As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[stevegravy]

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.

Respectfully I will disagree in that I believe the law is about lawyers, judges, and cops controlling people lives. In philosophy it might be the highest expressions about obligations people have in the way they interact with one another but in reality is about control. Because something is legal, doesn’t mean it is moral or just or ethical. It just means you can do it without state interference.

 

[Ghosty]

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

As a matter of fact, yes. Unconditional, total surrender was a political demand, not an outright necessity. In the end we didn’t demand total surrender anyway, because our government realized it couldn’t be realized even after the atomic bombs.

Given that the U.S. abandoned “total surrender” (it retained the Emperor, which was the key demand of the Japanese peace party) to actually secure peace in the end, I would argue that the expectation of total surrender was wrong-headed the whole time.

Peace and God bless!

 

[stevegravy]

Given that the U.S. abandoned “total surrender” (it retained the Emperor, which was the key demand of the Japanese peace party) to actually secure peace in the end, I would argue that the expectation of total surrender was wrong-headed the whole time.

Peace and God bless!

Maybe yes maybe no. The internal political wrangling inside the Imperial cabinet might have played out into an identical surrender to that, which was made. It will only remain conjecture, as everyone involved is dead. I was under the impression it was McArthur that pushed to keep the emperor; to help control the post war Japanese population. However, given previous Japanese duplicity in negotiations how were the allies expected to trust any overtures coming from that government?

 

[estesbob]

Maybe yes maybe no. The internal political wrangling inside the Imperial cabinet might have played out into an identical surrender to that, which was made. It will only remain conjecture, as everyone involved is dead. I was under the impression it was McArthur that pushed to keep the emperor; to help control the post war Japanese population. However, given previous Japanese duplicity in negotiations how were the allies expected to trust any overtures coming from that government?

Agreed. In hindsight, it is very easy to come up with all sorts of scenarios that would have led to peace without dropping the bombs. All we know for sure however is that the bombs were dropped and they bought about the immediate end to the war.

I would give a lot more credibility to the church believing this was immoral if there had been an outcry not only from the Catholic Church but from all major religions after the bombs were dropped, but we did not see that from anyone.

As I mentioned before my father was getting ready to invade Japan when the bombs were dropped. As liberal as he was he never for a second doubted the legitimacy of what was done. I would tend to give his views a lot more credibility than armchair quarterbacks sitting in the comfort of their homes 6 years after the fact.

 

[smichhertz]

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.

Remember, we are looking at this from a MORAL perspective. So even if there is unintended collateral damage that kills innocent civilians, it is acceptable to target legitimate military targets. It’s not a question of the size of the target. But when I speak of “target” I speak of it in the moral light. What is the intended “thing” (if you will) that you are seeking to destroy? No one can seriously tell me that our intended target with Hiroshima was a factory. Our intended target was a city, full of innocent civilians.

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.

Sure, it can be difficult to discern between soldier and civilian. For instance, in Somalia, they would use the civilians to protect the Somalian soldiers. Forcing Americans to hold their fire. It can be a messy complicated business sometimes trying to discern between the two. But there was nothing complicated about Hiroshima, clearly intentionally targeting and killing civilians.

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?

From the moral perspective, actions we take fall into one of three categories: Morally good, bad or neutral. Things like war or killing can never be morally good, but can be morally neutral. Furthermore, things like circumstances and intention can take what would otherwise be a morally neutral act and make it bad or good.

So with the example of stabbing a man in the belly: morally neutral. Or in other words, more information is needed. Stabbing a men in the belly who is totally innocent? Morally bad. Stabbing a man in the belly to perform emergency surgery and attempt to save his life? Morally good. Stabbing a man in the belly who was attacking you and you are merely defending yourself? Morally neutral.

 

[Godfollower]

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?

