As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[smichhertz]

Nice terms and we know there are many ways to commit indiscriminate destruction of whole cities not just atomic biological or chemical

Sure. For example, an officer could order soldier to move into a city and kill everyone, making no distinction between civilian and soldier. I’m sure we’d also all agree that’s immoral. So why is it okay to do it if it’s a bomb?

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?

When I refer to “innocent civilians” I mean in the sense that they are not aggressively resisting like a soldier would. Culpability in terms of their level of involvement in society is not really relevant.

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

True, but the society would have a tough time waging war without the uniformed personnel. That’s why we only target the personnel, take them out, and then negotiate peace terms.

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

So anytime someone notes that something is immoral that automatically means they think everything else they failed to mention is moral? Of course not! In no way is that meant to imply that all other uses of weapons are moral. That CCC paragraph is a particular note on weapons of mass destruction, not “this paragraph and this paragraph alone sums up all immoral uses of weapons”.

In the future, please refrain from using vulgar language, especially when directed at the Holy Mother Church. I find the abbreviations just as offensive as spelling it out. I know you didn’t intend to offend, I am just politely asking you to refrain. Thank you.

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.

It is because nuclear and biological weapons are not discriminate that CAN make their use immoral. Acts of war in which no account is given to discriminate between combatants and non combatants is immoral. I cant go around killing civilians in a war. Obviously, other non-nuclear weapons can be used to kill civilians as well. I still fail to see where the “counting” game comes in. It’s not like if you only kill x number of civilians its okay.

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.

I think you aren’t properly understanding the double effect theory. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good article on it that I recommend you read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect

But even if you aren’t in favor of the Double Effect Theory, than there is simply no way to justify the bombing of Hiroshima. At least, not from a Catholic perspective.

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.

That can’t be because than it frees the offended party from any moral responsibility. Just because Japan was the belligerent host doesn’t give us free reign to commit immoral acts. There are some that think the US was the belligerent host because the US invaded Iraq. Would that have given Iraq justification to use nuclear arms (if they had them) against the US?

 

[stevegravy]

Sure. For example, an officer could order soldier to move into a city and kill everyone, making no distinction between civilian and soldier. I’m sure we’d also all agree that’s immoral. So why is it okay to do it if it’s a bomb?

That is what I am saying only extrapolate it from bomb assuming conventional bomb to Nuke?

When I refer to “innocent civilians” I mean in the sense that they are not aggressively resisting like a soldier would. Culpability in terms of their level of involvement in society is not really relevant.

Starts getting murky when nearly 100% of a society during total wars are going to be involved one way or the other in defense related activities either by direct or indirect manufacturing of war supplies and fortifications

True, but the society would have a tough time waging war without the uniformed personnel. That’s why we only target the personnel, take them out, and then negotiate peace terms.

Little naïve maybe. You will never drive a modern army off the field without breaking their logistical support going all the way back to raw material production. Which is why I say It is society waging the war even if idiot politians start it.

So anytime someone notes that something is immoral that automatically means they think everything else they failed to mention is moral? Of course not! In no way is that meant to imply that all other uses of weapons are moral. That CCC paragraph is a particular note on weapons of mass destruction, not “this paragraph and this paragraph alone sums up all immoral uses of weapons”.

I am holding this as an archaic view that whether it is a bayonet, bullet or a bomb the victim (assuming they are not in uniform) from their perspective it is still disproportionate because they are 100% dead. Without decending into consequentialism am saying for the modern world the double effect principle falls into sematics because really it seems to me it just becomes a body count if killing a few dozen civilians is morally OK when taking out enemy HQ but the entire city is bad.

In the future, please refrain from using vulgar language, especially when directed at the Holy Mother Church. I find the abbreviations just as offensive as spelling it out. I know you didn’t intend to offend, I am just politely asking you to refrain. Thank you.

Ok duly noted.

