As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[pnewton]

Well I dont pretend to be an expert on war or that particular time period so I accept that even i cant say for sure that America should have surrendered. However was that the only alternative to an atom bomb?

No, invasion was also possible, but that too would have resulted in excessive civilian casualties. Now the targeting of Hiroshima, as opposed to another target more isolated, is of concern. But then again, I think we are exercising hindsight on this question by applying a 1984 teaching to 1945. Hiroshima was hardly the first civilian area to be targeted. If a country at war deliberately avoids all civilian areas, then all their enemy need do is keep key military targets protected by human shields. This is not what the Catechism teaching is.

 

[Neildown]

This is pure speculation. I also believe that it displays a lack of understanding of Japanese culture and beliefs. IMHO, battles at Iwo Jima and the like were the easy ones; battling the Japanese on the turf that they actually lived would be exceeding difficult.

I disagree naturally. I never objected to the fact that it would be very difficult and costly of lives - that’s why I said before that an invasion should have been out of the question. However, Japan would have lost eventually either way.

I do have a fair understanding [though not extremely deep] of their mindset and beliefs - at the time there was much propagation of a sort of perverted version of the Samurai code that many believed in. There were quite a few that were exceedingly willing to lay down their lives, and Iwo was a good example. They capitalized on this willingness to die by employing guerrilla tactics.

The fact that we conquered Iwo and many of their other islands was very crushing to their morale however [then again, if I remember correctly, they propagated the defenders of Iwo Jima as martyrs to the homeland], and was a boost to our own. Considering we had the advantages of superior weaponry, numbers, and morale, it would only be a matter of time.

 

[Neildown]

I’m not referring to the military prospects. I am referring to Japanese culture. It is extremely dishonored to surrender. Doing so means shaming themselves and their family. It is more honorable to die.

Interestingly, atomic weapons may have been what was required to break their spirit enough to surrender. It’s one thing to fight on the battlefield; there is always hope, regardless of odds. There is no hope if atomic weapons evaporate everything is sight.

You may recall that the commander of Iwo and many others who realized they were doomed committed suicide - they didn’t all go down fighting. They realized they were beaten on that little island. They couldn’t go back to the mainland without honor and they were too scared to face the enemy, whether of cowardice or because they knew they might be captured.

Yes, exactly!

 

[Warrior1979]

I disagree naturally. I never objected to the fact that it would be very difficult and costly of lives - that’s why I said before that an invasion should have been out of the question. However, Japan would have lost eventually either way.

Naturally, I disagree. China has a similar philosophy, and we couldn’t even beat them with their weak military, off their own turf, in the Korean War. Expecting to beat the Japanese on their own turf with their strong military, coupled with their belief in honor, is a suicide mission. At best, there would be massive casualties and Japan loses the war; at worst, there would be massive casualties and Japan wins the war.

 

[Warrior1979]

You may recall that the commander of Iwo and many others who realized they were doomed committed suicide - they didn’t all go down fighting. They realized they were beaten on that little island. They couldn’t go back to the mainland without honor and they were too scared to face the enemy, whether of cowardice or because they knew they might be captured.

Yes, exactly!

I’m well aware of Iwo. I get to hear the stories from my family members that actually fought there.

 

[Neildown]

Naturally, I disagree. China has a similar philosophy, and we couldn’t even beat them with their weak military, off their own turf, in the Korean War. Expecting to beat the Japanese on their own turf with their strong military, coupled with their belief in honor, is a suicide mission. At best, there would be massive casualties and Japan loses the war; at worst, there would be massive casualties and Japan wins the war.

I naturally disagree. We wouldn’t beat China because it is HUGE, has LOTS more people than Japan, and their culture is similar to that of Japan.

Even if we did lose the invasion we still had the bombs as a backup.

 

[Neildown]

I’m well aware of Iwo. I get to hear the stories from my family members that actually fought there.

It would be an honor to hear their stories sometime.

 

[Warrior1979]

It would be an honor to hear their stories sometime.

I was told by one family member (5th Division Marine, Purple Heart recipient) that they didn’t capture any Japanese military on Iwo. The people they captured were typically cooks, laborers, etc.

That’s not to say that military weren’t captured, because obviously some were; he just didn’t see it. Most Japanese simply preferred to go down fighting…and most did.

