As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[Tsuwano]

I’m not satisfied with the choices given. I think the situation in which the first atomic bomb was dropped was so much more complicated than a simple label of “morally wrong” allows. I also am unable to clearly say that the United States absolutely had to drop the bomb to win the war. The United States probably could have won the war without dropping the atomic bomb, but then many more lives, both Allied and Japanese, would have been lost and much more destruction on a wider scale would have taken place. If that had been history, we would now be debating whether it was morally wrong not to have dropped the atomic bomb. I think there were components present in the decision to drop the bomb which may have been morally wrong and components in that same decision which were morally correct. What is more important than debating the morality of a past decision to drop the bomb at a very different time in history is asking what we have done since that time to insure that the atomic bomb is never dropped again.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

If I relook at paragraph 2314 in the catechism, it says "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destrcution of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a cime against God and man, which merits firm unequivoval condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the oportunity to those who possess modern sicentific weapons - espcecially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons, to commit such crimes.

I don’t think one can make the argument using the law of double effect. The law of double effect would apply to one bombing a specific military target such as a factory, or military base, and an innocent worker at that factory, or base gets killed.

Thank you for the above reminder of the Catechism. It is good to repeat this often.

"The indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is truly “a crime against God and man”.* Amen.* It indeed “merits firm unequivocal condemnation”.

Everything about the bombing of innocent men, women and children, all civilians, in Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945 is answered by the Church’s teaching.

Peace,
Kathryn Ann

 

[Tsuwano]

Thank you for the above reminder of the Catechism. It is good to repeat this often.

"The indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is truly “a crime against God and man”.* Amen.* It indeed “merits firm unequivocal condemnation”.

Everything about the bombing of innocent men, women and children, all civilians, in Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945 is answered by the Church’s teaching.

Peace,
Kathryn Ann

Not necessarily. One has to ask whether the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were indeed indiscriminate. Both cities provided solid military targets on a wide scale which if destroyed would shorten the war considerably. The destruction of these targets was the purpose of dropping the bomb on these particular cities, not because they offered soft, civilian targets. The targets were chosen with extreme discrimination and there were good military reasons to drop the bomb on these two cities. I’m not convinced that dropping the atomic bomb was the right or best thing to do under the circumstances, but neither am I willing to condemn the bombing of these two cities as morally wrong without taking into consideration the full range of why these two cities were targets.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

Mr Erwin - how would killing russians be any different than killing americans or japanese. the issue was that an invasion would have cost many more lives then dropping those bombs. you may be correct that the russians would have come in from the east. i shudder to think of what that would have meant for the japanese.

So the US attacked Japan with the A-bombs because we felt sorry for them?
Later statements by Truman administration officials indicate that those attacks we made out of concern about Soviet domination in the far east. See U.S. News & World Report of 8/15/1960: “We wanted to get through with the Japanese phase of the war before the Russians came in.” (James Byrnes, Secretary of State in the Truman Administration.)
The bombings were one of the factors that influenced Hirohito to ask his country to end resistance. The bombings also had a great effect on the Soviets. Stalin was outraged and felt the he had been cheated out of his expected domination of Japan. (The Russians and Japanese had a war history, with the Russians being the losers.) Stalin ordered that the already intensive Soviet atom bomb effort be redoubled. When the Russians did acquire the bomb, Stalin felt safe in instructing the North Koreans to invade the South. Result: some 50,000 American servicemen dead (and I don’t know how many Koreans.) So much for “saving lives” by deploying atomic weapons.
Finally, to avoid the Russian invasion of ther country, the Japanese would have had the option of surrendering at any time.

 

[JimG]

I’m not satisfied with the choices given. I think the situation in which the first atomic bomb was dropped was so much more complicated than a simple label of “morally wrong” allows. I also am unable to clearly say that the United States absolutely had to drop the bomb to win the war. The United States probably could have won the war without dropping the atomic bomb, but then many more lives, both Allied and Japanese, would have been lost and much more destruction on a wider scale would have taken place. If that had been history, we would now be debating whether it was morally wrong not to have dropped the atomic bomb. I think there were components present in the decision to drop the bomb which may have been morally wrong and components in that same decision which were morally correct. What is more important than debating the morality of a past decision to drop the bomb at a very different time in history is asking what we have done since that time to insure that the atomic bomb is never dropped again.

This is an interesting point. Suppose that Truman had decided not to use the atomic bombs which had been developed. There are several possibilities as to how the war might have finally been concluded.

–An invasion of the Japanese mainland. This would have resulted in a huge number of casualties and deaths on both sides, most likely greatly exceeding those caused by the bombs.