It is because nuclear and biological weapons are not discriminate that CAN make their use immoral. Acts of war in which no account is given to discriminate between combatants and non combatants is immoral. I cant go around killing civilians in a war. Obviously, other non-nuclear weapons can be used to kill civilians as well. I still fail to see where the “counting” game comes in. It’s not like if you only kill x number of civilians its okay.

Which is the beauty of these beast ,if society is going in for total war guess what, everybody is going to die. Not just the shmucks that got drafted.

I think you aren’t properly understanding the double effect theory. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good article on it that I recommend you read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect

But even if you aren’t in favor of the Double Effect Theory, than there is simply no way to justify the bombing of Hiroshima. At least, not from a Catholic perspective.

That can’t be because than it frees the offended party from any moral responsibility. Just because Japan was the belligerent host doesn’t give us free reign to commit immoral acts. There are some that think the US was the belligerent host because the US invaded Iraq. Would that have given Iraq justification to use nuclear arms (if they had them) against the US?

Never going to claim their use is moral… necessary, justified, legal, licit, maybe even ethical, but not moral. I am maintaining, in the end, the weapons of mass destruction only accomplish economically and efficiently what would be a long grinding work of conventional weapons.I am almost convinced that there is very little that can be deemed as a morally acceptable act when a country engages in a total war. Because despite the best efforts of some very good people real bad things are going to happen.

 

[Ghosty]

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

Operation Ketsugo was a training and defense program initiated just prior to the end of the war. It was a militia defense program intended to defeat a possible invasion, and had no offensive capabilities nor intent. Regardless, nobody had yet taken up arms against Americans under Operation Ketsugo at the time of the atomic bombings, and therefore the civilians in question were not in fact participating in warfare under the terms laid out in the Catholic Encyclopedia in particular, and Catholic Just War Theory in general.

Had Operation Ketsugo actually ended up mobilizing the civilian population of Japan to, in fact and action, become soldiers, they would have obviously been legitimate targets in combat, including artillery and bombing actions. Since none of this actually happened, however, you can’t use Operation Ketsu-Go as any kind of justification for the bombings of civilians.

Peace and God bless!

 

[exnihilo]

Had Operation Ketsugo actually ended up mobilizing the civilian population of Japan to, in fact and action, become soldiers, they would have obviously been legitimate targets in combat, including artillery and bombing actions. Since none of this actually happened, however, you can’t use Operation Ketsu-Go as any kind of justification for the bombings of civilians.

As I pointed out earlier this justification that the citizens were soldiers does not consider the same could be said of most Americans using their rationale. In my state, and probably most others, the male citizens are members of the militia. Normally they are not active or training but in the case of an invasion or imminent invasion they certainly would be. My understanding of the Swiss is that after compulsory military service all members are expected to retain a rifle and considered part of the militia.

I would guess that most countries have the idea of a citizen militia. Most governments dont normally want these same citizens to be armed because they are rightfully afraid the citizens will rise up against their current oppressor and not any future invading one. In the US the active military is not even normally armed on base. One reason the Ft. Hood shooting was able to occur was that most soldiers are not allowed to carry weapons on a military base except during training exercises. The regular army in the US is not even typically armed.

 

[smichhertz]

That is what I am saying only extrapolate it from bomb assuming conventional bomb to Nuke?

You lost me here. I stating that because the bombing of Hiroshima was an act of war that was indiscriminate between civilians and soldiers it was immoral. I thought you were making the point that because all weapons are capable of being indiscriminate it is morally permissible to use any of them. While I certainly agree with that, I still hold that in the bombing of Hiroshima it was indiscriminate and therefore immoral.

Starts getting murky when nearly 100% of a society during total wars are going to be involved one way or the other in defense related activities either by direct or indirect manufacturing of war supplies and fortifications

Sure, it can get very murky. There are probably many different scenarios you could present to me where I really wouldn’t be sure. But in the case of Hiroshima, it’s pretty clearly an indiscriminate act that was immoral.

