As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[Barb3]

In reading many of the comments on this post and “adding” a comment of my own a number of pages back I “thought” of another comment to make. I’m not sure many of you are old enough to remember World War II but just think for a moment about the decision President Truman had to make – the military were moving all their forces to the West Coast to get ready for the invasion of Japan-- then the Presiden twas informed about the atom bomb – what would you decide??? Go ahead and invade Japan – or end the war in a few days by dropping the atom bomb??? I think those of you who thought it was “morally” wrong to drop the bomb might change your minds.

 

[smichhertz]

Here’s another oft-discussed example with a twist.

One can take birth control pills for medicinal purposes (technically, they wouldn’t be considered birth control pills, but medicine). There is a very small possibility that conception could take place and the egg not implant. That is considered acceptable via the principle of double effect.

Now let’s say the woman is already pregnant and wants to take those same pills for the same medicinal purpose. According to this line of thinking, it would have to be. The primary purpose of the pill is still medicinal, and an subsequent miscarriage would be unintentional. In fact, it would seem more moral since the miscarriage is not an absolute certainty, whereas in the prior case the deaths of innocents is an absolute certainty.

Am I correct in concluding this is morally permissible. If not, what is the difference?

In the second scenario why would she be taking the pill? If she’s pregnant, she can’t have a period so there wouldn’t be a need to regulate her period with the pill in the first place, right? I guess the more general question would be is there a medical reason for a woman to take the pill while pregnant? I didn’t think there was but I could be wrong.

 

[Evan]

In reading many of the comments on this post and “adding” a comment of my own a number of pages back I “thought” of another comment to make. I’m not sure many of you are old enough to remember World War II but just think for a moment about the decision President Truman had to make – the military were moving all their forces to the West Coast to get ready for the invasion of Japan-- then the Presiden twas informed about the atom bomb – what would you decide??? Go ahead and invade Japan – or end the war in a few days by dropping the atom bomb??? I think those of you who thought it was “morally” wrong to drop the bomb might change your minds.

I have not read the entire thread but. Truman did order the dropping of leaflets over the cities in advance of the bomb, telling the citizens to leave the cities. I saw one of the leaflets in a war museum in Eastern Oregon. Japanese on one side, English on the other. I could only read the English, but it seems such a warning to the civilians would have mitigated any immorality to the act of dropping the bomb.

The problem that I have with the justification of the attack is that a 2nd city was targeted the next day. It seems when the word of the 1st attack spread through the country (say a week) and more leaflets were dropped in a 2nd city, that there probably would not have been a need for a 2nd bomb.

 

[Ghosty]

I have not read the entire thread but. Truman did order the dropping of leaflets over the cities in advance of the bomb, telling the citizens to leave the cities. I saw one of the leaflets in a war museum in Eastern Oregon. Japanese on one side, English on the other. I could only read the English, but it seems such a warning to the civilians would have mitigated any immorality to the act of dropping the bomb.

The problem that I have with the justification of the attack is that a 2nd city was targeted the next day. It seems when the word of the 1st attack spread through the country (say a week) and more leaflets were dropped in a 2nd city, that there probably would not have been a need for a 2nd bomb.

It doesn’t mitigate the immorality, any more than if I warned you to leave just before I blow up your house to terrorize your neighborhood. The target was still a civilian center precisely because it was a large, populated city. The point wasn’t to show what we could do to military targets (that could have easily been done by a display on a distant island, or by directly targeting a military base), but to show what we could, and would, do to population centers.

Peace and God bless!

 

[maryjk]

In the second scenario why would she be taking the pill? If she’s pregnant, she can’t have a period so there wouldn’t be a need to regulate her period with the pill in the first place, right? I guess the more general question would be is there a medical reason for a woman to take the pill while pregnant? I didn’t think there was but I could be wrong.

Women take “the pill” for more than to regulate their periods. I took it for a number of years to reduce migraines. Getting pregnant wouldn’t have stopped the migraines unless it also dealt with the cause of the migraines.

 

[hosemonkey]

Once a nation or a people become committed to war, especially all-out war, it seems futile to try to place rules on just exactly how the killing is to be done. Dead is dead, maimed is maimed. It matters little if the killing is done with a catapult or a nuclear weapon, only the number of dead is at issue. The controversy over the use of nukes on the Japanese only reflects on the method. 1000 plane B-29 raids on Tokyo killed far more Japanese than the the single plane raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Before leaving for Vietnam the first time, I was instructed (pro forma) that I was to be very careful not to shoot the enemy with my .50 caliber machine gun, because it was forbidden by the Geneva Convention. Well, our Communist enemy had not bothered to sign the Geneva Convention and felt perfectly justified in ignoring it. Consequently, I used my .50 caliber machine gun with good effect and reflected on the stupidity of those who trusted in the good will of a vicious and ruthless enemy. The threat of a more violent response is what keeps the enemy from using his weapons to the maximum. Saddam Hussein was afraid of a nuclear response if he used his chemical or biological weapons. He had no such qualms when he gassed thousands of his own people. He used his weapons because he had nothing to fear. He cared little about world opinion. The use of nukes against Japan saved a great number of lives, American as well as Japanese. I am a veteran of combat, I have seen war up close and personal. Armchair warriors and theologians may speculate and pontificate, but reality is reality, especially when someone is doing their very best to kill you.

