As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[exnihilo]

You obviously didn’t look at the details of the japanese operation. There is a point where a civilians turns into a soldier. Given a weapon, given training, and intent to kill are the three main criteria. All three of those were met.

Yes, a civilian turns into a soldier when another country invades. If you live in Texas you should consider that many folks there have weapons, training and an intent to kill invaders. Does that make the citizens of Texas soldiers?

Winning a war does not mean conquering the territory. That is certainly the US’s preferred end to a war. But there are plenty of wars that end without occupation.

 

[Redratfish]

Yes, a civilian turns into a soldier when another country invades. If you live in Texas you should consider that many folks there have weapons, training and an intent to kill invaders. Does that make the citizens of Texas soldiers?

Winning a war does not mean conquering the territory. That is certainly the US’s preferred end to a war. But there are plenty of wars that end without occupation.

Given your example, and history, then yes. They would be considered soldiers, and combatants. (After all, if you say that they aren’t, then you cannot morally return fire.)

True, the Vietnamese won a public support victory, for example. However, Japan was not willing to surrender unconditionally, as shown by their implimentation of Operation Ketsu-Go

See this is where the problem arises. Life must be protected, and as few people should have to die in a war. Arguing that the bombs were immoral can just as easily be flipped around. If we had invaded, I’m sure the question would be

“was is moral to send thousands more people to their death in a frontal invasion, or end the war with fewer deaths by using the bombs”.

People are taking common sense out of the equation.

 

[Ghosty]

Redratfish: Being trained and capable of bearing arms does not make one a combatant, and the Catholic Encyclopedia makes this explicitly clear. Killing civilians who are trained for combat, before they are combatants, is a violation of Catholic moral law. Period.

Warrior1979: Firebombing civilians, with the intent to kill and terrorize civilians as opposed to as an accidental effect, is immoral. The fact that it contributed to their surrender attempts before the atomic bombings is irrelevant because ends don’t justify the means according to Catholic teaching.

Peace and God bless!

 

[stevegravy]

Time for a reality check on the behavior of the “modern civilized world”.

1. Cities, whether the population is allowed to evacuate or not is a fortress for defensive purposes. Time and again army groups dissolve in the house to house fighting, trying to evict an enemy force holed up in a built up area. Tanks cannot maneuver and are sitting ducks without infantry support. You can only bomb these sites so much then the rubble acts as a shock absorber and makes clearing out of the enemy even harder.
2. Cities are where factories are located and unfortunately the non-uniformed workers that make the war goods. If they don’t high tail it out, at the approach of the enemy, they are doomed. But, at this point they would be under military control because of the breakdown of the civil authority and in such a circumstance they may not be allowed to escape, if the authorities deemed they were still useful making munitions or building fortifications.
3. Cities always had had fortresses and garrisons to hold them but large armies were for movement in an open field with coming of the tanks and airplanes the open field was great for movement but on defense the cities became the battleground.

Regarding the WWII atomic bombings:

1. I say to maintain that the cities selected for the atomic bombs did not contribute to the Japanese war effort or had no military significance is plain wrong. The military was in the cities and they did contribute to sustaining the war effort of the Empire.
2. Selection of the sites for using the new weapons was not based on a calculation deciding how many civilians they could kill but, to allow a determination of the destructive capability of the new weapon. Killing civilians was not the intent. Otherwise the US wouldn’t have given warning that the city would be bombed and by that point in the war a city that hadn’t been bombed surely knew the planes were coming.

Now the whole thing about the CC or the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
“It embraces the infliction of all manner of damage to property and life of the other state and its contending subjects, up to the measure requisite to enforce submission, implying the acceptance of a final readjustment and proportionate penalty; it includes in general all acts that are necessary means to such damage, but is checked by the proviso that neither the damage inflicted nor the means taken involve actions that are intrinsically immoral. In the prosecution of the war the killing or injuring of non-combatants (women, children, the aged and feeble, or even those capable of bearing arms but as a matter of fact not in any way participating in the war) is consequently barred, except where their simultaneous destruction is an unavoidable accident attending the attack upon the contending force. The wanton destruction of the property of such non-combatants, where it does not or will not minister maintenance or help to the state or its army, is likewise devoid of the requisite condition of necessity.”