Little naïve maybe. You will never drive a modern army off the field without breaking their logistical support going all the way back to raw material production. Which is why I say It is society waging the war even if idiot politians start it.

Which is why I state that factories are legitimate targets. Supply lines too. And sure, citizens aid the war effort too. But that doesn’t give me permission to target civilians indiscriminately, only to target factories, supply lines, etc. There’s a huge difference between targeting factories and wiping out an entire city.

I am holding this as an archaic view that whether it is a bayonet, bullet or a bomb the victim (assuming they are not in uniform) from their perspective it is still disproportionate because they are 100% dead. Without decending into consequentialism am saying for the modern world the double effect principle falls into sematics because really it seems to me it just becomes a body count if killing a few dozen civilians is morally OK when taking out enemy HQ but the entire city is bad.

You can’t judge the morality of an action by its results. If I kill someone in self-defense vs killing someone because I’m angry at them, one is morally permissible, one is not. Just because someone is “100% dead” in both situations doesn’t mean they’re both automatically morally permissible or immoral.

Never going to claim their use is moral… necessary, justified, legal, licit, maybe even ethical, but not moral. I am maintaining, in the end, the weapons of mass destruction only accomplish economically and efficiently what would be a long grinding work of conventional weapons.I am almost convinced that there is very little that can be deemed as a morally acceptable act when a country engages in a total war. Because despite the best efforts of some very good people real bad things are going to happen.

An immoral act is inherently neither justifiable or necessary. Remember that actions fall into one of THREE categories: Morally good, morally neutral (or morally permissible), morally evil (or immoral). So it’s not just moral vs immoral, there’s a third option. I’m sure no one on this thread wants to argue that bombing Hiroshima is a good and holy act. So therefore the question is, is it morally permissible or immoral?

 

[Mickey_Finn]

There is no such thing as “had it coming” in Catholic morality.

Well you see, I don’t agree. As matter of fact. I’d say, it’s all base on what we have coming in final judgement. Wouldn’t you?

You might want to read, the Rape of Nanking. amazon.com/Rape-Nanking-Forgotten-Holocaust-World/dp/0140277447 It’ll give you a little needed insight into the japanese of that time.

I don’t believe God would have been too pleased. If we hadn’t put a stop to that evil.

ATB

 

[estesbob]

I went to a good old-fashioned Fourth of July weekend political rally yesterday. The highlight of the rally was a speech by lady who, along with her parents, uncle and cousins were interned in a Japanese concentration camp in Indonesia during World War II. . Her father escaped, her uncle was beheaded by a Japanese officer showing off his new samurai sword, her mother and Aunt were raped repeatedly. In the spring of 1945 her aunt was condemned to death and thrown into solitary confinement pending execution.

And then, as she explained it, “they dropped the bomb and we were free”. . She said afterwards they found out that the Japanese were planning on exterminating all the people interned in concentration camps as a way of hiding what they had done.

As I stated before, it is very easy for us to sit in the comfort of our homes and condemn actions taken place almost 70 years ago. . This lady bought home again the me that the issue is a lot more complex than pulling quotes out of the Catechism and making profound statements about ends and means

 

[smichhertz]

As I stated before, it is very easy for us to sit in the comfort of our homes and condemn actions taken place almost 70 years ago. This lady bought home again the me that the issue is a lot more complex than pulling quotes out of the Catechism and making profound statements about ends and means

No argument there. Doing the right thing is never easy. I’d like to thing I’d have the strength and courage to sit in the oval office and order the military not to drop the bomb, but heck, I can easily see the huge temptation.

Just to be clear: I think the bombing of Hiroshima was immoral, however there had been no clear direction from the Church on the use of that kind of weapon at that time. As such, no one’s conscience was properly informed which significantly reduces their culpability, and one could possibly argue they were invincibly ignorant.

