As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[pnewton]

I’m not sold on this point.

Me either, even though I said it. Call this more of an inclination to an opinion. I guess there simply must be some multiple culpability on some at some point for the death, if not the soldier (unlikely) then the one who prosecuted the war unjustly. I do not know the proper expression of this and it might take a life of study to formulate it better.

That is why I read the great works of others and documents of the Church: to steal material.

 

[smichhertz]

Me either, even though I said it. Call this more of an inclination to an opinion. I guess there simply must be some multiple culpability on some at some point for the death, if not the soldier (unlikely) then the one who prosecuted the war unjustly. I do not know the proper expression of this and it might take a life of study to formulate it better.

Yeah, I’m not 100% on that issue either way. Perhaps someone else with more knowledge could enlighten us on that subject.

That is why I read the great works of others and documents of the Church: to steal material.

Haha, I’m right there with you!

 

[Sincerus]

Samuel T. Cohen, who worked on the Manhattan Project in 1944 and is credited as the inventor of the neutron bomb, “stated that his only regret …was that the bomb hadn’t been ready in time to be dropped on Germany. This was a feeling shared by many Jewish scientists, Cohen wrote.” (from an article in Forward.)

I think that quote sheds some light on some of the underlying motives in the management of “total war”. The average Joe was told the atomic bombs were reluctantly used in order to “end the war” (Woodrow Wilson used the same “ending the war” canard as a justification for intervention in the First World War) but who is to say that one of the real reasons for the mass murder of Japanese civilians wasn’t revenge (as Cohen said was the case in regard to Germany)?

Cohen went on to write in his personal memoir:

“Trying to throw a little logic into this emotionally supercharged equation, I might say that even if we had finished in time to drop a couple of bombs on Germany, it’s far from clear it would have made any real difference on the outcome of the war. By this time, the allied bombing and shelling of German cities had reduced most of the country to rubble and it was just a matter of time, a very short time, before the Nazis would have given up. Undoubtedly nuclear bombing Germany would have made many scientists at Los Alamos, especially the Jews, including myself, deliriously happy…”

As expected, Cohen would go on to urge the American government to use neutron bombs in its prosecution of the Vietnam war, so as to “reduce casualties” and “end the war”.

 

[JaneGrey]

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.

Your second paragraph more or less sums up my feelings on this with the difference that I am more inclined to be on the side of the fence that condemns the A bomb (note the A bomb not America or Americans), as I think we should learn from our mistakes.

 

[Petergee]

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.

I guess if the USA was threatened with invasion, many millions of USAmericans, probably the vast majority, would be entirely willing to fight and die to the last man resisting against invasion; in fact probably millions of them would continue doing so even if the US President ordered them to surrender. Would that make it morally OK for the would-be invader to nuke US cities? Or are there special moral rules which apply only to the USA and no other country?

It’s very disappointing to see that almost half the voters on this poll say that nuking Hiroshima was morally OK, despite the Catholic Church’s clear statements that it was not, before, during and after the event. Normally CAF posters have more common sense and orthodoxy. It seems that many of the USAmericans who constitute three quarters of CAF posters have allowed their Catholicism to have become infected by the morally bankrupt secular arttitude of “my country, right or wrong”.

 

[pnewton]

It seems that many of the USAmericans who constitute three quarters of CAF posters have allowed their Catholicism to have become infected by the morally bankrupt secular arttitude of “my country, right or wrong”.

This rather opinionated, blanket-spanking insult is bound to yield some interesting results. You do know, I would hope, that you can post your opinions, show facts and point to Church teaching without insulting the integrity of others, judging them from a distance, or making assumptions about the motives of others.

 

[Petergee]

This rather opinionated, blanket-spanking insult is bound to yield some interesting results. You do know, I would hope, that you can post your opinions, show facts and point to Church teaching without insulting the integrity of others, judging them from a distance, or making assumptions about the motives of others.

