As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[sedonaman]

So any criticism of America is putting America down? I have to disagree. Those of us who disagree with Hiroshima are not even criticising America. It is more a criticism of a decision made by some of those in government at that particular point of time. I know people who have had relatives tortured by the Japanese, but no one condemns the entire country. Thus no one is condemning America here.

I disagree. It is attempt to prey on Americans’ guilt phobia. If this were an honest question, why haven’t those who ask it first and foremost ask was the attack on Pearl Harbor a moral act? What about the Rape of Nanking? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking

What about the 20th century’s deka-megamurders:

61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse

hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

Nothing is ever mentioned about these; it’s only America that has to suffer rebuke because it tried to end the insanity of the rest of the world. BTW, in his biography of General Douglas MacArthur, American Caesar, William Manchester mentioned that MacArthur increased the Japanese life expectancy by 5 years in his relatively short term as head of the military occupation of Japan. No one would know this unless he’d read the book.

You dont have to answer this, but do you consider yourself an Catholic first, and American second or the other way round?

This is Manichaean: either you are a good Catholic and thus a bad American, or you are a good American and thus a bad Catholic. There is no other choice. As a Catholic, I consider my obligation is to defend my country against unjust criticism.

I find that your questioning America as a result of the use of the A-bomb virtually guarantees a “double standard” that America is judged by and that I reject.

Liberal author Peter Beinart similarly “seeks legitimacy” for America’s power and holds America up to the “highest standards” of democracy and human rights. The notion of holding a nation to a “higher standard” than other nations is nothing more than “cultural Leninism” – the worldview that all life is a struggle between economic classes, but applied to nations instead. Thus, morality of a nation is determined not by its actions measured against any objective standard such as tradition or international law, but inversely proportional to its perceived degree of military power. Since communism failed, the Left must hand America a defeat to equalize the situation. Therefore, according to Beinart and the lamenters of the bomb, because America is militarily strong, it is immoral and needs to be made “legitimate” by denying its use of its military, deployed or not. Thus, America must now legitimize itself by meeting “highest standards” of human rights – standards not expected of any other nation.

The fact of the matter is, America will NEVER live up to Beinart’s and its critics’ “highest standards” expectations because they can always be ratcheted up. Jettisoning objective international law as a yardstick has allowed Beinart, and other Left-thinkers like him, to seek those higher standards. Thus, only America has to redeem itself for committing an unforgivable.

---

“The more America does to improve itself, the more unbearable become its remaining shortcomings.”

 

[FaithBuild18]

So how did Japan become one of our best buds?

 

[JimG]

So how did Japan become one of our best buds?

It started immediately following the war, when the United States made huge efforts to bring in aid to Japan to fend off starvation and collapse.

 

[sedonaman]

It started immediately following the war, when the United States made huge efforts to bring in aid to Japan to fend off starvation and collapse.

And to stop the Soviet Union from coming in a splitting the country.

 

[JaneGrey]

I disagree. It is attempt to prey on Americans’ guilt phobia. If this were an honest question, why haven’t those who ask it first and foremost ask was the attack on Pearl Harbor a moral act? What about the Rape of Nanking? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking

What about the 20th century’s deka-megamurders:

61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse

hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

Nothing is ever mentioned about these; it’s only America that has to suffer rebuke because it tried to end the insanity of the rest of the world. BTW, in his biography of General Douglas MacArthur, American Caesar, William Manchester mentioned that MacArthur increased the Japanese life expectancy by 5 years in his relatively short term as head of the military occupation of Japan. No one would know this unless he’d read the book.

This is Manichaean: either you are a good Catholic and thus a bad American, or you are a good American and thus a bad Catholic. There is no other choice. As a Catholic, I consider my obligation is to defend my country against unjust criticism.

I find that your questioning America as a result of the use of the A-bomb virtually guarantees a “double standard” that America is judged by and that I reject.

Liberal author Peter Beinart similarly “seeks legitimacy” for America’s power and holds America up to the “highest standards” of democracy and human rights. The notion of holding a nation to a “higher standard” than other nations is nothing more than “cultural Leninism” – the worldview that all life is a struggle between economic classes, but applied to nations instead. Thus, morality of a nation is determined not by its actions measured against any objective standard such as tradition or international law, but inversely proportional to its perceived degree of military power. Since communism failed, the Left must hand America a defeat to equalize the situation. Therefore, according to Beinart and the lamenters of the bomb, because America is militarily strong, it is immoral and needs to be made “legitimate” by denying its use of its military, deployed or not. Thus, America must now legitimize itself by meeting “highest standards” of human rights – standards not expected of any other nation.

The fact of the matter is, America will NEVER live up to Beinart’s and its critics’ “highest standards” expectations because they can always be ratcheted up. Jettisoning objective international law as a yardstick has allowed Beinart, and other Left-thinkers like him, to seek those higher standards. Thus, only America has to redeem itself for committing an unforgivable.