–Simply waiting out the Japanese. But Japan had not ceased fighting. The fighting would have continued, resulting in both military casualties and starvation at home.

–Allowing the USSR to invade Japan. This would have resulted in not only horrific deaths on both sides but an ongoing tragedy for Japan under Soviet communism. It’s likely that starvation would have been used as a weapon against them.

The most likely of the scenarios, I suppose, would be invasion. The death toll would have been horrific. When the nation realized that Truman had had the atomic bomb at hand and not used it to end the war, I suspect he might have been even more vilified then for its non-use than he is now for its use. And we would be having discussions about whether the invasion of Japan had been justified when a means had been at hand to end the war more quickly with fewer deaths.

 

[JimG]

The starvation of innocent Japanese men, women and precious little children by their own empire (Japan) was caused by the Japanese Empire. The way to help them is then to have immediately addressed their terrible starvation with food and also medical supplies. We did not do that. Your premise is that instead of providing bread to alleviate their starvation we should murder them by dropping an atom bomb on them and that this is somehow benevolent. I might politely ask you to please clarify that, but I won’t.

While your post was not directed to me, I would at least like to comment on part of it.

The fact is, the U.S.did provide food and medical supplies, as soon as the ward ended. As long as the war continued, there was no way to provide food and medical supplies.

I do not say that dropping an atomic bomb was a benevolent action. It wasn’t. It was an act of war. It was intended to end the war. It caused thousands of deaths. Even without the bomb, there were tens of thousands of deaths monthly, and those tens of thousands of deaths would contine as long as the war continued. The war had to end.

I was not there, and have less historical knowledge of the era than those who have studied it extensively. But it is certainly true that death and starvation would have been ongoing as long as the war continued. We may second guess Truman’s decision. But it is not certain that choosing a different way to end the war would have resulted in less death and staravation.

 

[GKC]

While your post was not directed to me, I would at least like to comment on part of it.

The fact is, the U.S.did provide food and medical supplies, as soon as the ward ended. As long as the war continued, there was no way to provide food and medical supplies.

I do not say that dropping an atomic bomb was a benevolent action. It wasn’t. It was an act of war. It was intended to end the war. It caused thousands of deaths. Even without the bomb, there were tens of thousands of deaths monthly, and those tens of thousands of deaths would contine as long as the war continued. The war had to end.

I was not there, and have less historical knowledge of the era than those who have studied it extensively. But it is certainly true that death and starvation would have been ongoing as long as the war continued. We may second guess Truman’s decision. But it is not certain that choosing a different way to end the war would have resulted in less death and staravation.

The average monthly casualty rates in the PTO was between 100,000 and 200,000+. These figures would have continued as long as hostilities did. And given what was going on in Manchuria/China, and the British Campaign in Burma (Operation Zipper, Mountbatten/Slim/14th Army), scheduled to start in early Sep, they would be increasing, without consideration of the Home Islands.Or without the consideration of the scheduled execution of approx 200,000 POWS that would have occurred.

The conventional bombing campaign which XXI Bomber Command was preparing for the Home Islands for the remainder of the year, involved an increase in B-29s available, from just over 1000 to approx. 1700. The primary target for these aircraft was the 180 cities with a population of at least 30,000 (a target population of around 5 million). And, following the conclusions of the ETO Strategic Bombing Survey, two particular focal points were to be concentrated on: the fuel industry and the transportation industry. A tentative plan was being considered, to attack the rice crop, with herbicides (though I doubt that would have been done). In other words, had the war continued, the conventional bombing campaign of the Home Islands would have had starvation as a primary goal.

Of all possible methods of ending the war (that is, of forcing the Japanese to surrender), the two bombs caused the lowest total deaths possible.

GKC

 

[mcrow]

I think any bombing of innocents is clearly immoral. Killing someone in combat where you have a " It’s me or him" sort of situation is probably the only situation where it’s OK. If the only way to stop someone from killing you is to kill them then I think it’s OK. Unfortunately, in war that’s normally the case. However, bombing uninvovled people who did nothing wrong is clearly wrong, IMO.

 

[catharina]

While your post was not directed to me, I would at least like to comment on part of it.

The fact is, the U.S.did provide food and medical supplies, as soon as the ward ended. As long as the war continued, there was no way to provide food and medical supplies.

I do not say that dropping an atomic bomb was a benevolent action. It wasn’t. It was an act of war. It was intended to end the war. It caused thousands of deaths. Even without the bomb, there were tens of thousands of deaths monthly, and those tens of thousands of deaths would contine as long as the war continued. The war had to end.