I’m not assuming anything or being opinionated or “blanket-spanking” anybody, much less insulting their integrity or judging anybody. (Btw that’s quite a mouthful of insults to me on your part, surely one insult would have done.)
All I said was “It seems …”. If you or anybody else can offer any alternative explanation to my own surmise about why so many voters on this poll flatly contradicted Church teaching, (which as far as I’m aware has not happened on any other CAF poll), I’m all ears. Sorry you’re so offended by my humble attemptys to frankly discuss the issues.

 

[smichhertz]

The common trend I’ve noticed is that those who defend the bombing of Hiroshima use the effects of the bombing to justify it.

However, the effects are irrelevant if the bombing in and of itself is evil. Which the CC pretty clearly teaches it is. As it was stated earlier in the thread: you wouldn’t kill a 2 year old to save lives.

Hence, its seems pretty clear that the bombing was immoral from Church teaching.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The common trend I’ve noticed is that those who defend the bombing of Hiroshima use the effects of the bombing to justify it.

However, the effects are irrelevant if the bombing in and of itself is evil. Which the CC pretty clearly teaches it is. As it was stated earlier in the thread: you wouldn’t kill a 2 year old to save lives.

Hence, its seems pretty clear that the bombing was immoral from Church teaching.

Fine.

What would you have done?

No rambling.

None of this: would not do this; would not do that.

Specifics only.

What would you have done?

If you had been President of the United States in August 1945, what would you have done?

Thank you.

 

[smichhertz]

If you had been President of the United States in August 1945, what would you have done?

How should I know? That’s purely hypothetical.

I can tell you one thing - if I were to do drop the bomb, it would have been immoral.

This gets back to what I was talking about earlier: judging the objective vs subjective elements of morality. Morality is objective in nature, therefore we judge it from an objective standpoint.

The subjective elements certainly play a role in that person’s individual standing with God, but it is irrelevant to determining the morality of an act. Hence “what would you do?” questions are always helpful to prevent us from judging another, but aren’t really relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[sw85]

When physical war is in full bloom you can’t exactly do anything but retaliate, especially with America being the poster-child of the free world. Going to war for the sake of retaliation against an unjust act is actually permissible according to Catholic doctrine as far as I remember.

Retaliating against unjust aggression in and of itself is not evil.

Targetting and killing innocent civilians as a means of retaliating is evil.

I’m all ears as to what those solutions are. It’s nice to talk in platitudes, but when it comes to specifics, suddenly silence ensues.

It’s not as if Truman had the only one option on his desk: “nuke em.”

There were plans for a land invasion, as well.

 

[sw85]

The common trend I’ve noticed is that those who defend the bombing of Hiroshima use the effects of the bombing to justify it.

However, the effects are irrelevant if the bombing in and of itself is evil. Which the CC pretty clearly teaches it is. As it was stated earlier in the thread: you wouldn’t kill a 2 year old to save lives.

Hence, its seems pretty clear that the bombing was immoral from Church teaching.

Agreed. Consequentialism is the rankest moral perversion imaginable, wholly incapable of being reconciled with the idea of God or objective truth and goodness.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Retaliating against unjust aggression in and of itself is not evil.

Targetting and killing innocent civilians as a means of retaliating is evil.

It’s not as if Truman had the only one option on his desk: “nuke em.”

There were plans for a land invasion, as well.

We already knew that the land invasion would have been defeated by the Japanese, who had deduced, correctly, where we would have landed.

Try again.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

How should I know? That’s purely hypothetical.

I can tell you one thing - if I were to do drop the bomb, it would have been immoral.

This gets back to what I was talking about earlier: judging the objective vs subjective elements of morality. Morality is objective in nature, therefore we judge it from an objective standpoint.

The subjective elements certainly play a role in that person’s individual standing with God, but it is irrelevant to determining the morality of an act. Hence “what would you do?” questions are always helpful to prevent us from judging another, but aren’t really relevant to the topic at hand.

