As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[JimG]

I’m presuming that the intent was precisely to bomb the entire population of the city, which was mainly civilian. And targeting civilians cannot be justified.

I think that the intent of the Tokyo fire bombing was precisely the same, except that it was accomplished with non-nuclear weapons. Yet we seldom mark the anniversary of that event, even though morally it is equivalent to the atomic bombings.

It has in fact sometimes been argued that it was the Tokyo fire bombing that led to Japan’s surrender more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That’s doubtful; but if it were true, it would still be realizing a good end from an immoral means.

 

[Ghosty]

I’m presuming that the intent was precisely to bomb the entire population of the city, which was mainly civilian. And targeting civilians cannot be justified.

I think that the intent of the Tokyo fire bombing was precisely the same, except that it was accomplished with non-nuclear weapons. Yet we seldom mark the anniversary of that event, even though morally it is equivalent to the atomic bombings.

It has in fact sometimes been argued that it was the Tokyo fire bombing that led to Japan’s surrender more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That’s doubtful; but if it were true, it would still be realizing a good end from an immoral means.

Agreed on all points.

As a side note, the movie Grave for the Fireflies is an excellent depiction of the Tokyo bombings and their aftermath. What’s more it doesn’t demonize the Americans, but rather takes a hard look at the plain reality of war.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

I’m presuming that the intent was precisely to bomb the entire population of the city, which was mainly civilian. And targeting civilians cannot be justified.

I think that the intent of the Tokyo fire bombing was precisely the same, except that it was accomplished with non-nuclear weapons. Yet we seldom mark the anniversary of that event, even though morally it is equivalent to the atomic bombings.

It has in fact sometimes been argued that it was the Tokyo fire bombing that led to Japan’s surrender more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That’s doubtful; but if it were true, it would still be realizing a good end from an immoral means.

I find many condemning the bombing, but it’s easy to condemn when your not in a position of authority.

Had anyone been in this position they’d use the atomic bomb to end the war; Look at the other options, a blockade without invasion would of brought millions of Japanese civilians death by starvation and would of dragged the war on longer (with the threat of invasion by the Soviet Union), or an invasion which would of lead to the millions of death for the United States and Japan.

 

[Ghosty]

I find many condemning the bombing, but it’s easy to condemn when your not in a position of authority.

Had anyone been in this position they’d use the atomic bomb to end the war; Look at the other options, a blockade without invasion would of brought millions of Japanese civilians death by starvation and would of dragged the war on longer (with the threat of invasion by the Soviet Union), or an invasion which would of lead to the millions of death for the United States and Japan.

You left out the third option: accept Japanese peace terms, which they had been pursuing for over a month before the atomic bombings.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Holly3278]

It was morally wrong.

**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.

 

[meltzerboy]

This action may have shortened the war; it may have saved American lives (as well as the lives of our Allies and even Japanese lives); it may have been regarded as an act of self-defense; and Truman may have felt at the time compelled to drop the bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; but STILL, this was a civilian population and I think it was a MORALLY wrong decision, even if not a politically wrong one.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

You left out the third option: accept Japanese peace terms, which they had been pursuing for over a month before the atomic bombings.

Peace and God bless!

So it is America’s fault that the Japanese government refused total surrender?

 

[stevegravy]

So it is America’s fault that the Japanese government refused total surrender?

Let’s not forget, that the US State Dept. was in peace negotiations with the Empire of Japan regarding the US trade embargo when, the Empire of Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Also, please consider that civilians were killed in that attack.

So, all I am going to claim is the hand wringing over Hiroshima and Nagasaki vs. other military attacks where civilians are killed is a statistical game. The true horror is the efficiency and effectiveness of nuclear weapons and their inability to make fine distinctions between the military apparatus that is prosecuting the war and the military industrial complex that is making its prosecution possible.

War is about killing and breaking things. Once a society through its political institutions elect to go to war, real bad things are going to happen. And those bad things are invariably almost all immoral.

 

[smichhertz]

I find many condemning the bombing, but it’s easy to condemn when your not in a position of authority.

Had anyone been in this position they’d use the atomic bomb to end the war; Look at the other options, a blockade without invasion would of brought millions of Japanese civilians death by starvation and would of dragged the war on longer (with the threat of invasion by the Soviet Union), or an invasion which would of lead to the millions of death for the United States and Japan.