 

[smichhertz]

You can never intentionally kill innocent people in any case. However, that does not mean that you can take no action in which innocent people are killed for proportionate cause.

Of course. But the bombing of Hiroshima was a deliberate and intentional act that targeted and killed innocent civilians.

I notice you selectively quoted and left out the key modifier “indiscriminate”.

“Indiscriminate” is being used to describe “destruction of whole cities”. It’s saying that the destruction of whole cities is in and of itself indiscriminate. Not “it’s okay to destroy entire cities as long as it’s discriminate” because it is impossible to level an entire city without being indiscriminate. But either way, my point still stands.

In any case, using the Catechism will only answer the question of would it be immoral today, not was it immoral at the time.

If an act is immoral now then it’s immoral then. What changes is the culpability of that act. I certainly agree that the culpability for the bombing of Hiroshima was significantly reduced. This is because there was no clear direction from the Church in regard to nuclear weapons. HOWEVER that does not in any way affect the morality of the act.

 

[Godfollower]

{Snip}. In any case, using the Catechism will only answer the question of would it be immoral today, not was it immoral at the time.

No, invasion was also possible, but that too would have resulted in excessive civilian casualties. Now the targeting of Hiroshima, as opposed to another target more isolated, is of concern. But then again, I think we are exercising hindsight on this question by applying a 1984 teaching to 1945. Hiroshima was hardly the first civilian area to be targeted. If a country at war deliberately avoids all civilian areas, then all their enemy need do is keep key military targets protected by human shields. This is not what the Catechism teaching is.

This argument assumes that morality changes over time, which in turn assumes that God Himself changes over time. Neither assumption is true. What is moral now was immoral fifty years ago, 500 years ago, and 5,000 years ago.

Facts change. People change. Weapons change. Our ability to kill each other changes. But God doesn’t change, and neither does morality.

You’re right; Hiroshima was hardly the first civilian area to be targeted. But that doesn’t make Hiroshima a proper target; that makes it one of several improper targets. The firebombing of Dresden was just as wrong as the nuking of Hiroshima. Why? Because innocent civilians were the target – as opposed to the unavoidable collateral damage – of the bombing. The intent of targeting innocent civilians changes the act from moral to immoral.

And that’s true no matter what weapon is used, who uses it, or when in history it is used.

 

[Warrior1979]

To summarize the alternate actions:

1. 
   *]Walk away and let Japan do what they want
   *]Invade the country, causes massive casualties (including civilian) on both sides.
   
   If one wants to take a “moral” action, the proper approach would be action #1. Action #2 is hypocritical, since realistically it results in the same number of deaths or more, absolutely more deaths on the side of U.S. That’s with no consideration of the fact that the terms of surrender would be different, and more in favor of Japan.
   
   Given history, it is preposterous to conclude that the outcome is what people will think it will be. Exactly how many times has the U.S. invaded a country with great military might, of Japan’s size, with a homogeneous culture, and walked away with an unconditional surrender? We can’t even control a backward country like Afghanistan with current weaponry.

 

[smichhertz]

Action #2 is hypocritical, since realistically it results in the same number of deaths or more, absolutely more deaths on the side of U.S. That’s with no consideration of the fact that the terms of surrender would be different, and more in favor of Japan.

What you’re referring to is Consequentialism. “Since Action A results in X deaths, and Action B results in Y deaths, and X<Y, I’m going with Action A”. This has been strongly condemned by the Church as it does not give any account to what the act is and merely judges by results.

Even if an invasion did result in more civilian casualties, it would still be a morally permissible option as the civilian deaths would be an unintended side effect of that act of war. That is different than the Hiroshima bombing where civilians were directly targeted and their deaths were intended making the act immoral.

Given history, it is preposterous to conclude that the outcome is what people will think it will be. Exactly how many times has the U.S. invaded a country with great military might, of Japan’s size, with a homogeneous culture, and walked away with an unconditional surrender? We can’t even control a backward country like Afghanistan with current weaponry.

I’m no military expert, neither am I a big historian, so I’ll refrain from judgment on how difficult the invasion would have been. However, I don’t even need to touch on the issue to show how the bombing of Hiroshima was immoral. You can’t deliberately target and kill innocent civilians, that’s just flat out immoral.