What you seem to be missing is the question of intent. It is NOT a statistical game. Collateral damage doesn’t necessarily make an act evil. The principle of double effect means that you can do something knowing that some evil will result if the intent is good, the good result doesn’t result from the evil result, and the evil is not disproportionate to the good. So let’s analyze the two different scenarios, using the double-effect rules:

1. 
   *]The act itself must be morally good – it cannot be evil in itself;
   *]The only thing that one can intend is the good act – one cannot intend the foreseen bad effect;
   *]The good effect cannot arise from the bad effect – otherwise, one would do evil to achieve good; and
   *]The unintended but foreseen bad effect cannot be disproportionate to the good being performed.
   1. Destroying a factory that makes munitions for the other side (as part of a morally acceptable war, of course) is morally good;
   2. Intending destruction of the factory itself (while presumably hoping that innocents will not be harmed) is acceptable;
   3. The good effect is ending the production of munitions, not killing the cleaning crew; and
   4. Accidentally (or, more probably, knowingly but regretably) killing the cleaning crew is not disproportionate to ending the production of munitions.
   Now let’s make the same analysis with firebombing or nuclear-bombing an entire city to force a surrender:
   1. Indiscriminate killing of all or most people in a given area without regard to whether those people were involved in the wrongdoing you’re trying to stop is evil in itself;
   2. By definition in the scenarios being discussed, the killing of civilians (including those who are by definition innocent because they are not of the age of reason) is part of the intent of the action;
   3. The hoped-for surrender is coming from the wide-spread killing, not from the loss of a munitions factory or military base; and
   4. Just from reading this thread, it is obviously an open question whether the bombing would have resulted in a net loss or net gain of life.
   So, in the wide-spread atomic-bombing or fire-bombing of a city scenario, the only element that arguably supports its morality is the last element, assuming you agree that there was a net gain of lives (keeping in mind that, morally, Japanese lives are equal to Allied lives). But it’s an inherently evil act, performed for the purpose of accomplishing the evil act, hoping that good will result from the evil act. It therefore fails the double-effect analysis.
   
   Stabbing a man in the belly is moral in self-defense and if he’s an enemy soldier in a moral war (assuming, of course, that it was reasonably necessary; it’s immoral to kill a prisoner, for instance). It’s moral to use widespread destruction – including bombing runs, flamethrowers, strafing fire, etc. – against enemy combatants, because that’s a form of self-defense.
   
   Weapons of mass destruction targeting civilian targets cross the line. It’s the deliberate killing of innocents that makes the act evil.
   
   Hypothetically, you could use an atomic bomb against an enemy submarine that was preparing to launch nuclear missiles if that was the only way to stop them. And you could do so even if you had a pretty clear idea that a resulting tsunami would cause widespread devastation to noncombatant countries (though you would be expected to attempt to minimize the damage through warnings, etc.). Why? Because you aren’t intending the deaths of the noncombatants.
   
   With apologies to the Untouchables, the argument in favor of wide-spread bombings appears to be a form of “We’ll kill you all if you don’t give up! We’ll make you DEAD! We’ll make your family DEAD! We’ll make your people DEAD! We’ll burn your country to the GROUND! We’ll reduce your entire nation to ASHES!”
   
   Capone was not fighting a moral war. But, even if he were, it would’ve been immoral to target Eliot Ness’ family. The firebombings and atomic bombings are morally similar: they target noncombatants (an evil action) for the purpose of affecting the combatants (a good result). That’s doing evil to accomplish good, which is and always has been forbidden in Catholic theology.

 

[smichhertz]

What you seem to be missing is the question of intent. It is NOT a statistical game. Collateral damage doesn’t necessarily make an act evil. The principle of double effect means that you can do something knowing that some evil will result if the intent is good, the good result doesn’t result from the evil result, and the evil is not disproportionate to the good. So let’s analyze the two different scenarios, using the double-effect rules:

1. 
   *]The act itself must be morally good – it cannot be evil in itself;
   *]The only thing that one can intend is the good act – one cannot intend the foreseen bad effect;
   *]The good effect cannot arise from the bad effect – otherwise, one would do evil to achieve good; and
   *]The unintended but foreseen bad effect cannot be disproportionate to the good being performed.
   1. Destroying a factory that makes munitions for the other side (as part of a morally acceptable war, of course) is morally good;
   2. Intending destruction of the factory itself (while presumably hoping that innocents will not be harmed) is acceptable;
   3. The good effect is ending the production of munitions, not killing the cleaning crew; and
   4. Accidentally (or, more probably, knowingly but regretably) killing the cleaning crew is not disproportionate to ending the production of munitions.
   Now let’s make the same analysis with firebombing or nuclear-bombing an entire city to force a surrender:
   1. Indiscriminate killing of all or most people in a given area without regard to whether those people were involved in the wrongdoing you’re trying to stop is evil in itself;
   2. By definition in the scenarios being discussed, the killing of civilians (including those who are by definition innocent because they are not of the age of reason) is part of the intent of the action;
   3. The hoped-for surrender is coming from the wide-spread killing, not from the loss of a munitions factory or military base; and
   4. Just from reading this thread, it is obviously an open question whether the bombing would have resulted in a net loss or net gain of life.
   So, in the wide-spread atomic-bombing or fire-bombing of a city scenario, the only element that arguably supports its morality is the last element, assuming you agree that there was a net gain of lives (keeping in mind that, morally, Japanese lives are equal to Allied lives). But it’s an inherently evil act, performed for the purpose of accomplishing the evil act, hoping that good will result from the evil act. It therefore fails the double-effect analysis.
   
