troops are facing too many IEDs in Fallujah (assuming a just-war justification for our being there, of course), can we simply withdraw and carpet-bomb the city until there’s no one left to make bombs?

What are the guidelines that allow us to kill innocents on purpose?

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I take it, then, given that there were pregnant women present at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki who died from the bombs, that each of you fully supports the idea that deliberately killing an unborn human is justified in the right circumstances? I would be interested in hearing what those circumstances are, and what effect that argument has on the abortion debate.

(Obviously we aren’t talking about aiming conventional weapons at a munitions factory and accidentally killing innocent bystanders, or sending in lots of missiles at military targets even though we’re pretty sure that a few of them will go astray and accidentally kill innocents. That can be moral under the principle of double-effect. Here we’re talking about deliberately targeting a city – not a factory or military base, but an entire city – containing innocent civilians, including children under the age of reason and the unborn).

If deliberately killing innocent children was acceptable at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and Tokyo and Hamburg and Dresden and all the other places we killed enemy civilians through whatever means), when else is it acceptable? To save the life of the mother? To reduce a famine-ravaged area’s population to subsistence levels? To maintain economic or political independence?

If our troops are facing too many IEDs in Fallujah (assuming a just-war justification for our being there, of course), can we simply withdraw and carpet-bomb the city until there’s no one left to make bombs?

What are the guidelines that allow us to kill innocents on purpose?

Like it or not, throughout history, civilians have suffered most from warfare. Do you think anyone in the past…including the armies of the Papal States in Italy thought one whit about civilian death, especially those of women-pregnant or not?
When total war is waged, enemy civilians are fair game because armies in the field and Navies at sea could not exist or perform without their support. By destroying the logistics of the enemy force you effectively hinder their ability of doing your people harm.
Abortion and infanticide is not even a consideration. If they are harmed, it become a case of them being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why do you think England sent thousands upon thousands of children to Canada and the Us at the beginning of WWII, even before the US entered the war? And, they had pregnant women go into the countryside when their cities were being bombed by the Germans.
The fact that the Japanese did not, is no fault of ours.
I know I am not convincing you, but while an individual priest or bishop today may be against “the bomb” they were definately not in the aftermath of WWII.
In the classical argument of “Name your source”, I challange you to cite one Papal document from Rome that specifically say that the use of the atomic bomb is sinful.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

From a strictly military point of view, there was no reason to use atomic weapons on Japan. The Russians were perfectly willing to invade the Japanese home islands. No American lives would have been lost. President Truman however did have political reasons. One was that about two billion dollars had been spent secretly to develope the A-bomb, and that expenditure needed to to justified to Congress. Another was that administration officials were dismayed at Stalin’s takeover of eastern Europe and feared a similar Soviet domination of the far east. So the bomb was used in an attempt to end the Pacific war before the Russians made too much progress with their attack on Japanese forces. Truman and his advisors were fiercly anti-communist, and the dropping of the A-bomb on Japan should be considered the beginning of the cold war. Some 50,000 US soldiers lost in Korea as a result.

I’ve noticed Vietnam mentioned in this forum. In 1945 the Vietnamese declared independence and formed a coalition government (with Archemedes Patti and other CIA operatives present in Hanoi and providing assistance. That’s why the Viet Declaration contained wording similar to that of the US.) And guess what? There was no civil war! No war of any kind! The Vietnamese repeatedly asked the Truman administration for recognition, even offering Cam Rahn Bay for a US military base. In another great decision, Truman refused, instead ordering the US Merchant Marine to transport French soldiers to Vietnam. (The MM sailors sent a letter of protest to Mr. Truman.) The French broke their obligation to observe the soverenty of the Viet government and started their war of re-occupation. Mr. Truman had the US finance about 3/4 of the cost of the French war. This money allowed the French to form the “Vietnamese National Army” which was used to assist in the re-occupation effort. Eventually, the VNA provided the basis for the US to form a puppet govenment in southern Vietnam in order to oppose “communism” in Asia (since we were to d**n scared to do it in China against Mao.) So the US started the Vietnam Civil War, and another 60,000 US kids dead (not to mention the 3 million Vietnamese.)

 

[GKC]

From a strictly military point of view, there was no reason to use atomic weapons on Japan. The Russians were perfectly willing to invade the Japanese home islands. No American lives would have been lost. President Truman however did have political reasons. One was that about two billion dollars had been spent secretly to develope the A-bomb, and that expenditure needed to to justified to Congress. Another was that administration officials were dismayed at Stalin’s takeover of eastern Europe and feared a similar Soviet domination of the far east. So the bomb was used in an attempt to end the Pacific war before the Russians made too much progress with their attack on Japanese forces. Truman and his advisors were fiercly anti-communist, and the dropping of the A-bomb on Japan should be considered the beginning of the cold war. Some 50,000 US soldiers lost in Korea as a result.