 

[Warrior1979]

Even if an invasion did result in more civilian casualties, it would still be a morally permissible option as the civilian deaths would be an unintended side effect of that act of war.

I completely disagree with the line of morality that concludes

“Hey, even though my actions resulted in the death of many more people, at least I did it the right way.”

 

[Ghosty]

I completely disagree with the line of morality that concludes

“Hey, even though my actions resulted in the death of many more people, at least I did it the right way.”

Then you reject Catholic moral teaching, plain and simple.

Peace and God bless!

 

[smichhertz]

I completely disagree with the line of morality that concludes

“Hey, even though my actions resulted in the death of many more people, at least I did it the right way.”

So in your view, it’s acceptable to commit evil so long as you have good intentions. Correct?

 

[Warrior1979]

Then you reject Catholic moral teaching, plain and simple.

And you support the notion that killing a greater number of innocents is proper, provided it is done in the “moral” way.

Utterly preposterous…

 

[Warrior1979]

So in your view, it’s acceptable to commit evil so long as you have good intentions. Correct?

The intentions in both cases are good (end the war), and the end result in both cases is evil (massive death of innocents).

The main problem with the invasion is that victory is not only not guaranteed, but the unconditional surrender can be tossed out the window. It should also be noted that nearly everyone is only focusing on the U.S. and Japan. China suffered the most casualties next to the Soviet Union. The unconditional surrender effectively ended Japan’s horrific involvement in China. In fact, whereas Japan the U.S. have become great allies, China to this day is extremely angry about those events.

I personally believe there was no good choice. The path chosen ended the war, further killing, and the Japanese involvement in China, decisively. It is extremely improbable that the result would have been the same without the atomic weapons.

 

[BigFellaMick]

America was founded by Satan. It is my opinion that whenever the Antichrist should rear its ugly head (not that I believe it’ll be in my lifetime), I would bet anything it rises through america. This country was founded through evil and almost every act it has played on the world stage has been to the detriment of others. It is no wonder 9/11 happened or why the rest of the world hates america. I am dismayed at how many of my fellow americans simply accept the atrocities their country continues to commit in the name of “freedom”. If only america would invest the kind of money it does in its military as it would in science and education there may be cures for cancer and aids and an end to world hunger, the possibilities are endless. But america is clearly more interested in researching new ways to destroy life rather than preserve it. God Bless all who follow Christ and pray for america before it brings the wrath of the Father upon its head with their pushing of gay marriage and legalization of abortion and their relentless assault against christianity (especially catholicism) in every facet of public life.

 

[Godfollower]

I completely disagree with the line of morality that concludes

“Hey, even though my actions resulted in the death of many more people, at least I did it the right way.”

Can you kill an innocent child to use its organs to save the lives of 20 other people? Assume that it’s the only way to save their lives; accordingly, letting the child live kills 20 other people.

I would refuse to kill the child (why? because it’s immoral to attempt to achieve good by doing evil; and killing an innocent person on purpose is evil). Therefore, “Hey, even though my actions resulted in the death of many more people, at least I did it the right way.”

 

[Godfollower]

And you support the notion that killing a greater number of innocents is proper, provided it is done in the “moral” way.

Utterly preposterous…

No; we’re saying that you can’t commit evil in order to achieve good. It’s immoral to kill innocent people on purpose; it is not immoral to aim at enemy combatants (assuming a just war, etc.), even if you know that some innocents will unavoidably die.

If your brakes fail, causing you to run over a troop of Girl Scouts, that isn’t immoral. If you choose to run over a troop of Girl Scouts, that is immoral.

The difference lies in the intent. Deliberately killing innocents is immoral. Unavoidably killing innocents is unfortunate but not necessarily immoral.

Closer to the thread, a police sniper who aims at the man holding the Girl Scouts hostage acts morally, even if he knows there’s a risk that the bullet will go through the criminal and kill one of the Girl Scouts. But – no matter how evil the hostage-taker is – you can’t just throw a hand grenade into the room.

An invasion would have aimed at combatants, who morally could be killed (including civilians who attacked the invaders); there likely would have been unavoidable deaths of innocents, but they were unintended. The atomic bombs aimed at innocents, who morally could not be killed. You can’t target an innocent person.

That’s the distinction we’re drawing.