   Stabbing a man in the belly is moral in self-defense and if he’s an enemy soldier in a moral war (assuming, of course, that it was reasonably necessary; it’s immoral to kill a prisoner, for instance). It’s moral to use widespread destruction – including bombing runs, flamethrowers, strafing fire, etc. – against enemy combatants, because that’s a form of self-defense.
   
   Weapons of mass destruction targeting civilian targets cross the line. It’s the deliberate killing of innocents that makes the act evil.
   
   Hypothetically, you could use an atomic bomb against an enemy submarine that was preparing to launch nuclear missiles if that was the only way to stop them. And you could do so even if you had a pretty clear idea that a resulting tsunami would cause widespread devastation to noncombatant countries (though you would be expected to attempt to minimize the damage through warnings, etc.). Why? Because you aren’t intending the deaths of the noncombatants.
   
   With apologies to the Untouchables, the argument in favor of wide-spread bombings appears to be a form of “We’ll kill you all if you don’t give up! We’ll make you DEAD! We’ll make your family DEAD! We’ll make your people DEAD! We’ll burn your country to the GROUND! We’ll reduce your entire nation to ASHES!”
   
   Capone was not fighting a moral war. But, even if he were, it would’ve been immoral to target Eliot Ness’ family. The firebombings and atomic bombings are morally similar: they target noncombatants (an evil action) for the purpose of affecting the combatants (a good result). That’s doing evil to accomplish good, which is and always has been forbidden in Catholic theology.

1. 
   Excellent post!

 

[JimG]

It seems an inescapable conclusion that bombing which targets an entire city is morally objectionable. The use of the atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not the only time such action was taken during the war, (e.g. fire bombing of Tokyo and Dresden), nor were those the only morally objectionable actions taken during the war.

That being granted, I’m still inclined to agree with The Old Medic that the bombings did save lives by shortening the war.

That’s not the same thing as saying that the war could not possibly have been ended quickly by other means, specifically more lenient demands in a negotiated surrender. I don’t say that a negotiated less than unconditional surrender was not possible. Rather, I think that in the specific historical conditions present at the time, it was not going to happen.

Absent the bombs, I suspect there would have been an invasion, in which more would have been killed. Absent an invasion, the blockade would have continued, or perhaps the Soviets would have invaded.

And a blockade targets civilians as much as do atomic weapons. Indeed, a blockade targets the entire population of the country.

I can envision possible newsletter headlines under alternate scenarios:

“Truman Let’s Jap Emperor Stay!” (That’s the way they wrote back then.)

“A-Bomb Ready! Truman Refuses to Use It!”

“Truman Drags Out Blockade. Starvation in Japan”

The fact that the Japanese emperor was in fact allowed to remain even after unconditional surrender was no issue once the surrender was proffered. But I think it would have been a very big issue had it been stated ahead of time.

So while we may now argue about what should have been done, it seems to me that the most probable alternatives to the bombing may well have resulted in more deaths. Does that make the targeting of cities moral? No, it just gives some insight as to likely alternative outcomes, not necessarily the outcome we might have chosen had we been directing the war.

But even if we had been there, we would then have been thinking in terms of the 1940’s world situation. We would not be looking back with hindsight.