However, regardless of how difficult the decision must have been for Truman and those involved, that does not change the rightness or wrongness of the act, but merely reduces the culpability and gravity of the act.

May God have mercy on us all.

 

[estesbob]

No argument there. Doing the right thing is never easy. I’d like to thing I’d have the strength and courage to sit in the oval office and order the military not to drop the bomb, but heck, I can easily see the huge temptation.

Just to be clear: I think the bombing of Hiroshima was immoral, however there had been no clear direction from the Church on the use of that kind of weapon at that time. As such, no one’s conscience was properly informed which significantly reduces their culpability, and one could possibly argue they were invincibly ignorant.

However, regardless of how difficult the decision must have been for Truman and those involved, that does not change the rightness or wrongness of the act, but merely reduces the culpability and gravity of the act.

May God have mercy on us all.

Or perhaps just as much courage to walk up to this lady and tell her it is immoral. . The problem I see with this discussion is we are trying to discuss morality in the abstract , an option that was not available to those who lived at the time. . Do you really think it would’ve been the will of God for these depredations and killings to continue, even for a few more months, in the name of acting morally? I think someone else mentioned this earlier in this thread, but this is not just a case of United States woke up one morning and said"Let’s blow up a couple cities" It was a complicated, difficult decision based on the situation occurring at the time. The fact that the war ended immediately and people like this lady went from despair to freedom in a matter of hours seems to justify the belief of those who took the action that this is the best way to end this war.

 

[smichhertz]

The problem I see with this discussion is we are trying to discuss morality in the abstract

That’s the only fair way to do it. We can’t judge the subjective element of the act, only the objective. For instance, I can say that murder is immoral. But I cannot say that a person who commits murder sinned. Suppose that person were crazy and unable to control their actions? Or suppose it externally looked like murder, but in fact was an accident? This is why we only judge the objective side of the morality NEVER the subjective. Otherwise, we would be violating Our Lord’s commandment: “Judge not, less ye be judged” (Matt 7:1).

Do you really think it would’ve been the will of God for these depredations and killings to continue, even for a few more months, in the name of acting morally?

Of course not, just like it was obviously not the active will of God that we vaporize 90,000 to 166,000 lives, most of whom were innocent civilians. It’s never the active will of God that anyone commit an immoral act.

I think someone else mentioned this earlier in this thread, but this is not just a case of United States woke up one morning and said"Let’s blow up a couple cities" It was a complicated, difficult decision based on the situation occurring at the time.

Simply because a decision is difficult does not mean that there is not a right and wrong anymore. What kind of moral system would you prefer: One that abandons right and wrong the second a decision is difficult? Or one that challenges people to do the right thing EVEN when it is difficult? The right decision is often not the easy decision, but it is precisely when we choose to do the right thing when it is difficult that brings us closer to God. As Our Lord said “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?” (Matt 5:46).

The fact that the war ended immediately and people like this lady went from despair to freedom in a matter of hours seems to justify the belief of those who took the action that this is the best way to end this war.

So now the results of the act justify it? I understand the attractiveness of such logic in this scenario, but think of where that leads. We could justify the wholesale slaughter of the innocent in the name of the “greater good”. That can never be. As a matter of fact, the Bible clearly condemns this kind of logic: "And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), "Let us do evil that good may come “? Their condemnation is just” (Romans 3:8). Let us listen to the wise words of St. Paul and ask God for the courage to always choose the right path, especially when it is difficult!

 

[estesbob]

That’s the only fair way to do it. We can’t judge the subjective element of the act, only the objective. For instance, I can say that murder is immoral. But I cannot say that a person who commits murder sinned. Suppose that person were crazy and unable to control their actions? Or suppose it externally looked like murder, but in fact was an accident? This is why we only judge the objective side of the morality NEVER the subjective. Otherwise, we would be violating Our Lord’s commandment: “Judge not, less ye be judged” (Matt 7:1).

