As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, the U.S.had attacked many Japanese cities with far more death and destruction resulting than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were no smart bombs in those days. The attacks were against cities. Yet the only attacks we hear routinely condemned and commemorated are the atomic bombings, not the massive conventional bombings of Japanese cities which cause far more death and destruction.
Click to expand...
This is because the atomic bombs are iconic, and represent the first use of nuclear weapons. In this thread the condemnation of the atomic bombs has been precisely because they targeted whole cities, so the other bombings are condemned by implication.

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
This is because the atomic bombs are iconic, and represent the first use of nuclear weapons. In this thread the condemnation of the atomic bombs has been precisely because they targeted whole cities, so the other bombings are condemned by implication.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
Japanese scientists knew immediately that the Americans had grasped the secret of deployable nuclear weapons first and were using them.

They knew because they had been working on nuclear weapons all along and knew what the characteristics of those kinds of weapons were.

When we dropped the second atomic bomb, they then knew for a fact, that every week or so, we would lob another one and another one and another one, until Japan was one glassed-over smoking hole from one end to the other.

Resistance at that point was futile.

No more pretexts.

No more Kabuki.
 
JimG said:
Yes, the U.S.had attacked many Japanese cities with far more death and destruction resulting than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were no smart bombs in those days. The attacks were against cities. Yet the only attacks we hear routinely condemned and commemorated are the atomic bombings, not the massive conventional bombings of Japanese cities which cause far more death and destruction.

Whatever the politics at the time, it was a good thing for Japan that the USSR did not invade. Soviet style gulags with additional millions dead would have been the likely result–far different from the U.S. occupation.

Eisenhower’s misgivings about the use of the atomic bombs were apparently made known long after the end of the war. Yet, it does not seem that he had any innate aversion to the use of atomic weapons. It was Eisenhower who, as president, instituted the policy called “massive retaliation,” in the early days of the Cold War. Neither the U.S. nor NATO had the military resources to repulse a determined attack on Western European nations by the USSR. Ike’s response was a policy of deterrence whereby any attack by the USSR upon any NATO nation would be considered an attack on the U.S., and would result in the use of SAC bombers to attack USSR cities with nuclear weapons. And it had to be cities, since nuclear weapons in those days could not be targeted with precision, as they can today. And in fact a policy of credible deterrence did keep the peace throughout the Cold War, which the U.S. eventually won.

(Just a note on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution: it didn’t start the Vietnam War; it was started under JFK. A later Congress simply pulled the rug from under the Vietnamese and Cambodians resulting in a bloodbath, along with religious persecution, which continues to the present day.I recommend Michael Lind’s book–“Vietnam, the Necessary War.”)
Click to expand...
Try instead General (U.S.Army) McMaster’s excellent research: “Dereliction of Duty: LBJ and the Lies that Led to the Vietnam War.”
 
jeffrey_erwin said:
We, as US citizens, see the same phenominom repeatedly: Johnson’s lies to pass the infamous Tonkin Gulf Resolution staring the Vietnam war. Bush’s obsession with invading Iraq after the 9-11 attacks (which Iraq had nothing to do with.) “Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.”
Click to expand...
I was considering what you were saying until you added these last two situations. Now it seems more like, “Everything is a conspiracy.”
 
As the OP, I’m glad to most of you voted “morally wrong”

But for those agree with the bombing, your arguments are very good to say the least but I think you guys should watch this video, as food for thought…

** CAUTION, it’s disturbing.** :sad_yes:
 
It would have been more morally acceptable if the bombs has been dropped on military targets to demonstrate their strength. I’m sure there were more appropriate targets.

Incidentally, Hiroshima was the Protestant center in Japan, and Nagaski the Catholic center in Japan.

War is evil to begin with. I have special admiration for those Quakers, Mennonites, Amish and others who simply refuse to become part of the killing of innocents that is the major part of modern warfare.
Code: 
Matt. 5:38-48.

Sometimes I wonder why we have such reverence for the Old Testament in which Jehovah ordered Joshua to murder all the inhabitants of Jericho, Saul was commanded by God to slaughter every remaining Amalekite, and you find many other examples of "God-endorsed" genocide. What evil bloody-thirsty acts to lift up as part of the 'word of God'!

 But that's for a different thread.
 
I added a comment several pages ago, but I am baffled why so many feel that dropping the bomb was not moral. I can’t help wondering how you would feel if you were related to any of the brothers, fathers, or husbands on the USS Arizona which the Japanese sank on December 7, 1941 and still lies at the bottom of the ocean!!!
 
Barb3 said:
I added a comment several pages ago, but I am baffled why so many feel that dropping the bomb was not moral.
Click to expand...
Have you read what the catechism says? It should not be baffling that Catholics believe what the Catholic Church teaches.
 
pnewton said:
Have you read what the catechism says? It should not be baffling that Catholics believe what the Catholic Church teaches.
Click to expand...
It’s also baffling that may Catholics only view one side of the picture. A moral means does not happen in a vacuum, which many seem to believe. The Church places most emphasis on the means, but the end is also considered. Some people take the position that if more people die in the end due to the “moral” means, that okay because it is the result of a double-effect. Problem is, I don’t see how one can simply brush off a strong likelihood of a greater number of deaths as collateral damage. I believe the end is inherently immoral, since it results in massive death of innocents, and one is thus left with choosing between two evils.
 