 

[stevegravy]

What you seem to be missing is the question of intent. It is NOT a statistical game. Collateral damage doesn’t necessarily make an act evil. The principle of double effect means that you can do something knowing that some evil will result if the intent is good, the good result doesn’t result from the evil result, and the evil is not disproportionate to the good. So let’s analyze the two different scenarios, using the double-effect rules:

1. 
   *]The act itself must be morally good – it cannot be evil in itself;
   *]The only thing that one can intend is the good act – one cannot intend the foreseen bad effect;
   *]The good effect cannot arise from the bad effect – otherwise, one would do evil to achieve good; and
   *]The unintended but foreseen bad effect cannot be disproportionate to the good being performed.
   1. Destroying a factory that makes munitions for the other side (as part of a morally acceptable war, of course) is morally good;
   2. Intending destruction of the factory itself (while presumably hoping that innocents will not be harmed) is acceptable;
   3. The good effect is ending the production of munitions, not killing the cleaning crew; and
   4. Accidentally (or, more probably, knowingly but regretably) killing the cleaning crew is not disproportionate to ending the production of munitions.
   Now let’s make the same analysis with firebombing or nuclear-bombing an entire city to force a surrender:
   1. Indiscriminate killing of all or most people in a given area without regard to whether those people were involved in the wrongdoing you’re trying to stop is evil in itself;
   2. By definition in the scenarios being discussed, the killing of civilians (including those who are by definition innocent because they are not of the age of reason) is part of the intent of the action;
   3. The hoped-for surrender is coming from the wide-spread killing, not from the loss of a munitions factory or military base; and
   4. Just from reading this thread, it is obviously an open question whether the bombing would have resulted in a net loss or net gain of life.
   So, in the wide-spread atomic-bombing or fire-bombing of a city scenario, the only element that arguably supports its morality is the last element, assuming you agree that there was a net gain of lives (keeping in mind that, morally, Japanese lives are equal to Allied lives). But it’s an inherently evil act, performed for the purpose of accomplishing the evil act, hoping that good will result from the evil act. It therefore fails the double-effect analysis.
   
   Weapons of mass destruction targeting civilian targets cross the line. It’s the deliberate killing of innocents that makes the act evil.
   
   .

1. 
   Ok the principle of double effect, is a nice balm to apply to a searing conscience when really hard decisions have to be made. It does allow us to live with ourselves because life isn’t a trip to the candy shop. But, in case of aerial bombardment maybe war in general I cannot discern its affect.
   
   I contend, once you look past the homicide of non-uniformed “civilian” populations you are into counting games. Using your example, from the perspective of the cleaning crew, they had quite a bit of disproportionate outcome. They are 100% dead. Yea, the factory is wrecked but they are 100% dead. From their perspective, it was quite disproportionate all they were doing was trying to make a living for their family. Then along comes a bomber and boom they are ghost. Your double effect might make the bombardier fell OK, not the cleaning crew or their families.
   
   To ascribe intention of deliberately targeting civilians, to the American administration is disingenuous, unless you can prove that that was their whole war aim in releasing the bombs.
   If the whole thing boils down to internet well it is more probable,
   
   1.Bludgeon the island into submission ending the war so the killing stops. , demonstrating the capability of incinerating everything of potential military value or be able to offer resistance to the Allies, should the government of Japan not capitulate. This is a good thing the war is over the killing stops. A moral good?
   1. Intend to make it perfectly clear to the government of Japan that all military resistance can be vaporized before we step foot on the home islands Moral and acceptable?
   3.The good effect is stopping the killing and ending the war who could disagree with that.
   
   4.Accidentally killing every man woman and child in Japan is regrettable but not disproportionate to stopping the war and preventing the deaths of a million allies.
   
   In the end, I agree it is not moral. However, it is legal, it is legitimate, hell you could argue ethical but not moral.

 

[Godfollower]

Ok the principle of double effect, is a nice balm to apply to a searing conscience when really hard decisions have to be made. It does allow us to live with ourselves because life isn’t a trip to the candy shop. But, in case of aerial bombardment maybe war in general I cannot discern its affect.

It isn’t intended to salve our consciences; it’s intended to help us make decisions at the time. For instance, if I tell you that I’ll blow up an entire building unless you kill the two-year-old in front of you, you know from the principle of double effect that you can’t do it: you cannot do evil (killing an innocent on purpose) so that good (saving a lot of innocent lives) will result. The analysis exists to help you make the decision.

I contend, once you look past the homicide of non-uniformed “civilian” populations you are into counting games. Using your example, from the perspective of the cleaning crew, they had quite a bit of disproportionate outcome. They are 100% dead. Yea, the factory is wrecked but they are 100% dead. From their perspective, it was quite disproportionate all they were doing was trying to make a living for their family. Then along comes a bomber and boom they are ghost. Your double effect might make the bombardier fell OK, not the cleaning crew or their families.