We are talking about a specific point in time with a specific situation involving an enemy who had a track record that left no doubt of the evil . They were capable of engaging in. Hindsight also shows us dropping the bombs work exactly in the manner that those who drop this isped them hoped they would. . The war entered-in a matter of days

Of course not, just like it was obviously not the active will of God that we vaporize 90,000 to 166,000 lives, most of whom were innocent civilians. It’s never the active will of God that anyone commit an immoral act.

And tens of thousands of innocent people were instantaneously freed and millions of others could go home to their loved ones.

Simply because a decision is difficult does not mean that there is not a right and wrong anymore. What kind of moral system would you prefer: One that abandons right and wrong the second a decision is difficult? Or one that challenges people to do the right thing EVEN when it is difficult? The right decision is often not the easy decision, but it is precisely when we choose to do the right thing when it is difficult that brings us closer to God. As Our Lord said “For if you love those who love you, what
reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?” (Matt 5:46).

Are you suggesting that Scripture and the Church never support the use of violence to bring about justice?

So now the results of the act justify it? I understand the attractiveness of such logic in this scenario, but think of where that leads. We could justify the wholesale slaughter of the innocent in the name of the “greater good”. That can never be. As a matter of fact, the Bible clearly condemns this kind of logic: "And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), "Let us do evil that good may come “? Their condemnation is just” (Romans 3:8). Let us listen to the wise words of St. Paul and ask God for the courage to always choose the right path, especially when it is difficult!

By this rationale the United States should have sat back and allowed Germany to overrun Europe and Japan to take control of all of Asia. . After all the ends never justify the means

 

[smichhertz]

We are talking about a specific point in time with a specific situation involving an enemy who had a track record that left no doubt of the evil . They were capable of engaging in. Hindsight also shows us dropping the bombs work exactly in the manner that those who drop this isped them hoped they would. . The war entered-in a matter of days

I fail to see the relevance here. How does that have anything to do with the fact that we judge the morality of acts from the objective and not the subjective?

And tens of thousands of innocent people were instantaneously freed and millions of others could go home to their loved ones.

How is this a rebuttal? I wasn’t trying to turn this into a counting game. My point is that it is never God’s active will that we commit an immoral act. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Are you suggesting that Scripture and the Church never support the use of violence to bring about justice?

Of course not, please tell me where in my post I said anything of the sort. I said you cannot commit an evil to bring about a good. Use of violent force is not always an evil, it can certainly be morally permissible.

By this rationale the United States should have sat back and allowed Germany to overrun Europe and Japan to take control of all of Asia. . After all the ends never justify the means

You brought that up two posts ago and I addressed it already. Nothing in that rationale states that. Of course we were completely justified in entering WWII. Waging war can be morally legitimate. It’s when a country deliberately targets innocent civilians that they are committing an immoral act. It’s another thing entirely when innocent civilians unintentionally die from acts of war.

Remember when we say “Ends never justify the means” that means we can never commit an EVIL to bring about a GOOD. But war is not necessarily a moral EVIL, it is NEUTRAL. So as long as one is going to war for just reasons, then they are not committing an evil to bring about a good.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Discussing the morality of war in the abstract reduces war to nothing more serious than a game of throwing a beanbag.

Try this exercise.

From time to time, a police officer will shoot someone and then received severe public criticism.

During the public discussion I ask someone … “what would you have done if you had been that police officer?”

And the other person ALWAYS says, "Well … ".

And my response is to interrupt and say: “Well, I’m sorry but you are dead. The person who was shot was armed. And you have run out of time. Discussion over.”

And they get very angry.

And I ask them why they are angry. They had the same amount of time as the police officer to make a decision.

 

[smichhertz]

They had the same amount of time as the police officer to make a decision.

The scenario you described doesn’t sound like an immoral act to me, but I think you are confusing morality with culpability.

Suppose a soldier in the middle of an urban battle has a civilian jump out of nowhere and startles the soldier. Now suppose in the soldiers surprise, he shoots and kills the civilian. Guess what? Objectively, an immoral act, he shot an innocent civilian.