Even if all that is true, that still doesn’t justify the act. It’s still immoral. The ends don’t justify the means.

 

[smichhertz]

The idea of proximate is very interesting and often difficult. Consider in the law proximate cause. This means what was the immediate cause of something. Let’s say a driver is drunk, speeding, and talking on the cell phone. Let’s say that driver has a wreck. What is the proximate cause of the wreck? We claim all three of these facts are bad. We would tend to say the drunkenness was the cause of the wreck because that is considered the most egregious wrong. Most people would react with moral outrage that the driver was drunk. But it could be that the driver also had a massive heart attack and that is what caused the wreck. The other three conditions could be irrelevant. Humans like to explain things but some things only God can know.

Casual proximity is not the same thing, though. We’re dealing here with intent. The proximate intention isn’t ambiguous, it is very well known to the person doing it. Granted, in our case, we’re supposing as no one can look into President Truman’s brain and know for sure WHY he did things, but it s very obvious from external signs.

Targeting civilians would seem to me to be generally wrong. The justness of war has changed over time. At one time in the West we had a notion that you dont target civilians. That has been abandoned. Ironically it is in a democracy where civilians would be most justly targets since they elect and affirm the government. Monarchies and dictatorships should be exempt since the people have no say in the government.

That’s an interesting thought, but I don’t think involvement with the government justifies killing a noncombatant. Sure, the civilians may be more culpable in a democracy, but ultimately, they are still noncombatants.

The Japanese committed some awful atrocities and obviously so did the Germans. But the worst offender was the Soviet Union which was an Ally state. The war ended up giving half of Christendom to the Soviet Empire with terrible results for the people and the Church. It might have been enough to confine the Japanese to their island. It certainly would have been worth it to redirect the US’s efforts to confining our allies the Soviets to their territory.

That is certainly true. If my history serves me right, Churchill had a big problem with the Soviets getting any land out of the deal and did everything in his power to limit what they got. Confining the Japanese to their island was certainly an option - but let’s not sugarcoat it here, the Axis powers were attempting world domination. There has to be serious repercussions for something like that. Although, I think the Allies did allow the Emperor to remain in power.

 

[stevegravy]

Even if all that is true, that still doesn’t justify the act. It’s still immoral. The ends don’t justify the means.

So what is moral in war? What is moral about shoving a bayonet into another man’s belly? Societies go to war, countries go to war and some people think only the soldiers die. Well, sorry to disabuse you of the notion. Soldiers do not exist without the society and national support to keep them in the field. As they go about killing and breaking things they are acting as the society and nation’s agents. If factories are in cities and factories are making war stuff then factories are part of the logistical support and legitimate targets. A civilian being around is bad luck for them. If Japan didn’t want to be busted up they ought not have gone to war. Because they didn’t anticipate the final outcome is not the Allies fault.

 

[smichhertz]

So what is moral in war? What is moral about shoving a bayonet into another man’s belly?

War is never a morally good thing, but it can be morally neutral. Same with bayoneting a soldier. If I am a soldier fighting a war and I bayonet another soldier, that probably is morally permissible. Unless the soldier is legitimately surrendering or something like that.

Societies go to war, countries go to war and some people think only the soldiers die. Well, sorry to disabuse you of the notion.

Everyone knows that when a society goes to war, almost certainly, civilians will die as a consequence, but as long as it remains an undesired effect, war can be morally permissible.

Soldiers do not exist without the society and national support to keep them in the field. As they go about killing and breaking things they are acting as the society and nation’s agents. If factories are in cities and factories are making war stuff then factories are part of the logistical support and legitimate targets. A civilian being around is bad luck for them. If Japan didn’t want to be busted up they ought not have gone to war. Because they didn’t anticipate the final outcome is not the Allies fault.

Attacking factories is legitimate as they supply the war effort. However, directly attacking and killing innocent civilians is different from that.

Keep in mind that when attacking a factory - the desired effect is to disrupt the supply to the army, not kill civilians.

 

[exnihilo]

That is certainly true. If my history serves me right, Churchill had a big problem with the Soviets getting any land out of the deal and did everything in his power to limit what they got. Confining the Japanese to their island was certainly an option - but let’s not sugarcoat it here, the Axis powers were attempting world domination. There has to be serious repercussions for something like that. Although, I think the Allies did allow the Emperor to remain in power.