But it isn’t viewed from the perspective of the various people in the scenario. Good and evil are objective conclusions from the actions of the people acting (taking into account their intents). A bombardier aiming at a munitions factory is intending to destroy the factory; the secondary effect of killing the cleaning crew is not the purpose, and the result intended (stopping the production of munitions) doesn’t follow from the cleaning crew’s deaths. Deliberately killing the cleaning crew would change the analysis.

I get your point about counting games “once you look past the homicide of non-uniformed civilian populations.” But that’s the point of Catholic theology: you don’t get to look past homicide to call an action moral. If it’s homicide, it’s immoral, by definition.

To ascribe intention of deliberately targeting civilians, to the American administration is disingenuous, unless you can prove that that was their whole war aim in releasing the bombs.

It doesn’t have to be their only intent. If their intent was to kill innocent civilians (presumably because that would increase pressure to surrender), then their act was immoral. You don’t get to dress up an evil intent by pointing out that you also have a good one.

If the whole thing boils down to internet well it is more probable,

1.Bludgeon the island into submission ending the war so the killing stops. , demonstrating the capability of incinerating everything of potential military value or be able to offer resistance to the Allies, should the government of Japan not capitulate. This is a good thing the war is over the killing stops. A moral good?

No, because you’ve side-stepped the question: the first element of the analysis is that the act itself must be morally good. Calling it “bludgeoning the island into submission” avoids the issue. The act in question is “dropping a weapon of mass destruction into a populated city.”

1. Intend to make it perfectly clear to the government of Japan that all military resistance can be vaporized before we step foot on the home islands Moral and acceptable?

That intent has to be the only intent of the act. If the intent is to demonstrate military superiority, then the target should be military – not civilian. Once you start getting into “But the actual military targets were too remote, so they wouldn’t be an effective demonstration,” you’re basically arguing that you needed the civilian deaths to make it a better show.

3.The good effect is stopping the killing and ending the war who could disagree with that.

No one does. But the good effect can’t arise from the bad effect. If it’s intended that the other side surrender because of the massive number of casualties, then it’s immoral.

4.Accidentally killing every man woman and child in Japan is regrettable but not disproportionate to stopping the war and preventing the deaths of a million allies.

As I said in the earlier post, there’s a lot of debate about whether the bombs resulted in a net savings of lives lost. But you don’t get to separate between Allied and Japanese lives. A life is a life.

In the end, I agree it is not moral. However, it is legal, it is legitimate, hell you could argue ethical but not moral.

Well, we seem to agree about the end result of the analysis, even if we get there by different means.

 

[starshiptrooper]

No, because you’ve side-stepped the question: the first element of the analysis is that the act itself must be morally good. Calling it “bludgeoning the island into submission” avoids the issue. The act in question is “dropping a weapon of mass destruction into a populated city.”

A populated city which had: a large amount of home industry that manufactured war materials, a civilian population which was being prepared to fight to the death, several military camps, and the HQ of Field Marshal Shonroku Hata who was responsible for defense of Southern Japan.

Hiroshima was not a city full of non-combatants. In reality, it was serving as a military base that was extremely important to the Japanese war effort. On account of this, it was a legitimate target.

 

[whipp711]

Japan was reaching out, and was not attempting to retain any of the conquered territories.

Who was reaching out? The civilians in the Japanese government through back channels. Who really controlled the government and decision structure? The military and Emperor. The idea that reaching out to discuss a peaceful end of the war is simply revisionist history that places emphasis upon a less than significant side story.

Only when the Emperor realized that the Japanese people, culture, and existence faced total destruction, did he wisely abandoned the military. Since most of the military were bound by honor, they even allow peace to happen.

As for the blockade and eventual surrender, I wouldn’t have held out for that. There are numerous examples from the era where the military would gladly have the civilians eat tree bark, while they dined on a better fare.

While the lose of innocent life is always a sin, I’m a great believer in the separation of church and state. I’m thankful that religion did not outweigh the need to end the war. The firebombing of major Japanese cities did nothing to move the Emperor. The impact of a single bomb destroying a city drove home the point. His realization of what lay ahead must have hit him like a ton of bricks. I’m firmly in the column that the two bombs were a necessary evil for the greater good.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church #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.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church cannot be used as a valid reference.

Because the CCC, as we know it, did not exist in 1945.

You can only argue the facts and references as we knew them and as existed in 1945.

 

[exnihilo]

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.

I would not say the distinction is blurred. I would say governments declare it. In the days of old it took civilians to build the weapons and feed the army.