Why always the weasel wording that depends on how individuals view things. It neither prohibits or permits. (Except for the obvious case of stuffing non-combatants into trenches and gunning them down.) Therefore, I argue once you go past the idea of non-combatants homicide, even if it is the munitions factory workers, or civilians living downstream of a hydroelectric dam, you’re into counting games, hence your beef with the bomb is its effectiveness. I say you either can or cannot kill civilians this accident thing is a big loop hole ethicist could dive a semi through.

I seems then, this discussion is about deciding what a contending force in a modern world is and how much destruction is necessary to claim it is disproportionate?

Now that being said the last issue to decide is if the Americans were hasty in their use of the bombs. That depends on knowing for sure if the Emperor, who was seeking an end to hostilities, and the War Cabinet, running the government were on the same footing. History says they weren’t. Therefore, the question if a waiting game would have worked or not is debatable and can be war gamed ad infinitem with no clear result . Japan surely knew it was doomed once USSR started giving them the cold shoulder when Stalin and Molotov went to Potsdam. Even so the war cabinet seemed unmoved by how much suffering attended the Japanese people. It is sad but neither did the Nazis care about the suffering of the German population.

Since, I am neither a trained logician, ethicist, or theologian what I say and think hardly matters, but as a co-inhabitant of this planet I protest the willy nilly arguments that says sometimes I can be wacked and other times not. Justification resting merely on someone’s interpretation of the whacker’s intent and if my demise is an accident of the wacker’s inability to control his destructive capability. Me being wiped out is 100% disproportionate. from my perspective!!!

 

[smichhertz]

Time for a reality check on the behavior of the “modern civilized world”.

1. Cities, whether the population is allowed to evacuate or not is a fortress for defensive purposes…etc

That justifies targeting buildings, not innocent civilians.

1. Cities are where factories are located and unfortunately the non-uniformed workers that make the war goods…etc

That justifies targeting the factories, not innocent civilians.

1. Cities always had had fortresses and garrisons to hold them…etc

Great justification for targeting the garrisoned army, not innocent civilians.

Regarding the WWII atomic bombings:

1. I say to maintain that the cities selected for the atomic bombs did not contribute to the Japanese war effort or had no military significance is plain wrong. The military was in the cities and they did contribute to sustaining the war effort of the Empire.

I’d take it a step further. Anytime a country is at war, EVERY city is contributing to the war effort. Unless they are in all out rebellion against the country. But again, this justifies targeting the factories that support the war effort, or the armies themselves. NOT innocent civilians.

1. Selection of the sites for using the new weapons was not based on a calculation deciding how many civilians they could kill but, to allow a determination of the destructive capability of the new weapon. Killing civilians was not the intent. Otherwise the US wouldn’t have given warning that the city would be bombed and by that point in the war a city that hadn’t been bombed surely knew the planes were coming.

That’s highly debatable, the Target Committee deliberately chose targets based on a “psychological effect”. They wouldn’t go so far as to state specifically “killing civilians” but they wanted a lot of destruction, regardless of the military/strategic value.

However, it doesn’t matter. Intention is irrelevant. Even if they had the best of intentions, because the act in and of itself is immoral. You cannot deliberately kill innocent civilians. It’s immoral regardless of the intent.