HOWEVER, the soldier has no culpability for that act as he shot out of reflex, not intending to kill the civilian. So that individual soldier committed an immoral act, but did not sin. Or in other words, even though a morally evil act took place, it wasn’t anyone’s fault, it was an accident.

This is why morality is objective in nature and MUST be assessed as such. And that’s not just my opinion, that’s Church teaching. Furthermore, that’s just basic Moral Theology 101. Even atheists can agree to that.

So the morality of any act is objective, whereas culpability is subjective and impossible to assess. I can only speculate the subjective elements of any act, I can never truly know for sure.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Monte RCMS;

Try this exercise.

From time to time, a police officer will shoot someone and then received severe public criticism.

During the public discussion I ask someone … “what would you have done if you had been that police officer?”

And the other person ALWAYS says, "Well … ".

And my response is to interrupt and say: “Well, I’m sorry but you are dead. The person who was shot was armed. And you have run out of time. Discussion over.”

And they get very angry.

And I ask them why they are angry. They had the same amount of time as the police officer to make a decision

If Jesus was in this situation, I cannot see him shooting first, and ask questions later.

Peace

Eric

 

[mdstanzel]

This very same argument lead me to join the Army and volunteer to be on the special weapons team. I served 4 years active duty preparing to respond with absolute ultimate force possible during that time. It disturbed me, but I believed that if anyone was going to bear the burden of that guilt I thought I should since I felt like I betrayed God by not continuing with the seminary. I also felt that if anyone would have to destroy that way it should be me, since I would obey only lawful orders and that if my government felt the necessity to respond with such violence they must have a reason, and if not, refer back to my first reason.

 

[silentstar]

And because everyone was so hesitant to ever use them again, we went on to develop smaller yet hundreds of times more powerful and more destructive bombs, built ever more accurate and long-ranged delivery systems, and work out detailed strategies for how and under what circumstances we would use them, under what circumstances we would kill 100 million people in a matter of minutes, and we examined how we might use them in battlefield situations, and we blew up several islands in the Pacific and big swaths of our own country testing hundreds of the things, and even exposed our own troops (at a distance) to simulate battlefield conditions. We had a multi-billion dollar industry across the country building the things, and now several of the sites at which we built the components and tested these things are now multi-billion-dollar cleanup projects, we have groundwater contaminated with uranium, chromium, and other byproducts from this - consider it the amortized cost of the Cold War. And our adversaries did the same, and now all kinds of third rate powers around the world are clamoring for a little bit of the same action, all because people were so darn hesitant to use a nuclear bomb ever again. makes sense to me.

And multiple countries have gone bankrupt trying to keep their weapons stockpile large and up to date. My father worked for the Naval Surface Warfare Center and talked about the theory of mutually assured destruction which is behind the cold war buildup - that if enemies are both more or less equally armed they will be intimidated by each other and not start the fight. While this has worked kind of, it has no logical ending and has caused a great deal of fear and bankrupted several countries. In addition I think if people focus too much on the dangers of nuclear warfare they can lose sight of the millions or more people who have died since WW2 in wars that don’t involve nuclear weapons. Those wars can come to seem small scale or something.

I think developing the bomb was needed. Hitler was truly evil; a lot of people forget how bad he was and as soon as it became speculated the Nazis were working on a bomb we had to work on one. Given that Hitler was talking about Germany claiming land and racial “purity” and genocide and all kinds of other topics. However the people who built the bomb had no control over how it was used. I still wonder if Roosevelt had lived through the end of the war, whether he would have used the bomb on Japan or not.