I was not there, and have less historical knowledge of the era than those who have studied it extensively. But it is certainly true that death and starvation would have been ongoing as long as the war continued. We may second guess Truman’s decision. But it is not certain that choosing a different way to end the war would have resulted in less death and staravation.

Jim - thanks for respondiong to Kathryn Ann’s post.
I won’t be responding to it. It’s simplistic, to say the least.

How might one assist those suffering starvation in the midst of a deadly extended war?
It can’t be done until the war has ended. That’s primary fact for most people - but not all.

 

[GKC]

So the US attacked Japan with the A-bombs because we felt sorry for them?
Later statements by Truman administration officials indicate that those attacks we made out of concern about Soviet domination in the far east. See U.S. News & World Report of 8/15/1960: “We wanted to get through with the Japanese phase of the war before the Russians came in.” (James Byrnes, Secretary of State in the Truman Administration.)
The bombings were one of the factors that influenced Hirohito to ask his country to end resistance. The bombings also had a great effect on the Soviets. Stalin was outraged and felt the he had been cheated out of his expected domination of Japan. (The Russians and Japanese had a war history, with the Russians being the losers.) Stalin ordered that the already intensive Soviet atom bomb effort be redoubled. When the Russians did acquire the bomb, Stalin felt safe in instructing the North Koreans to invade the South. Result: some 50,000 American servicemen dead (and I don’t know how many Koreans.) So much for “saving lives” by deploying atomic weapons.
Finally, to avoid the Russian invasion of ther country, the Japanese would have had the option of surrendering at any time.

You have it correct, on one point. The bombs convinced the Emperor to undercut the Anami clique, and to support Togo, both at the gozen kaigans on 9-10 Aug, and the full cabinet meeting to authorize accepting the Potsdam Declaration, and the Imperial Rescript, on 14 Aug. You continue to make the elementary error that we used the bomb for any single reason, other than to end the hostilities as quickly as possible. One point in that aim was to prevent an Eastern outpost of the Iron Curtain. The Soviets had no “expected” domination of Japan. Potsdam had made it clear the Home Islands from Hokkaido down were to be under American occupation. The Soviets got lower Sakhalin. Their attempt to get a Russian named co-commander, equal to MacArthur, for the occupation, was rebuffed, and their attempt to get approval, for the occupation of Hokkaido, contrary to the Potsdam agreements, was shut down by Truman, 15 Aug. As the war was ended (save for the continued killings on the mainland, as the Soviets took over their desired winnings), we were able to keep the particular tidbit of control of Japan out of their hands.

The Russians had lost in 1905. At the last major confrontation (Khalkhyn Gol/Nomonhan, 1939) the Japanese had been totally defeated. Which had major consequences for the subsequent conduct of the Pacific war.

There was no way to prevent the Soviets from acquiring the bomb. One could only live in the world that brought about. Meanwhile, thousands of deaths in WWII were, avoided, by our actions. And the Russians did not divide Japan as they did Europe.

To avoid the atomic bombs, or anybody at all invading, the Japanese had the option of surrendering at any time. Say, 1 August, for example. For reasons that require a knowledge of history to follow (I do try hard, to help), they did not do that.

GKC

 

[yosupman]

I think we all have beat this thread to death. It looks like everyone expressed their statement.

 

[GKC]

I think we all have beat this thread to death. It looks like everyone expressed their statement.

Happens every year, around late summer.

GKC

 

[Tsuwano]

While your post was not directed to me, I would at least like to comment on part of it.

The fact is, the U.S.did provide food and medical supplies, as soon as the ward ended. As long as the war continued, there was no way to provide food and medical supplies.

I do not say that dropping an atomic bomb was a benevolent action. It wasn’t. It was an act of war. It was intended to end the war. It caused thousands of deaths. Even without the bomb, there were tens of thousands of deaths monthly, and those tens of thousands of deaths would contine as long as the war continued. The war had to end.

I was not there, and have less historical knowledge of the era than those who have studied it extensively. But it is certainly true that death and starvation would have been ongoing as long as the war continued. We may second guess Truman’s decision. But it is not certain that choosing a different way to end the war would have resulted in less death and staravation.

Just to underscore your point; I have met Japanese men and women who, though they condemn the U.S. for dropping the atomic bombs, have nothing but high praise for the U.S. for the food America provided Japan during the years immediately following the war. Japan’s infrastructure was completely destroyed making it impossible for the nation to feed its people without extensive aid from the U.S. I know an 80 year old woman who tasted her first banana received from the hands of an American GI. She remembers it fondly. Not only was the U.S. an uncommon enemy for the Japanese, she was an uncommon victor who won the hearts and minds of the Japanese people with bread.