It is a mess as far as where truth lies in this war. Keep in mind that Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Germany did invade Poland allegedly to gain land access to the Free City of Danzig, which they had been denied. There was also alleged attacks on Germans. Sixteen days after the Germans invaded Poland the Soviets did too. The Soviets did terrible things including the Katyn Forrest Massacre, which they tried to pin on the Germans. But the point is Britain and France declared war on Germany, for its aggression and allegedly in defense of Poland (due to a treaty). but did not similarly declare war on the Soviet Union but rather allied with them.

The Axis powers might have been attempting world domination. After all this is what most nations and people do. The British had already largely succeeded at that, but were declining at that point in history. The Soviets clearly were also interested in world domination, and had great success thanks to the war. And given the US’s current world presence and the renaming of the then Department of War to Department of Defense one could make a good case it was similarly motivated. The word superpower was coined because the old word empire had such bad connotations. Most nations tend to believe they are the best and that the world will run best if they control it.

 

[stevegravy]

War is never a morally good thing, but it can be morally neutral. Same with bayoneting a soldier. If I am a soldier fighting a war and I bayonet another soldier, that probably is morally permissible. Unless the soldier is legitimately surrendering or something like that.

Everyone knows that when a society goes to war, almost certainly, civilians will die as a consequence, but as long as it remains an undesired effect, war can be morally permissible.

Attacking factories is legitimate as they supply the war effort. However, directly attacking and killing innocent civilians is different from that.

Keep in mind that when attacking a factory - the desired effect is to disrupt the supply to the army, not kill civilians.

You made my point. I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that no one in the Roosevelt/Truman administration rubbed his hand with glee knowing they had a city killer.

Fact, there were military facilities and factories in the two cities under attack. They would by you words be legitimate targets. The fact that using these particular weapons , the destruction was so effective and complete is the objection I am detecting and that is simply an argument of statisticians. The moral question is reducing to how many civilians can you murder before it is morally repugnant?

 

[exnihilo]

So what is moral in war? What is moral about shoving a bayonet into another man’s belly? Societies go to war, countries go to war and some people think only the soldiers die. Well, sorry to disabuse you of the notion. Soldiers do not exist without the society and national support to keep them in the field. As they go about killing and breaking things they are acting as the society and nation’s agents. If factories are in cities and factories are making war stuff then factories are part of the logistical support and legitimate targets. A civilian being around is bad luck for them. If Japan didn’t want to be busted up they ought not have gone to war. Because they didn’t anticipate the final outcome is not the Allies fault.

Even the many nations claim that some acts in war are moral and some are not. Proof of this is in agreements like the Geneva Convention and war crimes courts. The Geneva Convention makes certain attacks upon soldiers illegal. One example is you can not shoot a paratrooper while he is in the air. Another is you must use full jacket ammunition.

If factories are legitimate targets why not crops in the field? Why not the water supply of a city? Why not the workers themselves?

 

[stevegravy]

Even the many nations claim that some acts in war are moral and some are not. Proof of this is in agreements like the Geneva Convention and war crimes courts. The Geneva Convention makes certain attacks upon soldiers illegal. One example is you can not shoot a paratrooper while he is in the air. Another is you must use full jacket ammunition.

If factories are legitimate targets why not crops in the field? Why not the water supply of a city? Why not the workers themselves?

Geneva Conventions and Uniform Code of Military Justice are legal opinions on what can and should not be done by combatants. They are an accepted legal standard for signatories not an answer to moral issues. Even so the enforcement of the standards is dependent upon the victors in a conflict. US adjudication of the Mai Li massacre hollows out the precedent of the Nuremburg trials. I think they call it victors justice.

Also consider that at Nuremburg not a single member of an air armed force of any of the belligerents were even tried.

 

[smichhertz]

You made my point. I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that no one in the Roosevelt/Truman administration rubbed his hand with glee knowing they had a city killer.

Fact, there were military facilities and factories in the two cities under attack. They would by you words be legitimate targets. The fact that using these particular weapons , the destruction was so effective and complete is the objection I am detecting and that is simply an argument of statisticians. The moral question is reducing to how many civilians can you murder before it is morally repugnant?

Factories are legitimate targets, cities are not. They were targeting the cities, not the factories.