 

[no_willa_cather]

Hi following the way:

This Rock named Chris Check’s article “Dropping the Atomic Bomb Was Wrong. Period.” However, I would argue that the punctuation at the end of the title might be “Asterisk,” rather than “Period.” Check renders the conclusion that dropping the nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was morally indefensible. He comes to the conclusion based on the explicit arguments of the remoteness of the assault de-sensitizing the war fighters and an acute dose of supra-nationalism undermining the national character and the implicit traditional jus in bello arguments of non-proportionality and indiscriminate impacts. All of these arguments are valid to support the conclusion that Check takes us to. The problem in the line of argument is that all of these attributes also apply to all of the real alternatives that President Truman had available to him as well in late summer 1945. Realistically, the only other alternatives available to him were to continue to prosecute the war with conventional aerial assaults and/or to invade the home islands, the latter perhaps in conjunction with the Russians. Note that both options satisfy the same four Check’s criteria to a greater or lesser extent that he uses to conclude that the atomic (more accurately: “nuclear”) bomb attacks in WWII were immoral. To wit, I argue that the “Asterisk” is preferred to the “Period” in that “Dropping the Atom Bomb Was Wrong. Asterisk,” where the asterisk states that “as were all of the other alternatives.” Not in any way trying to exonerate Truman’s decision at the time, the analytic problems that impact on Check’s argument are that: (1) war is hell and, by extension, decisions during wars can be hellish, too; and (2) speculating about the events in the safety of 2011 does little to inform the actual decision-making that was made by the President in 1945 under real duress, under great uncertainty, under great pressure, and under great anxiety. So, in the end, “a serious Catholic would (not have to) defend the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki” but might understand that nuance exists in history that can cause dutiful consideration of the circumstances.

I wanted to comment here because it seems that some people (such as myself) will be tempted to pick both choices. The morality of war is always problematic, so Catholic theologians developed the theory of “just war” under Medieval scholastics like Augustine and Aquinas. Basically, the damage caused by the aggressor must be significant (it was); other means of ending the conflict were ineffective (not sure about that); the methods used (tactics, weapons) must be significant enough to ensure success (almost certainly true); and the weapons used must not cause more evil than the evil you’re trying to eliminate (I think that’s hard to argue here). The Catechism (2314) has more:

“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.”

I think it’s clear that the Hiroshima atomic bomb is an example of the “indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants”, as much of the city was destroyed and 70,000 people (mainly civilians) died. So it seems clear that the bombing was a moral evil. On the other hand, some military historians have looked at Allied battle plans, noting that the cities of Honshu and Kyushu would have been invaded in the autumn and winter of 1945 (had the Japanese not surrendered after the atomic attacks).

These scholars argue that the alternative to the Atomic Bomb was a full scale invasion of the Japanese mainland by Allied forces, which would have resulted in casualties exceeding 1 million (Allied soldiers) and 2-3 million (Japanese). So their take on it, basically, is that the Bomb, horrendous as it was, was the “lesser of two evils”. So if you believe this view, then I suppose, yes, it is morally wrong, and yes, we had to do it. Unfortunately, for many modern problems, there may not be definitive “black and white, right or wrong” answers…not all problems are soluble.

I hope this helps.

Jacques

 

[mdgspencer]

My blood turns cold when I think of the reasons people on this thread use to justify using nuclear weapons. I can only hope and pray that people using the same sort of reasoning won’t use weapons of mass destruction on the United States. But this may be exactly what happens. More and more counties are getting nuclear weapons.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

My blood turns cold when I think of the reasons people on this thread use to justify using nuclear weapons. I can only hope and pray that people using the same sort of reasoning won’t use weapons of mass destruction on the United States. But this may be exactly what happens. More and more counties are getting nuclear weapons.

So if the United States say firebombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the extent that led to the amount of death total that the atomic bombs brought it would be fine for you?

When dealing with xenophobic, racist States such as the Axis who have commited atrocities in the name of their ideology you cannot give them the advantage of not targetting civilians when they freely do so to us. The attacks done by the United States were done to end the war quickly, and that wouldn’t work if we played humanitarian and never struck at the Japanese mainland.