Absolutely NOT hypothetical.

Situation was real.

You have the advantage, moreover, of hindsight.

So, what would you have done?

 

[sw85]

We already knew that the land invasion would have been defeated by the Japanese, who had deduced, correctly, where we would have landed.

Try again.

My understanding is that we decided to forego the land invasion option because it would be prohibitively costly in terms of lives, not because it would have been impossible.

In either case, it would appear there was no morally licit way for the United States to win and it should’ve sued for peace, contenting itself with having dismantled the Japanese empire.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

My understanding is that we decided to forego the land invasion option because it would be prohibitively costly in terms of lives, not because it would have been impossible.

In either case, it would appear there was no morally licit way for the United States to win and it should’ve sued for peace, contenting itself with having dismantled the Japanese empire.

So, the United States would have surrendered.

All of the prisoners in Japanese hands throughout the Empire of Japan … in China and in Indo-China and in many other places would have been slaughtered. And possibly a nuclear device produced in what we know of as Wonson, North Korea and installed aboard an I-400 ginormous submarine could have been detonated under the U.S. fleet and also another underwater off the coast of California, causing major loss of life. [You can look it up.]

Why on earth would the Japanese accept a surrender by the United States.

 

[sw85]

So, the United States would have surrendered.

All of the prisoners in Japanese hands throughout the Empire of Japan … in China and in Indo-China and in many other places would have been slaughtered. And possibly a nuclear device produced in what we know of as Wonson, North Korea and installed aboard an I-400 ginormous submarine could have been detonated under the U.S. fleet and also another underwater off the coast of California, causing major loss of life. [You can look it up.]

Why on earth would the Japanese accept a surrender by the United States.

What in the world would have prevented the United States from continuing to bombard Japan’s industrial centers or (Heaven forfend) deciding to land an invasion force somewhere else?

If you’re a utilitarian atheist, there’s no sense having this conversation. You’re coming from a different place in terms of morality and we’re never going to reach an agreement.

If you’re actually a Catholic, you must understand that there is literally no amount of evil in the world the prevention of which can justify an act that is itself evil. It does not matter if nuking the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to save the entire human race from extinction: it could not be done licitly.

 

[Warrior1979]

It’s not as if Truman had the only one option on his desk: “nuke em.”

There were plans for a land invasion, as well.

Are you trying justify nukes?

An invasion of mainland Japan would have been sheer idiocy. It’s like saying the alternative to taking an Advil for a headache is to jump off a cliff and landing on one’s head.

Think of how many racially and culturally homogenous countries the size of Japan with a strong military were invaded and defeated. You’ll find few examples. I seriously doubt the U.S. could have done it in 1945. We can’t even do it in 2011 with current military might and technology.

 

[Warrior1979]

If you’re actually a Catholic, you must understand that there is literally no amount of evil in the world the prevention of which can justify an act that is itself evil. It does not matter if nuking the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to save the entire human race from extinction: it could not be done licitly.

If you are faced with two evils, is there a requirement to choose the one that would likely result in the greatest harm?

 

[hosemonkey]

Are you trying justify nukes?

An invasion of mainland Japan would have been sheer idiocy. It’s like saying the alternative to taking an Advil for a headache is to jump off a cliff and landing on one’s head.

The facts were that in 1945 the American people were sick of the war, sick of the losses, sick of the rationing and Harry Truman was looking a severe consequences if he did not do everything in his power to end the war as soon as he could. The Japanese government was afraid of a radically intransigent element among the military who were pursueing the “no surrender” doctrine. They killed several members of the cabinet and were prepared to kidnap or kill the Emperor in order to prevent him broadcasting to the people. The saying among GIs in 1945 was “The Golden Gate in '48” because they fully expected to have to invade Japan and that it would take until 1948 to win the war. Many Japanese died, but many more were saved.