 

[smichhertz]

Women take “the pill” for more than to regulate their periods. I took it for a number of years to reduce migraines. Getting pregnant wouldn’t have stopped the migraines unless it also dealt with the cause of the migraines.

Ah, okay thank you for the explanation. I’m not well educated in this subject.

 

[exnihilo]

Once a nation or a people become committed to war, especially all-out war, it seems futile to try to place rules on just exactly how the killing is to be done.

Historically man has placed rules on war. This does not mean that he always adheres to the rules anymore than man always adheres to the laws of his country. We dont give up law just because some people dont adhere to it.

I was instructed (pro forma) that I was to be very careful not to shoot the enemy with my .50 caliber machine gun, because it was forbidden by the Geneva Convention. Well, our Communist enemy had not bothered to sign the Geneva Convention and felt perfectly justified in ignoring it. Consequently, I used my .50 caliber machine gun with good effect and reflected on the stupidity of those who trusted in the good will of a vicious and ruthless enemy.

If the communists had not signed it they were not bound to it. If the US signed it then they were bound to it. Practically speaking the communists were also the native people fighting a defensive war against a foreign aggressor. The Americans during the revolt against Britain tended to engage in war without regard to the rules of war of the time. It is not so important who is right but some measure of consistency.

The threat of a more violent response is what keeps the enemy from using his weapons to the maximum. Saddam Hussein was afraid of a nuclear response if he used his chemical or biological weapons. He had no such qualms when he gassed thousands of his own people. He used his weapons because he had nothing to fear. He cared little about world opinion.

If it is a threat of a more violent response that holds back evil then what holds back the US, which, for now, faces no other nation with an army with as many or as deadly weapons?

Saddam Hussein did what any state would do to those who revolt. He killed them. The US killed about 260,000 of their fellow countrymen when they tried to claim independence.

 

[pnewton]

Saddam Hussein did what any state would do to those who revolt. He killed them.

I totally disagree with this totally! Few states would gas cities and provinces en masse.

 

[exnihilo]

I totally disagree with this totally! Few states would gas cities and provinces en masse.

Is your disagreement over the gassing or the killing of rebels?

The US nuked two cities and killed far more people than the max of 5,000 it is claimed Saddam killed by gas. If nuking is not absolutely wrong as a means of achieving a just end then I wouldn’t see how gassing would not be.

 

[hosemonkey]

If the communists had not signed it they were not bound to it. If the US signed it then they were bound to it. Practically speaking the communists were also the native people fighting a defensive war against a foreign aggressor.

I submit to you that the people and government of South Vietnam were not the aggressors. The Vietnamese Communist party(VC) were the aggressors and waged a war of terror.
The United States and the former Soviet Union together possesses enough nuclear power to destroy the planet several times over. What prevents us from using that power? The concern with world opinion and the possibility of mutually assured destruction. When the Islamic states achieve the ability to deliver nuclear weapons, they will be forced into the same restraint lest Israel and the United States turn them into molten glass. The radical moslem crazies are the ones to fear, they love death.

To what do you attach the figure of 260,000 dead. Are you refering to the War of Northern Aggression? If so, the death toll for both sides ranged from 620,000 to 700,000.

 

[exnihilo]

I submit to you that the people and government of South Vietnam were not the aggressors. The Vietnamese Communist party(VC) were the aggressors and waged a war of terror.

The VC were the aggressors towards the South Vietnamese. But what was the US? The US government lied to the people by making up the Gulf of Tonkin story to justify full involvement in the war.

The United States and the former Soviet Union together possesses enough nuclear power to destroy the planet several times over. What prevents us from using that power? The concern with world opinion and the possibility of mutually assured destruction. When the Islamic states achieve the ability to deliver nuclear weapons, they will be forced into the same restraint lest Israel and the United States turn them into molten glass. The radical moslem crazies are the ones to fear, they love death.

I’m not so worried about our nuclear power as our ‘everyday’ weaponry. I believe Muslims are more of a threat do to our involvement, both known and covert, in their countries. When you look at death toll the US kills far more Muslims than Muslims kill Americans both directly and indirectly.

To what do you attach the figure of 260,000 dead. Are you refering to the War of Northern Aggression? If so, the death toll for both sides ranged from 620,000 to 700,000.