 

[exnihilo]

I would give a lot more credibility to the church believing this was immoral if there had been an outcry not only from the Catholic Church but from all major religions after the bombs were dropped, but we did not see that from anyone.

Maybe there was an outcry. What is an outcry anyway? An outcry is when someone complains and the news covers it. Without the later there is no outcry. The news controls opinion more than anything.

I see the same thing said about Islam, how they dont condemn terrorism. How do those making this claim know? Do they go to a mosque each week? Do they receive Islamic literature? Do they watch Al Jazeera? Do they make inquiries? Probably not. Maybe Muslims do condemn it but our media ignores it.

The US media has been pretty subservient to the state and surely was during the war. If anyone questioned the actions of the war machine I doubt it would make the news. And if was reported just once as opposed to daily then there was no ‘outcry’.

 

[Pakesh]

I’m assuming this poll was created because of the recent article in *This Rock Magazine *which discusses this. As I write this, I did not completely read each and every post, but I did notice the pervasiveness of the use of the flawed *consequentialist *argument. In other words, a good end justifies a morally wrong means.

God Bless,
Pakesh

p.s. I have to say the article really made me re-think my position on the bomb. There were however some other parts of the article that were indirectly connected to the Bomb that I disagreed with.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

This thread isn’t about those incidents, however. The OP was pretty specific, and so were the answers. Getting into comparative atrocities (especially ones that don’t even have anything to do with WWII) would merely derail the thread. Besides, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki carry a bigger symbolic weight than, say, the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden because the atomic bombs “ended the war” in the minds of many, and therefore make for thornier moral questions about ends and means.

I do agree, however, that several of the incidents you described fall into the same category as the bombing of Hiroshima.

Peace and God bless!

The bombing of Hiroshima was not an isolated event … it’s not like the United States, on one fine summer peaceful day, suddenly decided to invent a nuclear weapon and for no reason drop it on Japan.

During WWI, Japan was an ally of the “West”.

It was when Japan invaded China did things start to go negative.

After Japan’s success against the Russian Navy around 1905, it began to develop a lot of self-confidence/ hubris.

However, Japan was never able to develop any serious ways of international trade to generate cash to pay for fuel. Not until the 1960’s.

And Japan felt slighted by the 5-5-3 naval treaty [you can look up the date … 1935?] because the treaty was calculated to prevent Japan from conducting offensive operations to secure the oil fields in the Dutch East Indies … and be able to defend against U.S. and British naval forces that would move to block the Japanese military moves.

The entire period of the 1930’s was marked by a HUGE race to build naval power. Germany built some giant battleships. The British and the French and the Italians built giant battleships. As did the United States. There were huge advances in weaponry … naval artillery … submarines … the biggest and best submarines were probably the Japanese I-400’s which were a shock to the Americans when we captured them at the end of the war. The Soviets demanded we give them some of the I-400’s, and to prevent that, we took them out and scuttled them.

EVERYBODY was pursuing nuclear weapons research. The Japanese had two nuclear weapons labs: the Army lab in Tokyo, which was burned out by one of the many B-29 raids; and the Navy lab in Wonson, on the east coast of Korea. After the war, the Soviets RACED to capture the Wonson laboratory. Rumor has it that the Japanese did build and test one nuclear device. Just days before the end of the war. Since it was a Navy lab, it is possible that a nuclear device could have been assembled inside an I-400 and detonated under the U.S. invasion fleet. OR, detonated underwater off the coast of Los Angeles. The results would have been catastrophic.

The Japanese weren’t stupid. The U.S. had learned from decrypts of Japanese communications, that the Japanese had figured out where the U.S. would land. So our landings would have been opposed. We knew what their troop dispositions would have been.

We learned later that, in anticipation of U.S. landings that the Japanese had stockpiles of thousands of airplanes, hundreds of suicide boats … all intended to be thrown against the U.S. invasion fleet.

Meanwhile, the Soviets were preparing an invasion of their own from the other side. Through the Kurile Islands.

If we delayed the landings, then the U.S. troops, stuck on board our landing ships, cooped up, would have gradually become deconditioned.

The U.S. had already burned out one Japanese city after another. We had mined their waters and ports with mines dropped from B-29’s. Our planes and submarines sank every Japanese ship that moved.

But as we experienced at places like Tarawa and Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the Japanese were not going to stop fighting.