Now the whole thing about the CC or the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
“It embraces the infliction of all manner of damage to property and life of the other state and its contending subjects, up to the measure requisite to enforce submission, implying the acceptance of a final readjustment and proportionate penalty; it includes in general all acts that are necessary means to such damage, but is checked by the proviso that neither the damage inflicted nor the means taken involve actions that are intrinsically immoral. In the prosecution of the war the killing or injuring of non-combatants (women, children, the aged and feeble, or even those capable of bearing arms but as a matter of fact not in any way participating in the war) is consequently barred, except where their simultaneous destruction is an unavoidable accident attending the attack upon the contending force. The wanton destruction of the property of such non-combatants, where it does not or will not minister maintenance or help to the state or its army, is likewise devoid of the requisite condition of necessity.”

Firstly, the destruction of the city was not an accident, it was well foreseen and intended, so the section you made bigger doesn’t apply.

Secondly, the statements I bolded go directly against the Hiroshima bombing.

Thirdly, I’ll see your quote and raise you my own, 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.”

Fourthly, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not an official source of Church teaching, the CCC is.

…Therefore, I argue once you go past the idea of non-combatants homicide…you’re into counting games…

You keep accusing Catholic theology of “counting” games. Yet it is doing the exact opposite. Killing an innocent person is immoral. Always has been. Doesn’t matter how many people will be saved. So if killing one innocent person saves one life or a billion, you still can’t do it. Immoral. How is that in any way leaving something up to counting?

I seems then, this discussion is about deciding what a contending force in a modern world is and how much destruction is necessary to claim it is disproportionate?

It’s about holding all armed forces to the same universal moral law - you cannot kill innocent life. So where I see the discussion really going, is how can we justify that bombing Hiroshima was a legitimate act of war? The only way to do that is to show how either a) that’s not killing innocent life, b) the killing of innocent life was unforeseen OR c) that the killing of innocent life was not intended and was a side effect of the bombing rather than the principle effect.

I’d like to see a discussion more focused on that, as that would be how you would show the bombing of Hiroshima to be morally legitimate from a Catholic perspective.

Hence, I have no response to the rest of your post, as it is irrelevant to determining the moral legitimacy of the bombing of Hiroshima.

 

[manualman]

Maybe somebody already mentioned it, but I’ve always refused to condemn the WWII atom bomb use because in my view, the alternative was the death of FAR greater numbers of JAPANESE, both civilians and soldiers.

After the nuke spurred surrender, the USA quickly occupied Japan and found that the nation’s infrastructure for feeding itself no longer existed. Had there been no nuclear blasts, there would have been no surrender when there was. The buildup for invasion some months later would have continued. By the time of invasion, MILLIONS of Japanese would have already been dead of starvation and malnutrition. It almost happened even with the surrender, occupation and military logistical shipping of enormous humanitarian relief supplies. Few in the US realize it, but THIS is where we converted the Japanese from mortal enemies into friends. Just days after the unconditional surrender they saw us moving heaven and earth to save their lives and their very civilization. They’ve never forgotten the shock of how different reality was from their wartime propaganda.

I realize the theory is tough to reconcile with catholic morality. But I can’t help but see that without the nukes, Japan would have been all but obliterated in the invasion. Instead “only” two cities were obliterated. Small comfort to those there, but war really is hell. I’m not sure there is ANY path through it that doesn’t get you morally filthy. As for the total pacifists who decry war for any reason, I suggest they have a look at how that worked out for the largely pacifist Jews of Europe. Not so well.

 

[smichhertz]

Maybe somebody already mentioned it, but I’ve always refused to condemn the WWII atom bomb use because in my view, the alternative was the death of FAR greater numbers of JAPANESE, both civilians and soldiers.

How many lives would have died is irrelevant. The ends don’t justify the means. If killing one innocent life means saving billions it is still an immoral act and wrong to do.

After the nuke spurred surrender, the USA quickly occupied Japan and found that the nation’s infrastructure for feeding itself no longer existed. Had there been no nuclear blasts, there would have been no surrender when there was. The buildup for invasion some months later would have continued. By the time of invasion, MILLIONS of Japanese would have already been dead of starvation and malnutrition. It almost happened even with the surrender, occupation and military logistical shipping of enormous humanitarian relief supplies.