Had they done a bombing run on those cities and specifically targeted the factories? Morally permissible. Dropping a bomb that just levels the entire city is not.

 

[exnihilo]

Geneva Conventions and Uniform Code of Military Justice are legal opinions on what can and should not be done by combatants. They are an accepted legal standard for signatories not an answer to moral issues. Even so the enforcement of the standards is dependent upon the victors in a conflict. US adjudication of the Mai Li massacre hollows out the precedent of the Nuremburg trials. I think they call it victors justice.

Also consider that at Nuremburg not a single member of an air armed force of any of the belligerents were even tried.

The folly of the international codes is obvious. Yes, the victors just use them to condemn the losers.

The law is always about morality. Opinions and decisions are declarations of what is right and what is wrong. Of course the law can declare that it does not wish to exercise power of humans in some aspect of life. But whenever it declares acts to be legal or illegal it is rendering a moral judgment.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Once again, people attempt to look back in hindsight, and determine what they THINK people should have done in a previous era.

In fact Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives, both Japanese and American.

The bombing of Tokyo alone killed many more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. That INCLUDES those that died of radiation related causes as much as 40 years later.

An invasion of Japan would have cost a minimum of 5,000,000 JAPANESE lives. The Japanese government had trained school children, as young as the age of 5, to attack the invaders with sharpened bamboo sticks. They had trained, and encouraged women and girls to strap explosives to their bodies and to sacrifice themselves to blow up a single invading soldier.

We look back now, and can find evidence that perhaps (and I emphasize the PERHAPS) Japan COULD have been starved into submission. What is rarely mentioned however is what THAT would have done to the civilian population of Japan. The Japanese military was already taking a large proportion of the food supply available for the soldiers and sailors in their armed forces. Civilians were already on a virtually starvation diet level by July 1945.

The Japanese military tried very hard not to surrender EVEN AFTER HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI. In fact, a faction of the Army attempted to take the Emperor of Japan prisoner, in order to prevent his broadcast to the Japanese people telling them that Japan had no choice BUT to surrender.

The Japanese military were adamant that they would rather fight until everyone in Japan was dead, rather than surrender. The idea of surrender violated every precept that the Japanese military stood for. As far as they were concerned, any military person that surrendered was no longer even a human being, and deserved to no longer be treated as a human (which is why they treated captured prisoners of war so brutally).

It is so easy to “look back” and attempt to figure out what we would have done. We have knowledge that the leaders of this country did NOT have at the time. We have access to all of the records of the Japanese government, etc. that we did NOT have at that time.

In August 1945, Japan still had over 20,0000 military aircraft; over 7,000 naval armed naval vessels (including over 200 submarines with torpedos that were far superior to anything that we had) and they had almost 5 MILLION soldiers in Japan.

Hiroshima was a major military manufacturing area, as was Nagasaki. In addition, Hiroshima had 5 major Japanese military installations, with well over 400,000 soldier/sailors, within 10 miles of downtown Hiroshima. Both of them were, by all definitions, legitimate military targets.

At that time, Japan still occupied approximately 1/3 of China, all of Manchuria, all of Korea and had vast military potential to resist invasion.

The decision was made to utilize the bomb, and it was entirely justifiable at the time.

If the bomb had been ready earlier, it would have been used on Berlin, again justifiably.

 

[stevegravy]

Factories are legitimate targets, cities are not. They were targeting the cities, not the factories.

Had they done a bombing run on those cities and specifically targeted the factories? Morally permissible. Dropping a bomb that just levels the entire city is not.

Even with today’s munitions, which are way more accurate than the WWII typical bomb, you cannot guarantee only the intended building will be hit and there will not be the collateral damage.

The way I would interpret your response and I mean no disrespect is: if only a city block is blown up while blowing up a factory that is moral but blowing up an entire city is not moral? In this case I say we are only arguing statistics because we have passed on the question of any civilian homicide during an act of war.

My original contention is in the highly integrated technological societies that have produced these complex war-fighting operations, the clear distinction of soldier and civilian has been blurred. It is a blurred distinction that has been accepted quietly by the governments of the world. Its acceptance is not a statement of moral rightness but it sems to be world governments of the world conduct. I am not saying it is right and I am not saying it is wrong I am only saying that is the way it appears to me.

Which brings us back to the question of stabbing a man in the belly. It can he legally justified as an act of war but is it moral?