 

[Catholic80]

Murder is wrong. Murdering innocent people is even more wrong. Dropping a bomb that kills thousands of innocent lives and continues to kill them over the next decade from the lingering radiation is wrong.

What part of living like Christ goes along with such massive destruction and horror???

As a Catholic, but even moreso as a Human, I believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terribly grave wrongs.

 

[vz71]

Murder is wrong. Murdering innocent people is even more wrong. Dropping a bomb that kills thousands of innocent lives and continues to kill them over the next decade from the lingering radiation is wrong.

What part of living like Christ goes along with such massive destruction and horror???

As a Catholic, but even moreso as a Human, I believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terribly grave wrongs.

And what of the Industrial machine supplying the military and allowing the Japanese to continue to wage a war of conquest and destruction?
Do you propose it would be the correct action to let it continue?

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Murder is wrong. Murdering innocent people is even more wrong. Dropping a bomb that kills thousands of innocent lives and continues to kill them over the next decade from the lingering radiation is wrong.

What part of living like Christ goes along with such massive destruction and horror???

As a Catholic, but even moreso as a Human, I believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terribly grave wrongs.

AMEN! And as we can see from earlier quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, mass bombing of whole cities are evil, and especially horrific where innocent men, women and children are being murdered.
Blessings,
Kathryn Ann

 

[pnewton]

Murder is wrong. Murdering innocent people is even more wrong.

Catholic moral theology allows for the taking of the lives of others, even innocent life, in certain situations. It is the deliberate taking of innocent life that is murder. Catholicism allows for Just War, self-defense, defense of others and even collateral damage, under the law of double effect.

While I agree with your conclusion about the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, I think it is unfair to dismiss all discussion with an untrue premise.

 

[Catholic80]

Catholic moral theology allows for the taking of the lives of others, even innocent life, in certain situations

I’ve never hear that. I’ve heard of a Just War, but not the taking of innocent lives. Can you list some examples where this would be morally acceptable, according to the Catholic faith?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jacquesmaritain,

Let me start off by saying that just thinking of this entire issue makes me weak in the knees - just thank God I was not President of the US at the time (ah, not now, either! ) But, having said that - I think in all honesty, I would have acted as Truman acted.

Not mentioned by mdgspencer was the fact that Japan was totally the aggressor in this war. Their attack on Pearl Harbor was just one in a series of attacks against defenseless or unprepared peoples. This in no way ‘excuses’ the actions we took - dropping the atomic bomb stands (or falls) on its own merits. The attack and massacre of defenseless citizens of Nanking, China ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre ) and other areas of China by the military of Japan seems to be brushed aside as inconsequential. Maybe it is just hard for the human mind to actually weigh in some type of moral balance the horror of the atomic bomb and six weeks of absolute butchery.

While it could be argued that by June of 1945 there was little to recommend that Japan could endure the war much longer - that was not what the military officials were telling the citizens - along with their obligation to fight to the end.

Taken as a whole, we owe a lot to President Truman. I honestly believe he did his best and can only be judged on his Faith in God and his personal courage. Condemning him or the decision he made at this time and with all of these multiple considerations is simply not realistic, in my opinion.

God bless

Hi mdgspencer:

Well, as you said. But I think the military historians are saying more than this…that preventing an invasion of the Japanese homelands saved 1 million Americans and 2-3 million Japanese. So it isn’t just the Americans who “benefitted” here. I don’t want to engage in speculative history, as there was no way Japan could have developed nuclear technology in the 1940s. There were only 2 nations really capable of this at the time, Germany (who under the Nazis started a nuclear weapons program at the beginning of the War, the uranverein) and the USA (the 1942 Manhattan project, ironically started by the German-American physicist and pacifist Albert Einstein). I think the Americans really started to develop nuclear weapons to fight Nazi Germany, but the research took so long (to the Spring of 1945) that by the time the weapons were made, the Nazis had surrendered and the only antagonist left in the war was Japan. So at the end of it all, the military commanders, eager to end the War and save further losses of life on both sides, decided to order the Atomic strikes. From a military point of view, I think they were trying to “minimize” the destruction needed to definitively end the conflict.

Jacques

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Catholic80,

Great points.

Maybe we just should have ignored the bombing of Pearl Harbor? If we did that we would only be worried about how fast to bury or dead as we retreat. Would this be in keeping with your view of Catholic teaching?

God bless

Murder is wrong. Murdering innocent people is even more wrong. Dropping a bomb that kills thousands of innocent lives and continues to kill them over the next decade from the lingering radiation is wrong.

What part of living like Christ goes along with such massive destruction and horror???

As a Catholic, but even moreso as a Human, I believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terribly grave wrongs.