This is also irrelevant, as we did not know this at the time the decision was made to drop the bomb. And even if we did, killing innocent life to save innocent life is still immoral. See above response.

Few in the US realize it, but THIS is where we converted the Japanese from mortal enemies into friends. Just days after the unconditional surrender they saw us moving heaven and earth to save their lives and their very civilization. They’ve never forgotten the shock of how different reality was from their wartime propaganda.

Still irrelevant to determining whether or not the act itself is immoral. I can kill a person, and then donate lots of money to their family, help support them, etc. That in no way justifies my act of killing the person.

I realize the theory is tough to reconcile with catholic morality.

It’s not tough to reconcile, but not reconcilable at all. You can’t kill innocent life to save innocent life. Even if more innocent life will die if you don’t.

But I can’t help but see that without the nukes, Japan would have been all but obliterated in the invasion. Instead “only” two cities were obliterated.

But again, irrelevant. Let’s say for the sake of argument we don’t bomb Hiroshima and choose to invade. During the process of invasion, millions of both American and Japanese are killed. Japan is left devastated, and the American population suffers severe loss of life. Now let’s say we’re back at the pivotal moment where we are deciding whether or not to drop the bomb on Hiroshima, and we look through a crystal ball and see all that will happen. Still immoral to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. You cannot kill innocent life.

Small comfort to those there, but war really is hell. I’m not sure there is ANY path through it that doesn’t get you morally filthy.

Be careful with this line of logic. People use this all the time to justify immorality. It is never acceptable to do so. I could be in Nazi Germany and say “war is hell, I have no moral choice” and use that as justification to persecute Jews, or kill innocent civilians, etc. One should NEVER commit an immoral act. That’s not my personal opinion, that’s Church teaching. And you can justly wage war without committing immorality, and that is well within the scope of Church teaching. Google Just War Theory for details.

As for the total pacifists who decry war for any reason, I suggest they have a look at how that worked out for the largely pacifist Jews of Europe. Not so well.

I’m not a total pacifist and fully support the Just War Theory. I don’t think anyone arguing against the bombing of Hiroshima on this thread is.

 

[Redratfish]

Redratfish: Being trained and capable of bearing arms does not make one a combatant, and the Catholic Encyclopedia makes this explicitly clear. Killing civilians who are trained for combat, before they are combatants, is a violation of Catholic moral law. Period.

Peace and God bless!

So using that logic: A taliban soldier goes home from a long day of shooting americans. Soldiers recieve intel where the soldier lives, are you saying they are not justified to kill him, just because he is not on a battlefield actively shooting at us?

If so, then I invite you to visit afganistan, where most fighting is house to house, and raids on individual houses are common.

I don’t understand (once again) how you claim people with intent and training and the means to do something are not soldiers. In law, if you threaten someone, raise your fist, but don’t hit them, you can be sued for assault, even though you did not hit them. In the same way, if you did everything but shoot at them (which the Japanese did), then yes, they are soldiers!

and you never answered my part about common sense, also backed by the catechism about as few people are neccessary should die in war.

That justifies targeting buildings, not innocent civilians.

See above about innocent soldiers

That justifies targeting the factories, not innocent civilians.

See above

Great justification for targeting the garrisoned army, not innocent civilians.

See above

I’d take it a step further. Anytime a country is at war, EVERY city is contributing to the war effort. Unless they are in all out rebellion against the country. But again, this justifies targeting the factories that support the war effort, or the armies themselves. NOT innocent civilians.
True, but see above. Would you consider the French resistance to be combatants? If so, your saying that the Japanese aren’t soldiers because they never attacked, even tough they were getting ready to do the same things as the French Resistance.

That’s highly debatable, the Target Committee deliberately chose targets based on a “psychological effect”. They wouldn’t go so far as to state specifically “killing civilians” but they wanted a lot of destruction, regardless of the military/strategic value.

True, but just because they didn’t think like the Pope, doesn’t make it immoral given the circumstances.