The Japanese developed better radar and sonar; they were becoming more effecting at sinking our submarines and they were very good at shooting down our B-29’s.

So, a committee of U.S. scientists, had early in the war … which started when? … it had been going on for YEARS before Pearl Harbor … had written to President Roosevelt that they could build an atomic bomb. So after spending a humongous amount of money … we built whole cities … Hanford, Washington; Los Alamos, New Mexico; Oak Ridge, Tennessee and many others … not like little discreet laboratories used by Israel and South Africa and Pakistan and India and France … we had a weapon … all different kinds of designs. And we tested one … the one with the lowest probability of success … the spherical implosion device … and then … since German targets were no longer available … [the scientists all along had been figuring on dropping the nukes on GERMANY!] … the European war was long since over … and the Japanese war was not ending … we started dropping them on Japan.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

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.

The weapons we had in WWII were so inaccurate, that very few bombs could come within five miles of the aiming point. You can look up the statistics.

In fact it was difficult to even find the cities with the targets!

Precision weapons able to hit an individual building didn’t come about until the 1970’s. LONG after WWII.

When it was realized that our bombers were being shot down in HUGE numbers with no discernable effect to the intended targets, the commanders began using fire bombs and burning out cities.

The war in the Pacific had one other strange situation: our bombers were running out of fuel. It was common for B-29’s to ditch at sea due to fuel exhaustion. The distances were huge and the winds over Japan were so high that sometimes the planes had almost no forward speed due to the headwinds.

It was one major headache after another. We built somewhere around 4000 B-29’s and more than half were lost in only a few months of operations.

Immoral? Certainly distasteful. The head of the RAF bombing campaign against Germany, Arthur Harris, ended the war in disgrace. He did area bombing because that was the only thing they could do with the weapons available. And the British people and government officials were revolted by it, but could offer no alternative. The secondary effect of the air war over Germany was to absorb one million German soldiers who manned the anti-aircraft weapons, which were also diverted from the ground battlefields.

But, keep in mind that WWII was a WORLD War. All-out. No “rules of engagement”.

Unrestricted submarine warfare.

And coming right after the atrocities of WWI … with poison gas and massed artillery and machine guns and trench warfare.

The United States alone had about 10 million soldiers, sailors and airmen. Out of a population much smaller than today. And today, our military is probably only one million.

Hiroshima was just another bad day in a war of one bad day after another … not an isolated event.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Agreed. In hindsight, it is very easy to come up with all sorts of scenarios that would have led to peace without dropping the bombs. All we know for sure however is that the bombs were dropped and they bought about the immediate end to the war.

I would give a lot more credibility to the church believing this was immoral if there had been an outcry not only from the Catholic Church but from all major religions after the bombs were dropped, but we did not see that from anyone.

As I mentioned before my father was getting ready to invade Japan when the bombs were dropped. As liberal as he was he never for a second doubted the legitimacy of what was done. I would tend to give his views a lot more credibility than armchair quarterbacks sitting in the comfort of their homes 6 years after the fact.

Indeed, as you write, there was NO outcry by the Catholic Church or anyone else.

My father also was getting ready to invade Japan. He said he wrote home that everything was peaceful and quiet as he island hopped toward Japan. But he later told me that the Japanese [he called them Japs] planes came over and bombed them every day. He was on one ship that was attacked by a kamikazi plane and at the last second it swerved and hit another ship and killed 50 men.

When he finally got to Japan, he took a lot of pictures. EVERY Japanese city had been burned to the ground. EVERY. You could see from one side of every city to the other side. Probably most civilians had evacuated when the bombings started. They weren’t stupid. To remain in the city with the B-29 raids would have been stupid.

Even so, the Japanese had no plans to surrender or to quit fighting.

Even after the first atomic bomb was dropped, [and they knew immediately what it was, because they were working on a similar bomb, themselves], they didn’t plan to quit.

And all they had to do was to cease fire. Just stand down.

But they refused to stop fighting.

He said he had been assigned to one bomber group and for some reason got transferred. The original unit was pretty much wiped out in combat operations.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Actually … there WAS an outcry against the war!

You can look it up.

The outcry took place in the United States.

And the minute that Germany attacked the Soviet Union, the outcry stopped immediately … the outcry stopped so fast … that the anti-war protesters didn’t even have time to get new picket signs. So, they just wrote over their anti-war picket signs with crayon … and favored the U.S. attacking Germany.

You should look it up.