---

“The more America does to improve itself, the more unbearable become its remaining shortcomings.”

Who exactly is trying to prey on Americans? Other Americans? The rest of the world? I think most people on this thread are Catholic and I dont think the non-Americans even have anything as such against your country. I know I dont. I think all countries are capable of making bad, bad decisions. The key is accepting those decisions were bad so that they are not made again. Do you think it would be permissable to use the A bomb again in the future, knowing what we know about it?

It probably seems like America’s indiscretions (for lack of a better word) are highlighted for all to see, because well, America is the most prolific superpower.

This is Manichaean: either you are a good Catholic and thus a bad American, or you are a good American and thus a bad Catholic. There is no other choice. As a Catholic, I consider my obligation is to defend my country against unjust criticism.

Your words, not mine. I personally think you can be both a good Christian and good citizen, as long one puts obedience of the rules of Christianity over the laws of their country. Most of the time, the two can be compatible. However there are always going to be troublesome examples,such as the one of this thread.

 

[Warrior1979]

It was morally wrong.

It doesn’t matter if the act saved lives, saved money, saved Japan, whatever (for the record, I think it did all those things). You simply cannot *morally *do evil that good may result.

The alternative is to let evil continue its course, which in and of itself is evil. It is moral to do “good,” while knowing the end will be evil?

 

[sedonaman]

Who exactly is trying to prey on Americans? Other Americans? The rest of the world? …

Those who strain the American gnat and pass the despotic camel. Have you ever heard of the Harvest of Sorrows? [No cheating by looking it up before you answer.]

 

[JaneGrey]

Those who strain the American gnat and pass the despotic camel. Have you ever heard of the Harvest of Sorrows? [No cheating by looking it up before you answer.]

NO i havent heard of that and I would be interested in hearing about it so long as it does not derail this thread.

I did nt address before the part of your earlier post where you listed the atrocities committed by various groups and governments around the world. All that shows is that America is not the only country in the world to have made bad decisions, but no one here has asserted that in the first place. Also the use of the A bomb is unique because it has affected not just the immediate casualties but generations of people, as well as the survivors later in life.

 

[exnihilo]

The alternative is to let evil continue its course, which in and of itself is evil. It is moral to do “good,” while knowing the end will be evil?

I think we have an obligation to prevent and stop evil. It is much easier to see this in daily living than in the acts of states.

Regarding WWII the US allied with the biggest killer of all the nations. The US sided with the state that most systematically killed Christians and persecuted faith. Oddly enough one of the arguments for the bomb is that it prevented our ally, ‘Uncle Joe’ Stalin, from joining in the game or, according to some, to show him the US’s mighty power. At the end of the war our ally occupied and oppressed all of Eastern Europe.

With the enormous power, size, secrecy, and diversified financial interests of the modern state I think it is impossible to find much good in international politics whether they be seemingly peaceful or open war.

 

[sedonaman]

NO i havent heard of that and I would be interested in hearing about it so long as it does not derail this thread.

The Harvest of Sorrow refers to Stalin’s systematic starvation of the Ukraine in 1932. I mention this to illustrate how America’s alleged “sins” are magnified while the real horrors of despotic regimes somehow get trivialized, glossed over, or ignored. Your not knowing about it shows that it is not well-known and illustrates this trivialization. We are still debating the A-bomb, but few know about or question the Harvest of Sorrow or any of the other deka-megamurders I listed. And this does not happen by accident. Read about this “intellectual and moral disgrace on a massive scale” here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Conquest#Later_works .

I did nt address before the part of your earlier post where you listed the atrocities committed by various groups and governments around the world. All that shows is that America is not the only country in the world to have made bad decisions, but no one here has asserted that in the first place.

You see? By referring to atrocities of unimaginable scale as “bad decisions”, even you are trivializing them while magnifying America’s “bad decision”. At least America can claim the primary target was the military installations in Japan. What purpose does systematic, intentional massive starvation of whole populations serve? So, it shows more than other countries making “bad decisions”.

Also the use of the A bomb is unique because it has affected not just the immediate casualties but generations of people, as well as the survivors later in life.

Now you are magnifying. I fail to see how the A-bomb is unique in this respect. Approximately 50 million people were killed in WW-II as a result of other countries’ “bad decisions”. Do you think that has not changed future generations? All we need is a reminder of the story “It’s a Wonderful Life” to see how future generations can be changed by the absence of only one person.

 

[sedonaman]

View attachment 11185

A “LeMay Bombing Leaflet” from the war, which warned Japanese civilians that “Unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

Did Germany, Italy, or Japan give warnings like this before bombing Allied cities?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

As justifiable as the bombings may have been to the Allies, I would ultimately say that attacking centres with indescriminate weapons of mass destruction strikes a discordant cord with me.