However, it doesn’t matter. Intention is irrelevant. Even if they had the best of intentions, because the act in and of itself is immoral. You cannot deliberately kill innocent civilians. It’s immoral regardless of the intent.
The act wasn’t immoral becasue the soldiers were combatants.

Firstly, the destruction of the city was not an accident, it was well foreseen and intended, so the section you made bigger doesn’t apply.
I agree
Secondly, the statements I bolded go directly against the Hiroshima bombing.

Thirdly, I’ll see your quote and raise you my own, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2314:
Disagree, combatants

Fourthly, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not an official source of Church teaching, the CCC is.

You keep accusing Catholic theology of “counting” games. Yet it is doing the exact opposite. Killing an innocent person is immoral. Always has been. Doesn’t matter how many people will be saved. So if killing one innocent person saves one life or a billion, you still can’t do it. Immoral. How is that in any way leaving something up to counting?

It’s about holding all armed forces to the same universal moral law - you cannot kill innocent life. So where I see the discussion really going, is how can we justify that bombing Hiroshima was a legitimate act of war? The only way to do that is to show how either a) that’s not killing innocent life, b) the killing of innocent life was unforeseen OR c) that the killing of innocent life was not intended and was a side effect of the bombing rather than the principle effect.

I’d like to see a discussion more focused on that, as that would be how you would show the bombing of Hiroshima to be morally legitimate from a Catholic perspective.

Hence, I have no response to the rest of your post, as it is irrelevant to determining the moral legitimacy of the bombing of Hiroshima.

Basically your whole argument hinges on the Japanese miltia being non combatants. I would like you to defend that. Instead of attacking with quotes, that is the main difference between our arguments.

 

[Redratfish]

How many lives would have died is irrelevant. The ends don’t justify the means. If killing one innocent life means saving billions it is still an immoral act and wrong to do.

Innocent civilians the Japanese were not.

This is also irrelevant, as we did not know this at the time the decision was made to drop the bomb. And even if we did, killing innocent life to save innocent life is still immoral. See above response.

See above

Still irrelevant to determining whether or not the act itself is immoral. I can kill a person, and then donate lots of money to their family, help support them, etc. That in no way justifies my act of killing the person.

Unless it is not a innocent victim

It’s not tough to reconcile, but not reconcilable at all. You can’t kill innocent life to save innocent life. Even if more innocent life will die if you don’t.

See my above post

But again, irrelevant. Let’s say for the sake of argument we don’t bomb Hiroshima and choose to invade. During the process of invasion, millions of both American and Japanese are killed. Japan is left devastated, and the American population suffers severe loss of life. Now let’s say we’re back at the pivotal moment where we are deciding whether or not to drop the bomb on Hiroshima, and we look through a crystal ball and see all that will happen. Still immoral to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. You cannot kill innocent life.

See this is what I don’t get. One of the core teachings of the catechism is that life should be protected at all cost. I don’t see the logic in your arguement. You ADMIT the japanese innocent civilians would kill Americans. You just defeated your own arguement that they were innocent.

Be careful with this line of logic. People use this all the time to justify immorality. It is never acceptable to do so. I could be in Nazi Germany and say “war is hell, I have no moral choice” and use that as justification to persecute Jews, or kill innocent civilians, etc. One should NEVER commit an immoral act. That’s not my personal opinion, that’s Church teaching. And you can justly wage war without committing immorality, and that is well within the scope of Church teaching. Google Just War Theory for details.

The Pope said this about him being the Nazi Hitler Youth program. He says (correctly) that he didn’t have a choise. So you are saying the Pope is a liar.

I’m not a total pacifist and fully support the Just War Theory. I don’t think anyone arguing against the bombing of Hiroshima on this thread is. =

I don’t understand how you yourself can say, they were innocent civilians but later say that they would have killed Americans

 

[stevegravy]

Thirdly, I’ll see your quote and raise you my own, 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.”