I’ve noticed Vietnam mentioned in this forum. In 1945 the Vietnamese declared independence and formed a coalition government (with Archemedes Patti and other CIA operatives present in Hanoi and providing assistance. That’s why the Viet Declaration contained wording similar to that of the US.) And guess what? There was no civil war! No war of any kind! The Vietnamese repeatedly asked the Truman administration for recognition, even offering Cam Rahn Bay for a US military base. In another great decision, Truman refused, instead ordering the US Merchant Marine to transport French soldiers to Vietnam. (The MM sailors sent a letter of protest to Mr. Truman.) The French broke their obligation to observe the soverenty of the Viet government and started their war of re-occupation. Mr. Truman had the US finance about 3/4 of the cost of the French war. This money allowed the French to form the “Vietnamese National Army” which was used to assist in the re-occupation effort. Eventually, the VNA provided the basis for the US to form a puppet govenment in southern Vietnam in order to oppose “communism” in Asia (since we were to d**n scared to do it in China against Mao.) So the US started the Vietnam Civil War, and another 60,000 US kids dead (not to mention the 3 million Vietnamese.)

In the roughly two weeks that the Russians were actively engaged in fighting the Japanese in Manchuria, China, and Sakhalin Island, the death total for both sides was over 95,000. Had the Russians invaded the Home Islands, the deaths would have been proportionate. Whether the US had invaded or not, or the Russians had done so, the use of the bombs resulted in far fewer total casualties than an invasion of the Home Islands defended by the* Ketsugo* plan would have done. For each month that the war continued, exclusive of any casualties caused by an invasion, between 100.000 and 300,000 casualties occurred throughout the PTO. Substituting the Russians for Americans in the invasion merely changes the uniforms of the dead invaders, not the total lives lost.

I note the fact that allowing the Russians to control the Far East as they did eastern Europe seems an acceptable idea to you.

GKC

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

GKC: Your previous historical analysis post was the best I’ve seen anywhere, and I thank you for your research. Yes, I do believe that Soviet domination of the Far East would have been preferable to the cold war and the tragedy on the Korean Peninsula (still ongoing.)
Stalin was outraged by the A-bomb attacks, not because he cared anything about Japanese civilians, but because they interfered with his plans for conquest (the Japanese/Russian rivalry goes back some time, as I’m sure you are aware.) Another consideration is that the Soviets redoubled their efforts to produce their own A-bomb. The resulting arms race would have ended in WWIII (it still may), were it not for the cool-headedness of John Kennedy who, contrary to the opinion of every one of his advisors, refused to go to war in Cuba in 1963.

 

[GKC]

GKC: Your previous historical analysis post was the best I’ve seen anywhere, and I thank you for your research. Yes, I do believe that Soviet domination of the Far East would have been preferable to the cold war and the tragedy on the Korean Peninsula (still ongoing.)
Stalin was outraged by the A-bomb attacks, not because he cared anything about Japanese civilians, but because they interfered with his plans for conquest (the Japanese/Russian rivalry goes back some time, as I’m sure you are aware.) Another consideration is that the Soviets redoubled their efforts to produce their own A-bomb. The resulting arms race would have ended in WWIII (it still may), were it not for the cool-headedness of John Kennedy who, contrary to the opinion of every one of his advisors, refused to go to war in Cuba in 1963.

I thank you for that first statement. The subject is one that I’ve been studying, as a hobby, for over 15 years.

I disagree with the rest of your comment.

GKC

 

[Godfollower]

Like it or not, throughout history, civilians have suffered most from warfare. Do you think anyone in the past…including the armies of the Papal States in Italy thought one whit about civilian death, especially those of women-pregnant or not?
When total war is waged, enemy civilians are fair game because armies in the field and Navies at sea could not exist or perform without their support. By destroying the logistics of the enemy force you effectively hinder their ability of doing your people harm.
Abortion and infanticide is not even a consideration. If they are harmed, it become a case of them being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why do you think England sent thousands upon thousands of children to Canada and the Us at the beginning of WWII, even before the US entered the war? And, they had pregnant women go into the countryside when their cities were being bombed by the Germans.
The fact that the Japanese did not, is no fault of ours.
I know I am not convincing you, but while an individual priest or bishop today may be against “the bomb” they were definately not in the aftermath of WWII.
In the classical argument of “Name your source”, I challange you to cite one Papal document from Rome that specifically say that the use of the atomic bomb is sinful.

Well, it’s not specifically the atomic bomb that’s sinful, it’s dropping it on civilians that makes it a sin. But, with that caveat, I’ll give you more than one:

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.”***110 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.

Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶ 2314 (emphasis added).

With these truths in mind, this most holy synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent popes,(2) and issues the following declaration.

Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.