Ghosty said:
My family is Japanese, and I’ve lived with Japanese people all my life, and studied Japanese history in college. I haven’t brought it up because I didn’t want it to cloud the discussion. I’m basing my statements on Japanese surrender purely on the facts, such as the verifiable fact that they were trying to surrender while saving face. You can bring up your ideas of Japanese culture all you want, but the facts of history speak differently than your model; even MacArthur, who knew Japanese culture very well, and who had been fighting them island to island for years, did not agree with your assessment.
Click to expand...
I’m curious as to whether or not these sources are firsthand; i.e., the people actually lived in Japan during the war. Everyone’s got secondhand sources…in fact, one of my neighbors is Japanese, and has no relatives other than his father because they all lived in Hiroshima.
 
Warrior1979 said:
Problem is, I don’t see how one can simply brush off a strong likelihood of a greater number of deaths as collateral damage. I believe the end is inherently immoral, since it results in massive death of innocents, and one is thus left with choosing between two evils.
Click to expand...
This only applies if the law of double effect is valid. If the act is immoral in itself, then one can not commit an act that is inherently evil. This is an absolute that draws the line between moral relativism and absolute truth. For example, I can not strangle a baby to stop it from crying even if it saves the lives of more than one person. Consequentialism is a heresy. It is often the path used to justify the use of the atomic bomb (though not the only one) and abortion. It is always wrong.
 
pnewton said:
For example, I can not strangle a baby to stop it from crying even if it saves the lives of more than one person.
Click to expand...
These baby analogies are problematic in that the feed on people’s emotions and exclude relevant parts of the equation (e.g., the baby didn’t declare war on your country:cool:).
 
Warrior1979 said:
The Church places most emphasis on the means, but the end is also considered.
Click to expand...
What!? She has clearly taught that the ends do not justify the means. The end is only considered after the means are determined to be either neutral or good.
1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving). - CCC
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
 
Warrior1979 said:
I’m curious as to whether or not these sources are firsthand; i.e., the people actually lived in Japan during the war. Everyone’s got secondhand sources…in fact, one of my neighbors is Japanese, and has no relatives other than his father because they all lived in Hiroshima.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with the war experience, and everything to do with Japanese culture, both current and historical. You were questioning my familiarity with the Japanese mindset, and I’m pointing out that I’m intimately familiar with it.
Code: 
                             These baby analogies are problematic in that the feed on people's  emotions and exclude relevant parts of the equation (e.g., the baby  didn't declare war on your country:cool:).
Click to expand...
Neither did the civilians of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, ect. That’s what makes such a thought experiment pertinent.
 
Warrior1979 said:
These baby analogies are problematic in that the feed on people’s emotions and exclude relevant parts of the equation (e.g., the baby didn’t declare war on your country:cool:).
Click to expand...
Then forget the analogy and accept the premise. One can never, ever and never commit an evil act to justify a good outcome. That is moral theology 101. It is Catholic doctrine. It is not something Catholics can disregard for convenience* or *nationalism.
 
I’ve made my points about the morality of the bombing much earlier in this thread. But I read a recent article written in anticipation of the anniversary of the bombings. The article shows how the military was against the bombing and that it was a purely political decision. Some of the quotes are amazing in showing how people in command actually called it immoral. A cover story was necessary so one was invented that said it saved American lives.

The Hiroshima Myth

May God have mercy on our country.
 
Thanks for listing the article about the actual reasons for using the atomic weapons on Japan. I have made three posts saying that the Abomb attacks were made for political rather than military reasons, and that they really were NOT the determining factor in the Japanese surrender, and I’ve been labeled a “revisionist.” Yours is the first post that agrees with my understanding of history,
 
To all concerned,

History is both science and art. I don’t think anyone here will dispute that. Without facts, history becomes mythological storytelling. And without stories, it becomes raw data, not a lesson to humanity.

History, as a science has one rule: theories must be made to fit the facts, not the other way around. But as an art History bears the human touch. It has an attitude, an opinion, a starting point of view because its author does. No history is or can be written objectively because no human is without subjective feelings or prejudices. And no human can gather, let alone understand, all the facets of a historical occurrence. Therefore, no history is complete.

All History is subject to revision. Our Lord rewrote History as a whole - from God’s point of view.

The facts are plain: we knew Japan was trying to negotiate surrender. We refused in favor of “total surrender.” Thereby, WE began waging the unjust war as aggressors. There was no need to continue the war. Even if the bomb had been necessary, dropping it on civilian cities was absolutely unacceptable by any standards. The southern islands of Japan were fully militarized, and perfectly legitimate targets. Further they were the stepping stones to the mainland that we would have had to conquer. These would have incurred the most American casualties (as at Okinawa). Moreover, contact with the emperor would have shown his unwillingness to continue the war and led to an even quicker end (as he ended it in the first place, after the bombs were dropped).

Abrupt finish…

God bless you,
sandomenico
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top