Nice terms and we know there are many ways to commit indiscriminate destruction of whole cities not just atomic biological or chemical, look at Stalingrad after its liberation or any town or village on the eastern front. That was pretty indiscriminate especially since Soviets kept the civilians around making tanks even as the Germans were pressing an attack on the factory. How about the hydro dams and the towns downstream of the dam? That was a vast area of destruction.

For you the discussion turns on defining innocent lives in a state sponsored total war situation. It is a good question and one that seems at the heart of everything . Very old and very young people would be innocent, I think. But, who is culpable for their being in harm’s way? Are these the only innocents? What culpability does an entire society bear when you consider the entire society, through its political arm, has gotten itself into a total war situation? If it is society that is waging war how innocent are the the very young and old?

IMHO societies wage war not just uniformed personnel. The boys and girls in uniform just do the killing.

One last comment about the CC quote: So something that doesn’t wipe out a whole city or not so vast an area and not all of its inhabitant, whom we do not know but they might fit the definition of innocent, more than likely some of them will be innocent, that something is a moral weapon to use? BS

This is why when all these qualifying expressions are used like whole cities, vast areas, identifying nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons I think of weasel wording and reducing discussions to a counting game. Oh sure, we cannot kill an innocent human being to save a thousand that is immoral. However, gee we can blow a bunch up (only standard ordinances not nuclear biological or chemical) just not the whole city or a vast area. Because while we know there are attending deaths of “innocents” our real aim was destroying the war making capability of the enemy. And that I think is hypocrisy. Blowing up non-combatants “innocents” is moral or it ain’t. I cannot see how it is moral. It can only be moral if you accept societies wage war and therefore the list of innocents shrinks and there being at a ground zero is the fault of the host belligerent because they should have been moved far from harm’s way.

So , I think the only real objection underlining this statement is the modern weapon’s effectiveness.

 

[stevegravy]

Whoopps

 

[estesbob]

How many lives would have died is irrelevant. The ends don’t justify the means. If killing one innocent life means saving billions it is still an immoral act and wrong to do.

.

By that rationale United States was wrong to go to war in the first place. . Pacifism is a great philosophy as long as there are others around to defend you bydoing the dirty work

 

[Ghosty]

So using that logic: A taliban soldier goes home from a long day of shooting americans. Soldiers recieve intel where the soldier lives, are you saying they are not justified to kill him, just because he is not on a battlefield actively shooting at us?

A soldier who’s taking a break from shooting is still a soldier, and is a legitimate target. The civilians in Japan, though some were trained in combat and in bearing weapons, had not in fact joined in combat. The Encyclopedia article makes this explicitly clear. Had these civilians taken up arms against the U.S. they would have no longer fallen under this proviso.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Redratfish]

A soldier who’s taking a break from shooting is still a soldier, and is a legitimate target. The civilians in Japan, though some were trained in combat and in bearing weapons, had not in fact joined in combat. The Encyclopedia article makes this explicitly clear. Had these civilians taken up arms against the U.S. they would have no longer fallen under this proviso.

Peace and God bless!

They had taken up arms. They were ready on the island… once again, look up Operation Ketsu Go. So in the case of Nazi Germany, you are saying we would have to let the Volkstrumm shoot at us first before starting an artilery barrage on a check point maned by them?

The Japanese were waiting…

The Japanese made everyone a soldier, with that operation (ketsu Go) Setting up and maning bunkers, ect. Even cities (yes both) had militia units, aka 95 percent of the population. Women and children were included in this

 

[manualman]

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I’m perfectly aware that I am unable to, in my clean computer desk chair in my air conditioned office, articulate a defense compatible with the principles of catholic moral philosophy I know of.

However, I’m still unwilling to condemn Truman, et al for their decision as I do believe it resulted in millions of fewer deaths, Japanese deaths even. I’m aware that ends don’t justify the means. But such a nice and tidy distinction would be small comfort to millions of corpses that would have resulted from continuing the war conventionally.