The unique hazard of modern warfare consists in this: it provides those who possess modern scientific weapons with a kind of occasion for perpetrating just such abominations; moreover, through a certain inexorable chain of events, it can catapult men into the most atrocious decisions. That such may never truly happen in the future, the bishops of the whole world gathered together, beg all men, especially government officials and military leaders, to give unremitting thought to their gigantic responsibility before God and the entire human race.

Gaudium et Spes ¶ 80 (emphasis added).

1. Hence justice, right reason, and the recognition of man’s dignity cry out insistently for a cessation to the arms race. The stock-piles of armaments which have been built up in various countries must be reduced all round and simultaneously by the parties concerned. Nuclear weapons must be banned. A general agreement must be reached on a suitable disarmament program, with an effective system of mutual control. In the words of Pope Pius XII: “The calamity of a world war, with the economic and social ruin and the moral excesses and dissolution that accompany it, must not on any account be permitted to engulf the human race for a third time.”

Pacem in Terris ¶ 112 (emphasis added).

Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. “Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action”.

As far as the right to life is concerned, every innocent human being is absolutely equal to all others. This equality is the basis of all authentic social relationships which, to be truly such, can only be founded on truth and justice, recognizing and protecting every man and woman as a person and not as an object to be used. Before the moral norm which prohibits the direct taking of the life of an innocent human being “there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the ?poorest of the poor’ on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal”.

Evangelium Vitae ¶ 57 (emphasis added).

 

[Godfollower]

Like it or not, throughout history, civilians have suffered most from warfare.

That doesn’t make targeting them moral.

Do you think anyone in the past…including the armies of the Papal States in Italy thought one whit about civilian death, especially those of women-pregnant or not?

Most people in the U.S. are okay with abortion, contraception, etc. Most of them don’t give it a second thought. That doesn’t make it moral.

When total war is waged, enemy civilians are fair game because armies in the field and Navies at sea could not exist or perform without their support. By destroying the logistics of the enemy force you effectively hinder their ability of doing your people harm.

The Catholic Church has always condemned that thought. Indeed, “Nor, by the same token, does the mere fact that war has unhappily begun mean that all is fair between the warring parties.” Gaudium et Spes ¶ 79, para. 4.

Abortion and infanticide is not even a consideration. If they are harmed, it become a case of them being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why do you think England sent thousands upon thousands of children to Canada and the Us at the beginning of WWII, even before the US entered the war? And, they had pregnant women go into the countryside when their cities were being bombed by the Germans.
The fact that the Japanese did not, is no fault of ours.

“They made us do it”?! Really? “I’m deliberately blowing up an entire city; it’s the babies’ fault that they’re there and dead as a result”?

They’re innocent. Killing them on purpose is a sin.

I know I am not convincing you, but while an individual priest or bishop today may be against “the bomb” they were definately not in the aftermath of WWII.

Well, no, you’re wrong about that.

There were names of places in Europe which from the early days of the war were associated with a German idea that by disregarding the rights of civilians you could shorten a war. These names of places—Rotterdam, Coventry—were associated, and seemed likely to be associated in men’s minds for a great number of years, with a judgment of German guilt and German shame. There was a port in the Pacific which sheltered American naval power. It was attacked by air without warning and the name Pearl Harbor was associated, and seemed likely to be associated for many years, with a Japanese idea that you could win a war by attacking the enemy before declaring war on the enemy. The name Pearl Harbor was a name for Japanese guilt and shame.

The name Hiroshima, the name Nagasaki are names for American guilt and shame.

The war against Japan was nearly won. Our fleet and Britain’s fleet stood off Japan’s coast and shelled Japan’s cities. There was no opposition. Our planes, the greatest bombers in the world flew from hard won, gallantly won bases and bombed Japanese shipping, Japanese industry and, already, Japanese women and children. Each day they announced to the Japanese where the blows would fall, and the Japanese were unable to prevent anything they chose to do.

Then, without warning an American plane dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

Russia entered the war. There was no doubt before or after Russia entered the war that the war against Japan was won. An American plane dropped the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki.

We had to invent the bomb because the Germans were going to invent the bomb. It was a matter of avoiding our own possible destruction. We had to test the bomb and we tested it in a desert. If we were to threaten the use of it against the Japanese, we could have told them to pick a desert and then go look at the hole. Without warning we dropped it into the middle of a city and then without warning we dropped it into the middle of another city.

Editorial, Commonweal Magazine (Aug. 24, 1945) (emphasis added).

Several Catholic authorities protested against the use of the bomb. And they weren’t alone; other Christian and non-Christian religious leaders spoke out against it at the same time.

In the classical argument of “Name your source”, I challange you to cite one Papal document from Rome that specifically say that the use of the atomic bomb is sinful.

See my previous post.

 

[Rock_Happy]

What other Caucasian peoples have we had the occasion to consider bombing, on a large scale?