Yes. I believe the number was the Confederate dead so I was saying the Union was willing to kill 260,000 of their fellow countrymen to prevent their independence.

 

[pnewton]

Is your disagreement over the gassing or the killing of rebels?

The US nuked two cities and killed far more people than the max of 5,000 it is claimed Saddam killed by gas. If nuking is not absolutely wrong as a means of achieving a just end then I wouldn’t see how gassing would not be.

It is the killing of ones own citizenry en masse, men women and children. If a war against a rebellion is just, and that is a big “if”, then deaths in combat are not immoral. Deaths during war are first dependent on the justice of the war. All killing is immoral in an unjust war. In a just war, like WWII, killing may be moral, and it may be immoral.

 

[smichhertz]

Iwhat would you decide??? Go ahead and invade Japan – or end the war in a few days by dropping the atom bomb??? I think those of you who thought it was “morally” wrong to drop the bomb might change your minds.

You may want to reread the thread more carefully. This point has been brought up and refuted many times. And it’s the Catholic Church that declares it immoral, not us. We are simply reaffirming it.

Furthermore, whatever we may or may not do is irrelevant. I might have dropped the bomb, I’ll never know because I’ve never been in Truman’s shoes. There are many immoral things I have done in my past. But simply because I am capable of doing immoral things doesn’t mean they aren’t immoral.

Once a nation or a people become committed to war, especially all-out war, it seems futile to try to place rules on just exactly how the killing is to be done.

It’s not “futile”, it’s completely necessary. Sure, in times of war people tend to toss the moral code out the window, but that doesn’t mean they should. If something is immoral, then it’s immoral and should be rightly condemned by all faithful Catholics.

 

[exnihilo]

It is the killing of ones own citizenry en masse, men women
and children.

Then I dont understand your objection. What state has let rebels have their way and not resisted them especially by killing them? If people rebel any country first uses police and if they are not enough will use the military.

Deaths during war are first dependent on the justice of the war. All killing is immoral in an unjust war.

I’m sure you’d agree but just to clarify, all killing by the aggressor is immoral in an unjust war. Those defending themselves from the aggressor could be just in their killing.

 

[hosemonkey]

All killing is immoral in an unjust war. In a just war, like WWII, killing may be moral, and it may be immoral.

When someone is doing their very best to kill you, you do not have the luxury of speculating on the morality or immorality of the action that you are engaged in. Bullets and mortars do not differentiate between good and evil. One is reduced to simple survival and whatever gets the job done is good. I do not ever remember hating my enemy, they were good soldiers and merited respect. But that did not for one minute lessen my desire to kill him, because he presented a threat to me, to my comrades and to the people that we were trying to liberate. At the end of the day, we were involved in a noble cause and were treated shabbily by the people and government that sent us to war.

 

[pnewton]

Then I dont understand your objection. What state has let rebels have their way and not resisted them especially by killing them? If people rebel any country first uses police and if they are not enough will use the military.

They us them against combatants, not non-combatants. Even Sherman’s heinous march did not involve killing every Southerner he laid his hand’s on: men, women and children.

I’m sure you’d agree but just to clarify, all killing by the aggressor is immoral in an unjust war. Those defending themselves from the aggressor could be just in their killing.

That is correct.

 

[pnewton]

When someone is doing their very best to kill you, you do not have the luxury of speculating on the morality or immorality of the action that you are engaged in.

Of course you don’t which is why war, as Sherman says, is Hell. Neither should there ever be one second to judge men in combat as to whether their actions are right or wrong before God. However, the lives of those lost in unjust combat, like the bombing of Pearl Harbor, are still dead due to an immoral act. That in no way reflects on the moral state of an individual pilot.

That is why with the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima I am very slow to judge those who lived then based on my knowledge of the Catechism and just war doctrine developed since then. All I am willing to say is that such mass destuction of innocents is (present tense) objectively immoral. If that puts me on the fence, so be it.

 

[hosemonkey]

That is why with the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima I am very slow to judge those who lived then based on my knowledge of the Catechism and just war doctrine developed since then. All I am willing to say is that such mass destuction of innocents is (present tense) objectively immoral. If that puts me on the fence, so be it.

Agreed up to the point one may argue that the Japanese people were not entirely innocent in the prosecution of that war. They were entirely willing to die to the last man resisting against invasion and were forestalled only by the Emperor’s command to surrender.

 

[smichhertz]

All killing is immoral in an unjust war.

I’m not sold on this point. Usually, none of the soldiers fighting the war had a say in the decision to go to war in the first place. Hence, I do not think that every soldier fighting for the unjust aggressor are necessarily committing an immoral act when they kill. Generally speaking, a combatant killing another combatant is morally permissible in a war regardless of whether it is just or unjust.