When faced with such a disconnect between what I understand philosophically and what my intuition tells me, I’m quite glad I’m neither in a position to have to make such decisions, nor a position where I need to make a judgement on what Truman did.

 

[estesbob]

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I’m perfectly aware that I am unable to, in my clean computer desk chair in my air conditioned office, articulate a defense compatible with the principles of catholic moral philosophy I know of.

However, I’m still unwilling to condemn Truman, et al for their decision as I do believe it resulted in millions of fewer deaths, Japanese deaths even. I’m aware that ends don’t justify the means. But such a nice and tidy distinction would be small comfort to millions of corpses that would have resulted from continuing the war conventionally.

When faced with such a disconnect between what I understand philosophically and what my intuition tells me, I’m quite glad I’m neither in a position to have to make such decisions, nor a position where I need to make a judgement on what Truman did.

Could not agree more! The Church itself seems conflicted about this as they waited eight years before even having any kind of indirect comment on it.

 

[smichhertz]

By that rationale United States was wrong to go to war in the first place. . Pacifism is a great philosophy as long as there are others around to defend you bydoing the dirty work

It’s not Pacifism at all. It was perfectly morally legitimate for the United States to go to war. I would argue, it would have been perfectly morally legitimate even if the US hadn’t been attacked, but that’s a separate discussion.

There’s a huge difference between killing innocent civilians and waging war where innocent civilians unintentionally die.

 

[estesbob]

It’s not Pacifism at all. It was perfectly morally legitimate for the United States to go to war. I would argue, it would have been perfectly morally legitimate even if the US hadn’t been attacked, but that’s a separate discussion.

There’s a huge difference between killing innocent civilians and waging war where innocent civilians unintentionally die.

If, as you claim, the ends never justify the means how can you possibly justify the United States going to war? . You said that if the killing of one innocent saved the lives of billions it still would not be justified. Do you really believe it’s possible go to war and not have at least one innocent killed?

 

[smichhertz]

If, as you claim, the ends never justify the means how can you possibly justify the United States going to war? . You said that if the killing of one innocent saved the lives of billions it still would not be justified. Do you really believe it’s possible go to war and not have at least one innocent killed?

It’s not Pacifism at all. It was perfectly morally legitimate for the United States to go to war. I would argue, it would have been perfectly morally legitimate even if the US hadn’t been attacked, but that’s a separate discussion.

There’s a huge difference between killing innocent civilians and waging war where innocent civilians unintentionally die.

I don’t understand how my previous post didn’t already answer the question. Obviously, it is inevitable that innocent civilians will die in any war. It’s when you intentionally kill civilians that is immoral, not the inadvertent killing of civilians. This is well supported in Catholic theology by the Double Effect Theory and the Just War Theory.

 

[smichhertz]

Innocent civilians the Japanese were not.

I don’t understand this comment. Are you saying they weren’t innocent because they’d support the war effort?

Unless it is not a innocent victim

Sure, but they were.

See this is what I don’t get. One of the core teachings of the catechism is that life should be protected at all cost. I don’t see the logic in your arguement. You ADMIT the japanese innocent civilians would kill Americans. You just defeated your own arguement that they were innocent.

There were Japanese soldiers in Japan too. I was referring to them fighting back and not civilians. Sorry, I guess I didn’t clarify that.

The Pope said this about him being the Nazi Hitler Youth program. He says (correctly) that he didn’t have a choise. So you are saying the Pope is a liar.

The Pope never killed innocent life and then tried to justify it. My point was in regards to Nazis that were actively involved in killing innocent people and then used “well, this is war, there really isn’t any moral act” argument to justify it.

I don’t understand how you yourself can say, they were innocent civilians but later say that they would have killed Americans

See above, was referring to Japanese SOLDIERS fighting back and not civilians. I recognize that’s my fault as I didn’t clarify that, sorry.