GKC

Well… that is more a matter of politics. As a Marine I learned that we bomb whomever it profits us to bomb, whether that means Haliburton needs a boost in stock price, or for other reasons. My job was to follow orders. When you consider that the Iraq war was entirely fabricated for these reasons, the victims could be any race. I suppose if oil were under a white poor nation, then we might have picked them instead. But I stray into politics… feel free to respond of course, but I don’t intend to get into a heated discussion about current politics.

 

[Rock_Happy]

That doesn’t make targeting them moral.

Most people in the U.S. are okay with abortion, contraception, etc. Most of them don’t give it a second thought. That doesn’t make it moral.

The Catholic Church has always condemned that thought. Indeed, “Nor, by the same token, does the mere fact that war has unhappily begun mean that all is fair between the warring parties.” Gaudium et Spes ¶ 79, para. 4.

“They made us do it”?! Really? “I’m deliberately blowing up an entire city; it’s the babies’ fault that they’re there and dead as a result”?

They’re innocent. Killing them on purpose is a sin.

Well, no, you’re wrong about that.

Editorial, Commonweal Magazine (Aug. 24, 1945) (emphasis added).

Several Catholic authorities protested against the use of the bomb. And they weren’t alone; other Christian and non-Christian religious leaders spoke out against it at the same time.

See my previous post.

You mean, after the fact of its use, I assume. Even the inventors of the bomb objected to its use, once they saw the result. Even “tactical” nuclear weapons have never been used since Japan. My dad is an academic, and a guy at his university was on the atomic bomb project as a physicist. I remember him telling me that there was a small number of scientists who were worried that the Pacific Ocean would ignite. I don’t understand the physics of that worry, but there was not a clear understanding of what would happen when the bomb was dropped on a real target, until it was done.

I have seen a nuclear weapon and put my hand on it. It was a creepy feeling, knowing what destructive power was contained within.

 

[Rock_Happy]

I take it, then, given that there were pregnant women present at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki who died from the bombs, that each of you fully supports the idea that deliberately killing an unborn human is justified in the right circumstances? I would be interested in hearing what those circumstances are, and what effect that argument has on the abortion debate.

(Obviously we aren’t talking about aiming conventional weapons at a munitions factory and accidentally killing innocent bystanders, or sending in lots of missiles at military targets even though we’re pretty sure that a few of them will go astray and accidentally kill innocents. That can be moral under the principle of double-effect. Here we’re talking about deliberately targeting a city – not a factory or military base, but an entire city – containing innocent civilians, including children under the age of reason and the unborn).

If deliberately killing innocent children was acceptable at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and Tokyo and Hamburg and Dresden and all the other places we killed enemy civilians through whatever means), when else is it acceptable? To save the life of the mother? To reduce a famine-ravaged area’s population to subsistence levels? To maintain economic or political independence?

If our troops are facing too many IEDs in Fallujah (assuming a just-war justification for our being there, of course), can we simply withdraw and carpet-bomb the city until there’s no one left to make bombs?

What are the guidelines that allow us to kill innocents on purpose?

Yes, I would say that killing 1,000 INNOCENT women with unborn children in their wombs is preferable to killing 1,000,000 INNOCENT men, with wives and children at home, drafted into WWII to fight the war in the Pacific. I have no qualms whatsoever about that. The ratio is about 500 to 1 of innocent people killed.

Hiroshima was a military town. It was in large part a military target. Today, we have surgical weapons which can p(name removed by moderator)oint a target. That technology was not available in WW2. Even a small target could require thousands of pounds of explosives to hit.

Am I correct in assuming that you think that it is preferable for 500 men to die for the sake of 1 pregnant woman? What sort of logic are you trying to apply here?

If your argument is the pacifist one, tell me how you would have stopped the Japanese military, and what the peaceful solution to Hitler’s Blitzkrieg was, sweeping across Europe? Keep in mind that the reason that we developed the atomic bomb was that the Germans started doing it first.

Please describe you vision of the world if the Germans had developed and deployed the atomic bomb first?

Finally, I would like to say that I have been there. Nearly every US Marine whom I knew in combat took his ROE very seriously. We risked our own lives at times in order to avoid harming civilians. I had the experience of being under mortar attack and unable to take action to stop it, until we could get hot authorization to change our orders. Literally with mortar rounds landing within feet of us. The assumption that the US military quickly takes civilian life is inaccurate, in my experience. My leg was shattered into 15 pieces in that event, and I was told that it would be amputated. Fortunately, the surgeon changed his mind. On the other hand, I could have taken out the “spotter” for the mortar attack with one round. Oh… and unlike us, our enemy intentionally targeted civilians. I believe that the US military does take the higher road in that sense. I also believe that the decision to drop the atomic bomb was not an easy one for our leaders, but that the choice was to minimize death and the end the war.