 

[smichhertz]

As justifiable as the bombings may have been to the Allies, I would ultimately say that attacking centres with indescriminate weapons of mass destruction strikes a discordant cord with me.

Exactly, its the indiscriminate nature of the Hiroshima bombing that makes it (in my opinion) immoral.

 

[exnihilo]

The Harvest of Sorrow refers to Stalin’s systematic starvation of the Ukraine in 1932. I mention this to illustrate how America’s alleged “sins” are magnified while the real horrors of despotic regimes somehow get trivialized, glossed over, or ignored. Your not knowing about it shows that it is not well-known and illustrates this trivialization. We are still debating the A-bomb, but few know about or question the Harvest of Sorrow or any of the other deka-megamurders I listed. And this does not happen by accident. Read about this “intellectual and moral disgrace on a massive scale” here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Conquest#Later_works .

Well one reason we dont know about it is ‘Uncle Joe’ was FDR’s good friend. There was a good bit of evidence available in the West of the atrocities of the Soviet Empire long before WWII. Why this evidence was largely ignored before the war is hard to explain. Why it was ignored after the war is easy. You dont want to point out that you were allied with the biggest murderer in WWII when you claim it to be a holy war against evil and aggression.

At least America can claim the primary target was the military installations in Japan. What purpose does systematic, intentional massive starvation of whole populations serve? So, it shows more than other countries making “bad decisions”.

Every nation claims its acts of war are good and justified. Since there are two sides to every conflict one side is wrong. The chance of any one side being right is only 50% or a coin flip. The US engaged in a widespread starvation campaign in the War Between the States when they blockaded the South and burnt crops and killed livestock. The US considers 500,000 dead Iraqi children as a result of a blockade as ‘worth it’. Given the history prior to and after WWII I’d question any pure intentions.

 

[sedonaman]

Exactly, its the indiscriminate nature of the Hiroshima bombing that makes it (in my opinion) immoral.

Would you feel less concerned if attacks were more discriminate, as in genocide?

CCC 2313: … Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

 

[smichhertz]

Would you feel less concerned if attacks were more discriminate, as in genocide?

CCC 2313: … Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

What? Of course not. You’re putting words in my mouth. Simply because an act of war is discriminate doesn’t mean it’s licit.

My point is simply that each act of war must be directed toward a legitimate target. Hence, indiscriminate acts are immoral as they do not at least attempt discriminating between civilian and combatant.

That’s not to say that every discriminate act is necessarily morally licit. I never said anything like that.

 

[JimG]

It’s quite true that the atomic bombings were not the worst of the horrors of the twentieth century. Anyone who reads “The Black Book of Communism” will see that the deaths they caused pale in comparison to those deliberately inflicted by evil regimes. If so much attention is focused on these war ending actions to the extent that we ignore the worse genocides that followed, we risk not learning from history.

 

[smichhertz]

It’s quite true that the atomic bombings were not the worst of the horrors of the twentieth century. Anyone who reads “The Black Book of Communism” will see that the deaths they caused pale in comparison to those deliberately inflicted by evil regimes. If so much attention is focused on these war ending actions to the extent that we ignore the worse genocides that followed, we risk not learning from history.

Oh yeah, absolutely. There are many things that have been done that were worse than the Hiroshima bombings. However, simply saying “people have done worse” can’t justify an act.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Would you feel less concerned if attacks were more discriminate, as in genocide?

CCC 2313: … Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

We are speaking to indiscriminate targeting in the sense that civilians *and *military targets are struck wholesale and en masse. I would imagine discriminating against military versus civilian targets would be better. Discriminating against wholesale carnage versus specific targets again would be better. Would you not agree?

 

[sedonaman]

Well one reason we dont know about it is ‘Uncle Joe’ was FDR’s good friend. There was a good bit of evidence available in the West of the atrocities of the Soviet Empire long before WWII. Why this evidence was largely ignored before the war is hard to explain.

No, it isn’t. Didn’t you read the “intellectual and moral disgrace on a massive scale”? The author was criticizing the media and the intelligencia.

Why it was ignored after the war is easy. You dont want to point out that you were allied with the biggest murderer in WWII when you claim it to be a holy war against evil and aggression.

I guess you never saw any of the anti-communism films americanthinker.com/2007/10/the_buried_legacy_of_hollywood_1.html . The author makes the point that the unavailability of these films today is no accident. Hitler was second only to Joseph Stalin in the number of murders he caused, yet we never hear about Stalin’s crimes, only Hitler’s. This is also no accident.

Every nation claims its acts of war are good and justified.

How do you get the people to fight against a real threat if you don’t convince them of its reality? [Its morality is another question, except in the case of America, its motives are always immoral, never its enemies’.]